Shifting Rule and Pivoting

Nils_Lindeberg · 08-22-2018, 03:41 AM

We have had this discussion before and I am still very much for it. More movement in battle is good. I love the feeling of being able to slowly drag a cluster of combatants towards the door or lure them away from something or towards something else. Or just slowly shift around to get you back to the wall.

D&D 3E implemented the 5" foot step. It hugely made an impact in this regard. But since you move then attack before you go to the next player in that system the follow up was built in to the system. In TFT you might have to add the counter move rule. Either way it gave you a choice each turn. There was almost always one square that was slightly better than the one you occupied. Maybe to get out of a potential AOE attack spell, maybe to get into a flanking position or maybe to just get closer to that higher ground square that would give you a small advantage. It was a fun decision and when the front line fighters had gap in between them the enemies could slowly force/fight their way thru and so the front liners had to retreat to keep the line, etc. Huge tactical potential and it felt realistic as well.

And the counter shift when someone shifts out of your engagement hex and you follow up is a little bit like forced retreats that gives you the same option, so that type of rule is already in the TFT rules so to speak.

Auto changing facing at the end of movement lessens the amount of shenanigans and here we have the problem of realism vs. fun. I have been changing my opinion a little on this one. It is fun to have high MA and side or back stab someone. Less so to have the enemy do it to you. But I am not terribly fond of the dancing around an enemy in an otherwise empty room or when none want to come closer because they are both too afraid of who will win the next initiative. Or the asymmetrical bonus of set vs. charge that makes this even more artificially complex. Or the fact that going against the grain or with the grain of hexes makes HUGE differences in this case. Try it out, you will be surprised!

That being said there is a middle ground. Let Pivoting be a new move action. You don't move (or possibly shift 1 or move 1 MA) and then you are allowed to do the pivoting at the end of the turn. This means that you can't rush into combat and keep an eye out for a sneaky stab at the same time. But if you are standing still, looking one guy in the face and slowly approach him there is no chance in hell that he will ever get you in the side or back. This might be a compromise and add a cost for being cautious looking over your shoulder.

08-22-2018, 03:41 AM	#17
Nils_Lindeberg Join Date: Jul 2018	Re: Shifting Rule and Pivoting We have had this discussion before and I am still very much for it. More movement in battle is good. I love the feeling of being able to slowly drag a cluster of combatants towards the door or lure them away from something or towards something else. Or just slowly shift around to get you back to the wall. D&D 3E implemented the 5" foot step. It hugely made an impact in this regard. But since you move then attack before you go to the next player in that system the follow up was built in to the system. In TFT you might have to add the counter move rule. Either way it gave you a choice each turn. There was almost always one square that was slightly better than the one you occupied. Maybe to get out of a potential AOE attack spell, maybe to get into a flanking position or maybe to just get closer to that higher ground square that would give you a small advantage. It was a fun decision and when the front line fighters had gap in between them the enemies could slowly force/fight their way thru and so the front liners had to retreat to keep the line, etc. Huge tactical potential and it felt realistic as well. And the counter shift when someone shifts out of your engagement hex and you follow up is a little bit like forced retreats that gives you the same option, so that type of rule is already in the TFT rules so to speak. Auto changing facing at the end of movement lessens the amount of shenanigans and here we have the problem of realism vs. fun. I have been changing my opinion a little on this one. It is fun to have high MA and side or back stab someone. Less so to have the enemy do it to you. But I am not terribly fond of the dancing around an enemy in an otherwise empty room or when none want to come closer because they are both too afraid of who will win the next initiative. Or the asymmetrical bonus of set vs. charge that makes this even more artificially complex. Or the fact that going against the grain or with the grain of hexes makes HUGE differences in this case. Try it out, you will be surprised! That being said there is a middle ground. Let Pivoting be a new move action. You don't move (or possibly shift 1 or move 1 MA) and then you are allowed to do the pivoting at the end of the turn. This means that you can't rush into combat and keep an eye out for a sneaky stab at the same time. But if you are standing still, looking one guy in the face and slowly approach him there is no chance in hell that he will ever get you in the side or back. This might be a compromise and add a cost for being cautious looking over your shoulder.