ITL Legacy: changes from original?

[Aman]

So, in the pursuit of an answer to the question about forced retreats, I discovered it was removed from the original melee rules for this edition, and from ITL-L as well. I have now returned it as I consider it a key aspect of close combat.

This makes me interested to find out what other changes have been made that players regard as less than desirable. I'm not saying I'm going to automatically put them back in, but I am interested in knowing what they are so I can make an informed decision!

Also, what changes were made to combat that people think are an improvement?

I'm looking for a list here, not a debate on them - I bet the debate / discussion is already in other threads, but I do have other things to do than gaming, so...

Thanks in advance!

[Skarg]

This might be a good subject to move to the House Rules subforum.

It's a pretty big non-introductory level topic and will naturally lead to people posting their favorite house rules.

[Chris Rice]

Forcing Retreats is still in the Legacy Edition; both in Melee (p20) and in ITL (p102). Where did you get the idea it had been removed?

[Terquem]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Forcing Retreats is still in the Legacy Edition; both in Melee (p20) and in ITL (p102). Where did you get the idea it had been removed?

I think the rule that a forced retreat when it is not possible to retreat triggers a Dex save to avoid falling prone is the rule that went away

[Chris Rice]

Ah ok, that wasn't made clear in the original post. Steve discusses this in depth in an article in the recently released Hexagram 4.

[Aman]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Ah ok, that wasn't made clear in the original post. Steve discusses this in depth in an article in the recently released Hexagram 4.

yes, that was it - sorry for confusion.

What did Steve have to say about that?

I dunno - not looking for house rules - I'd have posted there if I did. I'm looking for changes from the last edition, so official rule changes.

thanks!

[Skarg]

I suggested moving to House Rules because if we get into the changes, this is going to be a dense and debated thread, not particularly suitable for new and prospective TFT players, which this forum is for.

There are many changes, though most of the rules are the same.

Some major ones:

The experience system is quite different in several ways, and discussion of that has occupied several threads. This also drives several of the changes that were made to attempt to adjust balance of other aspects.

The talents are revised, with lower costs and requirements, several new talents including ones that increase combat abilities.

Polearms do +1 die in a charge attack instead of double damage. Also a new straight-line requirement to get that bonus when charging (not receiving a charge) which has a weird diagram that seems to show two hexes of movement even though the text says three are required.

Several new spells including some new powers GMs used to the old gameplay might want to consider not including, such as Regeneration (trivializes limb loss) and Scrying (makes spying and information gathering easy) and Meal (trivializes starvation) and Stalwart (ignore weather and environmental effects).

The Staff spell has gained two major abilities (staff mana and a zap attack with unique powers), making wizards who choose not to learn it more and more foolish as they and their peers gain ability.

The old general Changing Options rule that if you moved 1/2 MA or less, you could at any time change your Option to respond to developments to Attack, Defend, Dodge or Drop, has been removed in favor of specific wording in the options list and a bizarre statement about a figure's option being limited by its engagement state "at the moment its turn to move comes".

[Aman]

gotcha. Thanks for the summary.

Most seem pretty debatable, so I'm not surprised that there will be plenty of debate on them!

Overall, I'm most concerned with the combat, activation and such system, so really Melee. Magic is itself 99% speculative and 1% "real" so anything can be OK for a GM or group to decide upon.

Personally, I favor High Fantasy, which is to say, little magic, e.g. Tolkein. Warhammer makes magic a lot more like technology so it isn't special - like a toaster or something.

[Skarg]

So the new and adjusted combat talents will be relevant to your interests. Er, and the fact the new experience system means few characters will ever be over 40 attribute points total, but they may have more talent points than IQ (but all talents cost 500 XP to learn after creation, which some players like myself can't stand, since attributes up to 34 cost 100 XP, so... etc).

And probably some other details such as:

* new idea that the side that won initiative during Movement gets to have its figures act first in all cases where opposing figures have the same adjDX, instead of rolling for it (I kind of hate this change, FWIW)

* attacking without the talent for your weapon changed from -4 DX to rolling 4 dice (apparently for aesthetic reasons)

* plate and half-plate DX adjustment reduced equal to their protection.

* main gauche now has no DX penalty and gives a free -4 DX attack, and only protects against one-handed melee attacks.

* spike shields can't attack except in a shield rush.

* naginatas are just spears now

a few other bits like that.

[Steve Plambeck]

Such an excellent summation Skarg! For as closely as I've been looking at all this and posting about these things the last few months, I couldn't possibly have pulled all that out of my hat on short notice. It's quite a formidable amount of changes when you see them all together!

Originally Posted by Skarg

* attacking without the talent for your weapon changed from -4 DX to rolling 4 dice (apparently for aesthetic reasons)

This is the one that has me puzzled. I'd almost swear rolling 4 dice was hiding somewhere back in the older rules, although I haven't spotted where. My group played it as 4 dice, not -4 DX, during all the 80's and 90's. If we did that as a house rule I'd be surprised, because we put all our house rules in writing, I was the editor, I still have the manuscripts, and that just doesn't appear among them -- ergo it must have been canon.