Stream-lined Combat Options

[Skarg]

I guess I'm not entirely clear what differences you intend and why you think they're important.

It seems like you think you need to drop the movement limits per option (for casting, ranged attacks, etc) in order to not have to declare options, but I'm not sure why ... because it seems significantly simpler? We didn't have any trouble keeping those limits in mind and just found there was almost never a need to declare an option.

Polearm charges going first always made sense to me due to weapon reach in a closing situation, so I don't know why you'd only give it to defending polearms. It's just an option for all polearms in closing situations to go first - again I'm not sure why you'd want to remove it.

(I may be a bad person to assess changes for simplicity though, since I internalized the whole game decades ago and never really lost the ability to run it in my sleep.)

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Skarg

I guess I'm not entirely clear what differences you intend and why you think they're important.

It seems like you think you need to drop the movement limits per option (for casting, ranged attacks, etc) in order to not have to declare options, but I'm not sure why ... because it seems significantly simpler? We didn't have any trouble keeping those limits in mind and just found there was almost never a need to declare an option.

Getting rid of declare is only part of it. When the movement phase comes, you don't have to think about what you are going to do in the Action Phase as movement puts no restriction on your actions. Much simpler to me. You can ready items and cast spells while engaged so why not let them move up to half MA and do those things? Same goes for shooting/throwing ("last shot"), so you can move up to half MA and shoot (but "last shot" is gone; can't shoot while engaged). It is simpler and easier for me. I don't have to remember how far somebody moved during movement to determine if they can take the action they intend to take. When their time to move or act comes, they can take whatever movement or action they want with only two exceptions: can't move more than 1 hex if engaged. Can't shoot/throw if engaged.

Polearm charges going first always made sense to me due to weapon reach in a closing situation, so I don't know why you'd only give it to defending polearms. It's just an option for all polearms in closing situations to go first - again I'm not sure why you'd want to remove it.

Polearm users still get to attack before they are attacked. I'm just not creating a mini-action phase devoted to polearm users.

Here's a scenario:

A (DX10;spear) charges (moves from disengaged to engaged) B (DX12;sword). End movement. According to adjDX, B goes first in Action Phase. B declares he's gonna attack A. A is using a polearm so he gets to attack B before B makes his attack.

Polearm users attack in order of adjDX unless they are attacked first. Whenever a polearm user is attack, they have the opportunity to attack out-of-turn. When their adjDX-order turn to act arrives, they can't do anything because they've already acted. It works kinda like Dodge and Defend. You may be last in the adjDX order but when you are first attacked, you can declare "Defend!" before the attack is made. I will probably handle shooters/throwers the same way to make-up for the loss of "last shot".

Another scenario:
A (DX12;spear) charges B (DX10;spear). End movement. A declares he still intends to charge-attack B. B gets to attack first because he is using a polearm and being attacked.

And another:
A (DX10;spear) charges B (DX12;sword). C (DX11;spear) is adjacent to B and A once A's movement ends. Going by adjDX, B acts first and declares he wants to attack A. A has polearm so he gets to attack B first. Then B performs his attack on A. C declares to attack A. A has already acted this round, so all he can do is stand there and take it.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by platimus

Polearm users still get to attack before they are attacked. I'm just not creating a mini-action phase devoted to polearm users.

In your later example, you showed what I meant:

Originally Posted by platimus

A (DX12;spear) charges B (DX10;spear). End movement. A declares he still intends to charge-attack B. B gets to attack first because he is using a polearm and being attacked.

Since A has a spear, why are you letting B go first by virtue of having a spear too?

(In RAW, the defender already has an advantage of +2DX here, which in this case would mean a roll-off to see who goes first. But maybe that's part of what you want to simplify?)

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Skarg

In your later example, you showed what I meant:

Since A has a spear, why are you letting B go first by virtue of having a spear too?

(In RAW, the defender already has an advantage of +2DX here, which in this case would mean a roll-off to see who goes first. But maybe that's part of what you want to simplify?)

Yes. Correct. Anyone with a polearm gets the opportunity to act out-of-turn if attacked - but only against their attacker.

[Skarg]

Thanks that helps me see what you're going for.

notes:

Originally Posted by platimus

You can ready items and cast spells while engaged so why not let them move up to half MA and do those things? Same goes for shooting/throwing ("last shot"), so you can move up to half MA and shoot (but "last shot" is gone; can't shoot while engaged). It is simpler and easier for me. I don't have to remember how far somebody moved during movement to determine if they can take the action they intend to take. When their time to move or act comes, they can take whatever movement or action they want with only two exceptions: can't move more than 1 hex if engaged. Can't shoot/throw if engaged.

Seems to me that being able to move 1/2 MA and also shoot a bow or crossbow removes the representation of how those weapons need some stability to use properly.

Letting them move 1/2 MA and fire also will create an effective retrograde tactic for them, where missile users with room to retreat can keep moving backwards at 1/2 MA while firing, greatly increasing their ability to slaughter non-missile users trying to close with them. Archers with MA 10 or 12 versus people in armor may be able to empty their quivers moving backwards and firing before armored foes can engage them.



I think moving polearm attacks into the adjDX order can work for isolated situations, but seems more complex to me (another example of how we all have our own ideas of what makes something complex or not), and I think will introduce some weird side-effects in terms of when other people act relative to them.

Taking one of your examples:

Originally Posted by platimus

A (DX10;spear) charges B (DX12;sword). C (DX11;spear) is adjacent to B and A once A's movement ends. Going by adjDX, B acts first and declares he wants to attack A. A has polearm so he gets to attack B first. Then B performs his attack on A. C declares to attack A. A has already acted this round, so all he can do is stand there and take it.

Seems to me that C should go first because he also has a polearm and became engaged by A this turn.

If B & C agree it would be better for C to fight A first, will you let B delay his action so C can declare he is attacking A first?


Other examples would involve various other cases where ranged weapons, 2-hex jabs, spells etc will be resolved in a different sequence depending on who chooses to attack a polearm user in a charge situation or not.

Example:

Spear Orc X has DX 10 and moves to engage Hero B (DX 15).
Axe Orc Y has DX 12 and moves to engage Hero B and Hero C (DX 11).
Hero Archer A has DX 13 and is not engaged.

If Hero B attacks X, we get:
X, B, A, Y, C

If Heroes B & C attack Y, we get:
B, A, Y, C, X

Even if the melee sequences make sense to you, what about the sequence of non-engaged attack?

i.e. Non engaged figures like A now act before or after lower-DX polearm chargers like X, based on the whether higher-DX people like B choose to attack those polearm users first, or not. I guess you could rationalize that, too, but it's a different sort of imagination of what's going on that I'm used to in TFT.



Another idea for you to consider might be resolving polearm charge attacks during Movement... just a thought.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Thanks that helps me see what you're going for.

notes:

Seems to me that being able to move 1/2 MA and also shoot a bow or crossbow removes the representation of how those weapons need some stability to use properly.

Letting them move 1/2 MA and fire also will create an effective retrograde tactic for them, where missile users with room to retreat can keep moving backwards at 1/2 MA while firing, greatly increasing their ability to slaughter non-missile users trying to close with them. Archers with MA 10 or 12 versus people in armor may be able to empty their quivers moving backwards and firing before armored foes can engage them.

I did think of that. I'm OK with that, I think. But this is the part that I'm least sure of. Will have to do some more thinking/playtesting.

I think moving polearm attacks into the adjDX order can work for isolated situations, but seems more complex to me (another example of how we all have our own ideas of what makes something complex or not), and I think will introduce some weird side-effects in terms of when other people act relative to them.

Taking one of your examples:

Seems to me that C should go first because he also has a polearm and became engaged by A this turn.

If B & C agree it would be better for C to fight A first, will you let B delay his action so C can declare he is attacking A first?


Other examples would involve various other cases where ranged weapons, 2-hex jabs, spells etc will be resolved in a different sequence depending on who chooses to attack a polearm user in a charge situation or not.

Example:

Spear Orc X has DX 10 and moves to engage Hero B (DX 15).
Axe Orc Y has DX 12 and moves to engage Hero B and Hero C (DX 11).
Hero Archer A has DX 13 and is not engaged.

If Hero B attacks X, we get:
X, B, A, Y, C

If Heroes B & C attack Y, we get:
B, A, Y, C, X

I'm good with this too.

Even if the melee sequences make sense to you, what about the sequence of non-engaged attack?

i.e. Non engaged figures like A now act before or after lower-DX polearm chargers like X, based on the whether higher-DX people like B choose to attack those polearm users first, or not. I guess you could rationalize that, too, but it's a different sort of imagination of what's going on that I'm used to in TFT.

A waits for his turn in adjDX unless someone attacks A. A may act out of turn and attack his attacker only (no one else). The real question is what happens when an archer attacks a polearm user and vice-versa. Obviously, the polearm user can't react to the archer's attack if the archer is out of his reach. If the archer is 2 hexes away, the one with higher DX attacks first. If the archer is adjacent to the polearm users, archer can't shoot because he's engaged.

Another idea for you to consider might be resolving polearm charge attacks during Movement... just a thought.

I like that suggestion. If I were trying to execute the RAW, I would do this as a minor simplification.

[hcobb]

Lots of historical types threw weapons on the run, but even horse archers stopped to fire.

I'd add a die to your to-hit, in order to boost the critical failure chance.

[platimus]

Oh, my archers that move up to half MA stop to fire as well. :)

[bluekitsune13]

I kind of like the idea of splitting up your movement, half in the movement phase and half in the action phase. I'm still learning the rules, so I'm not sure I'm entirely doing it right. I've found a good strategy where I can run a chaff unit around to the side or back of an enemy fighter. If they moved already, they can't turn to face me. That means I engage them so they can't move and engage another fighter. This is great vs. ranged units or polearm users.

With "running" basically being an action, that would potentially give the other side time to attack or react to the sudden advance. Also it may give the running model options, as they could always choose to run backwards around a corner or something.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by bluekitsune13

I kind of like the idea of splitting up your movement, half in the movement phase and half in the action phase. I'm still learning the rules, so I'm not sure I'm entirely doing it right. I've found a good strategy where I can run a chaff unit around to the side or back of an enemy fighter. If they moved already, they can't turn to face me. That means I engage them so they can't move and engage another fighter. This is great vs. ranged units or polearm users.

With "running" basically being an action, that would potentially give the other side time to attack or react to the sudden advance. Also it may give the running model options, as they could always choose to run backwards around a corner or something.

Yes, I like that about this way of doing it. Thank you for pointing that out.