thrown weapons and facing
 

well, apologies it has been already asked.

it seems that rules specify that facing does not matter for missile attacks, while remain silent about TW.

does this implies that facing for TW counts and an attacker from rear gets the +4 AdjDX ?

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

I'm newer than most posters here, but I think there are two schools of thought.

(1) There are a few areas where the rules use the word "missile weapons" when the reasonable interpretation ought to be "missile or thrown weapons", i.e., ranged weapons. I think most people regard facing rules to be one of those areas.

(2) You could make a case that a thrown weapon is slower, so a person facing the thrower could duck or dodge (not in the technical use of the word in ITL). I leaned to that interpretation as I read the rules, but then there should be a difference in ability to duck or dodge if engaged or not.

In the interest of simplicity and figgering others have thought more about this question than I have, I've decided to go with (1). Facing plays no role.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

Thrown weapons benefit from facing modifiers while missile weapons do not, though I really can't explain the the designer's rationale behind that feature, especially considering that thrown spells do not get this benefit. That said, this distinction between missile and thrown weapons does make for interesting (fun) decisions on the battlefield, even though it might not feel entirely realistic.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

Re-reading the text, I think that the rule is less ambiguous than I thought. On ITL 106, it says (emphasis added):
Seems to me a character two hexes away throwing a weapon is an attack made from two hexes away, not an attack made from a side or rear hex, so no bonus. It also seems to me that since a thrown weapon attack is a melee attack (whether engaged or not), it can be made from one hex away and facing would give a bonus in the case that the thrower is adjacent to the target.

This seems to be the literal reading of the rule. Whether it's also the intended reading is a little unclear to me. It gives a facing bonus iff the thrower is adjacent to the target, which is a little weird.

Please correct me if I'm missing something. The most unclear part of my interpretation is whether a thrown weapon is an attack from an adjacent hex when the thrower is non-adjacent.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

I agree with this interpretation; the text clearly states that the bonus goes to an attack launched from a specific adjacent hex.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

Yeah, there is no definition of Side Hex or Rear Hex other than the adjacent hexes. And there would need to be a definition and/or diagram to even know which more distant attacking hexes are at the side or rear of a target. Without that, even if the intent were to give a +2 or +4, there would be nothing telling you which to apply in the hexes where it isn't obvious. The closest is the diagram for the forward 180 degree arc of hexes, but that is only for purposes of what you can see to make ranged attacks against.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

Rules says that a shield *not* ready (i.e. held on the back) protects from attacks coming from rear hex, (Melee, page 12). According the RAW, then, an arrow fired in the back from two, technically not "a rear hex" should bypass the shield for normal damage. That it's weird.

In my opionion rules are far from clear on this point, the omission for TW is fully unintentional.

BTW also the old Advanced Melee used the same wording.

Back in the eighties our playing group made no distinction. No DRM for MW nor TW

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

The case for Thrown Weapons benefitting from a facing bonus is based on, at minimum:

1. The opening description of ITL's Thrown Weapon attacks' being treated "exactly like a regular attack."
   
2. In the ITL Thrown Weapon description, no exception is made for the facing bonus as it is under Missile Weapons.
   
3. Melee, p.10 reinforces this, with an exception noted for Missile Weapons, but not for Thrown.

I see no support for the interpretation that physical attacks must originate from an adjacent hex in order to benefit from facing modifiers. Since any physical attack (outside of HTH) must be made through a face of the target's hex, they can be understood to be coming from an adjacent hex. If the attack has to originate from an adjacent hex to get a facing bonus, Pole Weapon jabs from a distance, in addition to Thrown Weapon attacks, will not be eligible for the benefit.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

ITL 106: "A physical attack made from an enemy’s side hex adds +2 to the attacker’s DX."

So you only get the facing bonus from an adjacent hex. It doesn't matter which hexes the dagger flies through from there.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

Shostak certainly has a point that it would be weird if a spear jab doesn't get a side or rear bonus.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

Then why specifically mention that missile weapons don't benefit from facing bonuses--just for that edge-case when a figure moves to be adjacent to a missile weapon user and then turns to give them a side or rear hex target? That would be uncharacteristically fastidious compared to the rest of the rules.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

I could make the case that a bow is a little clumsy close up, but if I had a pistol I could see the difference from shooting someone in the back at point blank range.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

In the Legacy GM screen in the "DX Adjustments for Physical Attacks" section,
which does include some bonuses for missile weapons so it is not excluding thrown or missile, it states "Striking from enemy's rear +4" and "Striking from enemy's side +2".

Striking to me is rather clear. It is not throwing and it is not missile attacks.

Thus I would not give facing bonuses to thrown weapons.

(BTW, we have argued this before and I came down on the other side back then. I have played it both ways and the above to me makes the most sense. http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread...=163082&page=2 )

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

I can think of various realism and logic arguments for why one might want to play any of these combinations of situations and effects one way or the other. But this isn't the house rules forum.

For RAW, my impression is that the intention is that facing to-hit modifiers don't apply to ranged attacks. I see the letter-of-the-rules legal case, but I'm not convinced that's the intent. I think we probably need SJ to make an official statement on it to get agreement on RAW.

But again, for people who want to apply facing modifiers to ranged attacks, or even for the pretty clearly intended effect of protection from packs and shields worn on the back, we also need to know (i.e. agree when playing each game) which facing to apply for ranged/jab attacks that come in along the hex spines between side and rear.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

I'd say that attacks along the spines seems dealt with with the diagram on ITL 106, extrapolating from the unshaded area in front of Tark, except that there is a hex (at the bottom of the 6th column from the right) that is shaded and probably ought not to be.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

The attacks along the spine are figured in favor of the frontal hex in that diagram. I suppose you mean to extend this to side and rear hexes, one gives the spine hexes to the side.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

Yes, that would follow the pattern established with the front hexes.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

One logical interpretation when you are giving a jab through the rear hex +4 and a jab through a side hex +2, is to give a jab along the spine between rear and side hexes a +3.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

But then you'd have to give +1 to attacks along the spine of the Font/Side hexes.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

Is there a case that tossing a dagger from a long ways off gives the target more time to dodge?

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

There may always be a case for "nuance"

but is it a good case?

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

Certainly less of one than for giving thrown weapon attacks a facing bonus, which is the subject of the OP.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

Isn't the facing bonus due to a superior reaction speed advantage over the defense? Therefore you can't apply this from a distance.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

Not to my way of thinking. Rather, I've always thought of it as a benefit due to the target's inability to clearly see the attack coming. Admittedly, TFT's relatively low-res mechanics do have the strange effect of adding to speed when giving a to-hit bonus, but I don't think it is particularly realistic.
That does not logically follow; indeed, an arrow loosed from a bow will almost certainly be faster than a spear thrust or quarterstaff blow. The prohibition against missile weapons getting the bonus has never made sense to me, despite its being part of the game since the beginning.

But, more importantly, where under the description of thrown weapon attacks is there any mention of their being an exception to the facing bonus rule, as there so clearly is with missile weapons? Rules are laid out such that patterns are introduced and exceptions to those patterns are noted. It stands to reason that if an exception isn't noted, it isn't an exception.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

LOL! Oh goodness nothing is as easy as it seems.

Okay, let's try this revised logic then:

The bonus begins with a +2 through the side hexes, then goes up 1 as you work your way backwards: +3 for the midway point, then +4 for the extreme rear.

Although come to think of it, I wouldn't have a problem with that +1 for the spine between a front and side hex. Geometrically, that is coming in with the jab exactly 90 degrees from the line the target is facing, which is as perpendicular as perpendicular can be :)

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

Would you then impose a -1DX penalty to attacks made into a hex along the Front/Side spine? That would make sense, but it would also definitely contradict the rules.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

there are several 'tweaks' to the rules for facing, engagement and reach that would radically open up the tactical decision making at ranges under 5 hexes; some I've experimented with or considered:

- As discussed here, provide more shades of grey to facing; the only thing that would really add interest (in my mind) is having the front-side hex sides work differently from your direct-front hex side. Such as, a reflexive +2/-2 DX penalty for attacks coming into or going out of one of your front-side hex sides. So, you can fight people at a ~60 degree angle from your center line, but you do so with the same kind of penalties as fighting someone who is a couple feet above you. This feels quite fair and realistic to me.
- Give a higher fraction of melee weapons ranges of 2 and 3 hexes, but impose penalties to the use of most of them at a range of 1 hex (so that 1-hex range takes on something of the character of HTH but without all the rolling on the ground)
- heretical as it sounds, allow people to bypass engagement if they have the space to do so without entering someone's hex and if they accept a free attack of opportunity from the person who would have engaged them. This is not really so heretical, as something like this can happen when you try to enter HTH.
- Break up the movement into two or more segments. Even just having a pre- and post-action movement phase would do a lot to add complexity to the tactical decision making process.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

No, not at all. That's why, to avoid misinterpretation of the proposal, I used italics in this part of my wording:

"The bonus begins with a +2 through the side hexes..." and goes up as you move towards the rear. And that's also one less exception to the RAW.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

Yes, after last night I started thinking along the same lines as larsdangly.

First I'd just envisioned what the diagram would be if the target figure was surrounded by 12 jabbing figures each 2 hexes away. Going clockwise starting with the jab coming through the very front hex (no DX bonus) the progression could be +1 for the next assailant (jabbing along the spine between two front hexes), then +2 for the next jab coming directly through the side hex, +3 for the next spine, +4 through the rear, then back to +3, +2, and +1 as you completed the circle, coming back to 0 for the jab coming from straight ahead.

Now imagine if those jabs weren't jabs at all! Instead they become regular melee attacks now made from 2 hexes away. If it was decreed that hexes were only 2 feet wide, or even smaller, then adjacent figures would be almost belly to belly, and too close to swing at each other. Only dagger attacks (and punches) could be made from adjacent hexes. Now there's no stacking needed for HTH. And all regular attacks get made from 2 hexes away following the 0, +1, +2, +3, +4, +3, +2, +1 DX adjustment progression. Why that's brilliant I thought!

But no, you couldn't and wouldn't call it TFT anymore. We've invented a very, very different game. With the staggering imbalance though that 1 figure could be attacked by 12 at once -- LOL!

Worse, the pole weapon jab becomes a 3 hex jab, and there are 24 hexes 3 hexes from the target in the center. Plus the 12 attackers from 2 hexes away, we'd need armor that stops at least 75 hits per attack to make that fight last into a 2nd turn.

Gee, it started out sounding like a good idea. Let's forget the whole thing and just play TFT instead :)

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to count spines as distinct from hex sides; it is a pretty fiddly thing to impose rules on, and you will have a similar overall effect if you just follow the existing implicit principle that an attack delivered exactly along a hex spine can choose which of the adjacent two hexes dictate the modifiers (e.g., this is how blocking terrain works)

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

slightly OT but is there a similar discussion in the past when the new Melee has been published a couple of years ago?

Cannot believe that this ambiguity in the rules has not been noticed immediatly.

May be that the old discussion (if any) could give more hits. Frankly speaking I do not see very useful the discussion about hex spines.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

Yes, I remember at least one several-page discussion of whether thrown weapons and jabs get facing bonuses before, perhaps two or three such discussions, plus occasional mentions here or there.

What do you mean about giving more hits?

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

For those who do think facing modifiers apply to thrown weapons, do you also apply facing modifiers to rolls to MISS?

(If you do, it makes it easier to miss your friends if they're not facing you when you try to shoot past them. And it makes it easier to avoid hitting foes in the way if they aren't facing you. Neither of these things make much sense to me, and seem to me like further sign that facing isn't supposed to apply to any ranged attacks.)

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

sorry for my English. Hints not hits... :D

Anyway, for what it's worth I'll play as RAW using the DX bonus for side/rear for everything but missile weapons (and spells).

I think that it's a simple and fair way to manage long distance shots (usually those coming from bows/crossobows) leaving the importance of facing for close combat, where TWs are more common.

Besides I imagine it's a way to facilitate the use of TWs and to compensate the heavy penalty imposed for distance.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

The example below the diagram on ITL 114 make no mention of modifiers other than range so no, I wouldn't. Too bad the diagram did not have the letter symbols rotated to show facing (are we really to believe every figure is facing the same way?); it would have been far more useful if it had! As it is, one could take the failure to note facing modifiers as justification for or against giving thrown attacks the benefit.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

As someone who remains convinced the intent is that facing has no effect on any ranged attacks, I would note that the lack of facing, and the fact that A is throwing though all those figure's Side and Rear hexes with no DX modifier applied, as well as the fact that they did not think to show any other facings, nor mention anything about facing, all tends to favor the reading that facing has no effect on thrown attacks.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

So far, I agree with Skarg. The rules as written discusses physical attacks made from a rear hex, not across a rear hexside.

However, RAW suggests that thrown attacks from an adjacent hex get a facing bonus, which just seems odd at best, so I'd say the intention is still a bit unclear.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

That alone being such an ugly can of worms should be sufficient evidence that facing of target was never intended to matter in any ranged attacks.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

I just found this, in the old GM screen in the Thrown Combat Bonus section it does list +2 for side and +4 for rear.

I list this even through I was arguing for no facing bonus for throws earlier. Please note that in the new legacy GM screen these bonus are no longer listed in the thrown section (only the range modifier now).

So, this certainly was cannon at one time. But since it is now not in the new GM screen this alone won't settle the arguement.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

In sum, you're just making trouble.






Actually, that's pretty interesting. Was it left off the new screen intentionally or not? Would be nice to know.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

The old Fantasy Master's Screen has some interesting post-Steve-Jackson rules extensions (such as more ST categories for Effects Of Injury) that are not in the books (or only in the Codex), and some plain errors. I would count facing modifiers it shows for thrown weapons among the errors, or at least changes.

I'm pretty sure the original screen was not consulted when making the new screen, doubtless because it post-dates Steve's work on TFT, so they don't have the rights to it.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

As others have said, facing is relevant for all ranged attacks. Ranged attacks coming through the front hex have their damage reduced by shields. Ranged attacks coming through the rear hex have their damage reduced by a slung shield.

That is, it is part of the core mechanics that you need to determine the hex through which a ranged attack is coming. This is usually perfectly easy, but unfortunately we weren't given details on what to do about this when it comes through a spine.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

FWIW which is not much, and outside the context of game rules, I think facing matters greatly when targeting enemies with thrown weapons. I make this claim based on my immense experience in snowball fights and bottlerocket battles :) where it is completely obvious that thrown weapons are subject to the passive defences of the target. If John has his back turned to me while he is throwing a bottlerocket at Jeff, this is, most definitely, a glorious opportunity for me. OTOH if John can see me while he is throwing his bottlerocket at Jeff, he is harder for me to hit. On this point I am sure. :)

Likewise, I used to be OK at baseball. Let's consider a baseball as a thrown weapon. If I am facing the thrower (and at least 30 feet away), I have complete confidence that I will be able to catch or else let the ball move past me, even if I am not "dodging", eg tying my shoe or something. If my back is turned to the thrower, that's different, I'm definitely easier to hit.

In contrast, if you're talking about a crossbow instead of a thrown weapon, then facing considerations do seem irrelevant.

In no particular order, my other feelings about thrown weapons in TFT. (A) I think applying facing bonus for thrown weapons is reasonable. (B) We are unlikely to ever know whether SJ deliberately or mistakenly excluded thrown weapons from the rule about missile weapons and facing. (C) The only game context I have experienced in which figures threw weapons in anger were in the bad old days of the murderous ninja sniper hobbits. These guys were so game breaking there was no way they would EVER get a facing bonus.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

That's a pretty good point. Thrown weapons coming through the spine are fairly common, though much less so for a spine of the rear hex.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

ok, once the main discussion turned to which modify to apply when weapons come from a hexspine, I'll toss here my opinion too.

As ASL (Advanced Squad Leader) player I feel the need to give always the best protection to the target. So when a shel... ehm sorry a knife :-) comes from a hexpine I would assign the worst modify to the attacker. In ASL it's a frontal hit when it comes from a front/side hexpine, and a side one when it comes from a side/rear hexpine. A little advantage to the defender. A common criterion in the wargaming world fully applicable here.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

This makes good sense. On a hexgrid, when a target has its "back to the wall", that is, nestled in one of the concavities along the arena wall, it would have its side and rear protected from melee attacks and equally well from ranged attacks

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

My feeling about Thrown Spells in this is that their name is really a misnomer, at least compared with Missile Weapons and Thrown Weapons. Thrown Spells do not "sail through the air." You cannot hit the wrong foe by mistake with a Thrown Spell - it either works on your intended target, or it fizzles and you lose just the one point of ST. Your foe's facing has no bearing on it, and neither can he dodge it.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

Another way I recently thought to describe it for someone: a Thrown Spell is something you form in the air over the target's head, and if it's successful it falls/descends on them. I'd call them "Dropped Spells", but that would surely confuse people into thinking that meant a failed spell, so no. I recall another closely related system liked to call them "Direct Spells". But referring to spells as "thrown" has such a long literary tradition, I just can't see changing it.

Perhaps instead, change the name of "Thrown Weapons" to "Throwable Weapons". That's still a bit awkward though.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

Absolutely. Notice for instance that the penalty to cast on an unmoving subject not in combat at all, or on yourself, gets no bonus at all.

Range and visibility (q.v. Blur) affect Thrown spell success, but facing certainly doesn't.

Re: thrown weapons and facing
 

When it comes to shooting along a spine I would go with shooter's/thrower's choice. If you can shoot along a wall and not hit the wall, that means that is a precedent for this kind of thing.

And when it comes to putting you back to a wall, often that wall is supposed to be straight, but with hexes, every other hex against the wall gives you protection from both the rear and the sides, while every other hex give you no side protection. And at other times you are standing with your back to a wall and you get the rear and one side hex protected, no matter where along the wall you stand depending on the hex "grain". Which is a little bit strange. And it is hard to get around this in a logical way.