Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

So I played my first three games yesterday. They were all against a single player - the first was one character v. one character, then two v two, and finally three v. three.

Obviously our tactics were not the best but both of us enjoyed the game and look forward to playing again.

A situation came up where two characters on one side were fighting one character on the other side. (A1 = prone, A2 = his ally, B = their enemy)

B was attacking A1 and A2 was attacking B.

B's adjDX was lower than A2's not counting the prone bonus but higher with the bonus.

Admittedly, I may have missed this but does B get to attack A1 prior to A2's attack? I completely understand and agree that B hitting A1 should be easier due to the prone status but I don't think that would allow him to strike any faster because of this?

Clearly I need some guidance!!! Thanks.

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

I don't know if its RAW but I've always interpreted those +Dx to be mearly bonuses to hit...otherwise Balanced Fine Weapons and side attacks improve your speed, which I'm pretty sure isn't the intention.

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

By the rules as written, yes, almost all DX adjustments do affect the order in which figures' actions occur. The main exception are DX adjustments due to range to target.

However, a number of us use house rules that add exceptions, both for the sort of intuitive reasoning you mention (i.e. many DX adjustments seem like they would affect the difficulty of hitting but not really the speed), and also because it can greatly simplify the consideration of who gets to act next (since each figure may have many different potential adjDX points at which they could act, all of which for all characters need to be compared to really grasp the sequence of play, which can get quite complicated in combat with many figures).

The groups I played with tended to only have DX modifiers which affect the figure for most/all purposes affect their speed (so armor, encumbrance, injury, darkness, bad footing, Aid spell) but not the penalties/bonuses which are about how you choose to attack (so not target facing/posture, height advantage, range, cover/concealment, or optional hit location). (But even though we liked that logic and thought it was a useful guideline, it wasn't exactly that simple or consistent, as we DID have some things about the type of attack affect speed (weapon quality/enchantment, talents, sweeping blows).

But there are quite a few modifiers to consider and some of them I can see arguments for having them affect timing or not (facing/posture being one of them).

Most important is to try to agree on a list beforehand, so it's not inconsistently applied and/or surprising some players who were expecting it to work differently.

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

Perfect. I felt it was completely analogous to the handling of range in regards to missile weapons.

New house rule!!!

Thanks.

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

I think there is a 'realism' case for counting many adjDX modifiers as influencing to-hit but not order, but it is worth pointing out that you are significantly 'nerfing' DX bonuses if you do that, and this devalues play decisions and situations and increases the value of DX as a 'god stat'. I.e., you can't use situational modifiers to seize action initiative - only your base adjDX score sets action order. Having action order initiative is often decisive, so the suggested house rule is a significant change in power balance.

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

As I wrote above, most of the situational modifiers (bad footing, darkness, injuries) did affect sequence the way we played it, because they affected the whole figure for most/all purposes and attacks.

However you are right about the "balance" aspect in that if you don't have optional hit location affect sequence (as we did not) then such uses of high DX are less powerful (because they slow down your attack) and also it adds a consideration of which to use even for figures with crazy-high DX (i.e. they might not go for a head shot because they don't want anyone to attack them before they get their attack off).

Yet this is one of the few cases where I find the simplicity/speed important (though probably because I tend to like large battles, and the complexity of multiple adjDX-points each figure could act is multiplied by the number of figures and targets).

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

My experience with the game is so limited that between realism and play balance, I can only go with realism. Once I get more experience, my viewpoint will be broadened.

However, from a fun viewpoint, me being able to hit a prone figure in front of an enemy with a higher adjDX but for the bonus I got due to my target being prone failed. And if it fails when I'm the beneficiary of the RAW, at this point realism plus fun prevails.

Thanks for the input however - as a new player I enjoy the point counterpoint.

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

We're strictly RAW on this, adjDX applies to order of action and prob of success (other than range penalties).

For us, this is for the "fun" argument, it means positioning is really important.

But if you want a realism argument, it is psychological law that more difficult actions take longer to plan and are slower to execute. Fitts Law is an example. Trying to hit a small target is both harder to do and slower to execute than trying to hit a large one. I'd be happy if range penalties did slow you down, that would make perfect sense IMO. Shooting at a distant target, you will be naturally slower. Deliberately speeding up will make you even more inaccurate.

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

I can see that too. A tempting prone target presents itself and you get so excited to hit it that you throw your normal caution to the wind and instead of proceeding normally, you accelerate in for the kill.

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

I think this is a fairly reasonable realism argument, and as kjamma4 wrote, there is an interesting/fun aspect to having more sequence effects of adjDX modifiers.

Usually I choose in favor of realism and interesting/fun things, and am happy to do more work to get those things.

However in this case there really is a big impact on potential play complexity, which increases very steeply with the number of figures (especially with ranged attacks, aimed shots, etc) in a combat (and I like running large combats). If everyone acts on their base adjDX, it's very clear what order everyone goes in: at their base adjDX. But if adjDX affects turn sequence, then the number of points at which each figure might act can be multiplied to the point even I can't always keep track of it, even using the house rules I mentioned above.

What I do to mitigate it though is as the GM, go through in order of base adjDX asking who wants to do something. It is then the responsibility of the players to intervene if they can actually go sooner due to some DX bonus. Figures act if they have the highest adjDX of the figures who have announced they want to act at that point. If we get down to adjDX 11 and someone realizes they could have acted at adjDX 14 if they stabbed someone on the ground, they can act before the other adjDX 11's, but not before people whose actions we've already resolved.

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

Skarg is right. It is fun to go before someone else because you got that side-attack or some other special thing. But it does make it more complex with multiple combatants. The best way to go is to either set it up and only count permanent bonuses, the adjDX you write down on the card, like armor, disadvantages, magic and fine items and wounds lower than 4 health, and special attack moves like two weapon fighting that will be used again and again.

Or you count it all, according to RAW, and only make an exception for aiming that could change radically from the point of your attack declaration to your turn to act. As well as withing your turn to attack; if you have to roll to miss, which probably is the game rule reason to except range penalties. Otherwise, at which adjDX would you act if you have to roll to miss someone, close by without range penalties, then roll to hit with some penalties, and if you miss some other character even further away could be the target. A huge difference if you are throwing your weapon. Another reason could be the double shot or faster reloads with a crossbow. IF you separated the two attacks based on range, you might have two bowshots if you aim at one guy, but not if you aim at that guy and another one. So I get that ranged weapons are an exception.

And again, Skargs way of handling it, where he just declare the next guy in initiative order, and if anyone can break in before due to bonuses or penalties they go first. And if someone misses their adjDX turn, they can go at a later time but no retroactive changes. It takes time to have a proper adjDX countdown otherwise. And with many enemies, a GM can get bogged down.

And realistically speaking an attack isn't one swing, it is how fast you can bring an attack to bear, often one or more quick combos or a well-timed riposte to the enemy's initial combo to try to open your defense up. So adjDX isn't as much speed as it is skill. Otherwise, movement would be based on DX (like in GURPS) and initiative would be based on DX. But yes, high skill means you aim faster, opens up an enemy's defenses for a real strike faster, etc. And if someone is lying down, their defenses are already compromised so you can go for the real attack immediately and hence score a hit faster.

And we also have the all-around perception issues, you have to spend time looking around you, weigh your tactical options, look for good foot placement, maybe duck thrown weapons, etc. And all those factors also slows you down in a grand melee, compared to a one on one duel. And that is also related to skill and experience, more than pure speed. So I have no problem with people realistically attacking in order of skill. Highest skilled person gets the chance to finish the fight first, and then his less experienced opponents get their chance.

But as always, the rule of fun rules!

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

Well written response, and yes rule of fun is determining!

My take is to encourage giving the RAW a good few outings on this before moving to more strict order. The groups I’ve been in have always found it fun and never noticed any problems.

Basically after movement it is pretty clear what the order of actions will be. the players look after themselves. It keeps our attention on what’s happening and the dynamics of the battle. We players are only too happy to note our DX has increased due to facing bonus. And when someone is knocked down it can be like a shark frenzy. If sometimes someone does something out of order, it’s not a disaster. We basically carry on.

Attacking fallen figures is for us by far the most common event within the action phase to change DX order, and that is so significant it isn’t hard to remember.

The other thing is that TFT combat often has little knots of combatants. These three over here, the archer in the back dealing with the wolf, etc. And within those knots you can see the facing etc going on and not too hard to keep relative order straightit, at least in our battles (4 a side pretty typical).

So yes I’d encourage RAW here, it’s never been a problem for us (of course ymmv, for many reasons), and after all these years, I still find it so satisfying to get in a big attack before I was “supposed to” because I managed to get in to the side!

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

To be honest, I feel like all the DX adjustments for to-hit justify a change in action order. We're talking about really small time frames here, we're to assume that all the actions in a turn are happening relatively simultaneously within a single 5 second window (I know that nothing happens truly simultaneously but that's abstraction). I don't find it unrealistic that a figure throwing a knife from far away might hesitate to do so more than a figure simply thrusting with a knife, because he is somewhat less confident in his maneuver or because he needs a moment to make subconscious trajectory calculations. I don't find it worth it to make any house rules about it.

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

I was re-thinking about this and my mind went back to a scene about a long range arrow shot.

The firer looked at the slowly receding target, looked at a flapping banner (to gauge wind direction & speed) and then fired the arrow. This took less than 5 seconds but it presumably took a bit longer than if he was firing at someone 3 yards away.

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

Whatever is or isn't the most realistic thing, I believe it is best game design to always base relative order on fully adjDX rather than trying to track separately your 'order' adjDX and your 'to hit' adjDX.

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

I agree, my argument is that making this decision does not have to be at the expense of realism or otherwise depend on any more suspension of disbelief.

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

What about this scenario?
A (AdjDX 12) and B (AdjDX 11) are attacking C (AdjDX 12) and D (AdjDX 12) all are engaged. A can hit C, B can hit C or D, C can hit A or B, D can hit B. AB have initiative so A goes first.


A gets lucky and gets 8 hits on C, knocking him down. Normally, D would go next but B has an opportunity to attack C at +4 or AdjDX 15. IF he takes it, then his attack is next. If he chooses to attack D then he has to wait until D makes his attack.


Correct, is it not?


My play has always been that adjustments for facing always affect speed of attack because it incorporates the idea that facing allows for an quicker hit within the 5 second Turn.



From the beginning we house ruled that Missile Weapons DID get the adjustments for facing - based on the above thinking. (But those adjustments did not affect Bow speed. Raising AdjDX above the minimum did NOT give you two shots per Turn, that depended only on Base Dx and Armor + magic adjustments).

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

Yes, RAW.


We never gave facing adjustments to any ranged attacks. If they did, then RAW they would affect attack order, which seems to me clearly wrong for ranged attacks.

(e.g. Several ranged-weapon opponents face each other - and they can shoot sooner if they choose to shoot at foes who are facing sideways?)

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

Also this would further simplify the effects of applying a DX mod by removing a conditional exception.

I like fewer rules. 🤓

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

Missile weapons are clearly in the rules that the do not get facing adjustments and that their range adjustment does not affect order. Missile weapons are the exception on both points. No other place does it mention either of these.

As far as thrown weapons, we have had this discussion before. The rules states these are the same as melee weapons with the only exception being the thrown ranged modifier. So, I give them facing bonuses. And facing bonuses affect order of attack with thrown for the same reason it affects it with melee. Easier to spot an opening. But as before, the thrown weapons are debatable as it is not specifically spelled out.

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

Yes, and our assumption was this meant all ranged attacks (including thrown weapons and spells) as well. It seemed too illogical that one type of ranged attack would be different in this way, and there is no diagram showing what the Side or Rear arcs are further than one hex away from a victim.


And as I'm sure I mentioned in those earlier discussions, we took that statement as one of the many cases where Steve's writing style only explains basic concepts here and there, rather than giving complete rules for all aspects in one place. So yeah, thrown weapons are a lot like melee weapons except for the range penalty... and several other concepts that are not mentioned there. And what does that "exactly like" even mean with regard to facing? Maybe they get the facing bonus but only in the only hexes ever defined as being side or rear hexes, which are only the ones exactly one hex away?

In another topic, MikMod also kindly pointed out some other clues from the rules:
That first one looks like better evidence to me, using the same sort of logic, that thrown weapons "exactly like" thrown spells, don't get a facing modifier. Especially since that rule actually mentions facing modifiers, while the rule invoked to say they should get facing modifiers does not mention facing modifiers.

And if that's not enough, the facing diagram example gives several examples of thrown weapon to-hit modifiers at people from behind, and does not use facing modifiers.

Page 106 also seems to spell out definitions that would lead to not using facing modifiers for thrown weapons, again with the possible exception of (often pointless to do) thrown attacks from 1 hex away.


To my mind, which was never unclear on this subject, all of MikMod's citations are stronger than the one used to imply thrown weapons get facing modifiers, and the examples on ITL 114 with diagram seem especially conclusive to me.

Re: Attacking a prone figure - adjDX for both time of attack and to hit?
 

Yes. They don't have to spend as much time aiming.