Shifting Rule and Pivoting - Page 3

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.

tbeard1999 · 08-22-2018, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

...It is fun to have high MA and side or back stab someone.

The back stab is not really hindered by my proposal. You can't pivot to face an enemy figure that began the turn in your side or rear arcs. (Pivoting figures would be those who move first. If you intentionally ignore an opponent already in your side or rear arcs, you deserve what you get).

I don't want to overcomplicate the rule, but you could require a 3/IQ roll for a figure to pivot to face an opponent that has the Thief talent. (The thief would still have had to start in the pivoting figure's front.)

Personally, I think that's overly fiddly, but if you really want to enable backstabs, this would do it pretty cleanly.

I don't favor making it a separate action because pivoting is a natural, automatic response to being engaged by an enemy.

Chris Rice · 08-22-2018, 09:14 AM

"I don't favor making it a separate action because pivoting is a natural, automatic response to being engaged by an enemy."

It may well be a "natural reaction" but that's not to say you can do it before you're struck at by the enemy.

Nils_Lindeberg · 08-22-2018, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

The back stab is not really hindered by my proposal. You can't pivot to face an enemy figure that began the turn in your side or rear arcs. (Pivoting figures would be those who move first. If you intentionally ignore an opponent already in your side or rear arcs, you deserve what you get).

I don't want to overcomplicate the rule, but you could require a 3/IQ roll for a figure to pivot to face an opponent that has the Thief talent. (The thief would still have had to start in the pivoting figure's front.)

Personally, I think that's overly fiddly, but if you really want to enable backstabs, this would do it pretty cleanly.

I don't favor making it a separate action because pivoting is a natural, automatic response to being engaged by an enemy.

When I talk about side and back stab it is just to denote an attack from that direction it has nothing to do with any Thief special abilities. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. And the problem or advantage we have today with the system is that a low MA character can not get within closing distance to a high MA guy without leaving himself open to the possibility of a side or even rear attack. Some see it as tactically challenging, I just see it as a trick to make fools out of beginners and a boring repetitive chore for people that knows the rules.

With a free pivot that will never happen or be a need for those calculations. But a free pivot, as has been pointed out in other threads as well, will also stop a player from rushing over to or around a group of other characters that are already engaged in a pitch battle and surprise one of them by striking them in rear. With a free pivot you will always chose the most tactical facing and will basically never be attacked in the rear.

I really want to solve the first one and it would be solved with the option to move 1 MA, slowly approaching and keep ready to pivot if attacked from an unexpected direction or from the expected direction too. And in the heat of the battle when everyone runs around engaging back and forth you can still make a surprise move and get someone in the back where it makes more sense.

One can see the pivot action as a ready action. If someone engage me in the rear or side I will turn around and face them. It is an action that exists in many games. Maybe we should include that one in TFT too. If he attacks, I will attack first. The first person that comes through that door will be immediately attacked. And so on. I am not sure it is needed, but I think a Pivot action is.

Rick's idea to let people Pivot at the cost of -2 adjDX is a reasonable rule as well. It would be like a defend light. You move, realize you are in deep **** and decide to go full defensive or you turn around to face your attackers but at a penalty. And often it would mean that you give one of your opponent a +2 side bonus or you turn and take a -2 yourself instead. So pretty often it might not even be used.

08-22-2018, 03:41 AM	#21
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.

08-22-2018, 09:14 AM	#23
Chris Rice Join Date: Dec 2017 Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland	Re: Shifting Rule and Pivoting "I don't favor making it a separate action because pivoting is a natural, automatic response to being engaged by an enemy." It may well be a "natural reaction" but that's not to say you can do it before you're struck at by the enemy.