Shifting Rule and Pivoting

[Chris Rice]

I've introduced Melee to a couple of new players recently, one of whom had never played anything much more than monopoly. It took a little while for them to get the way the initiative, movement, positioning and combat options worked. However, as soon as they "got it" they loved it, and I have to say a lot of that had to do with the fact that you could do "gamey" things like get on someone's flank for a bonus and they couldn't just cancel that by turning to face you immediately.

I've played a number of more modern tactical skirmish games, including best sellers like Heroscape and Song of Blades and Heroes. They all have their artificial/gamey quirks, but that, in many ways, is what makes them as games.

I'd rather we leave the tactical side of the game alone for now, and see how a new generation of gamers take to it. It's a tough old game that can take criticism I'm sure.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi Ty,
I quite like both of your suggested rule changes. Comments below.

Saying that you can shift away from other people makes maneuver more possible than in the old TFT. Generally, more moving on the map is better I think. If people are fighting in tight line, you rule will have little effect, but if your lines are a bit ragged, this will make confused melees much more likely.

I can easily see why your players (after they got used to it), were unwilling to go back to the more restrictive format.

I think I will try this out as a test in my campaign.

It made winning initiative somewhat more valuable. The players in my campaigns thought it important enough that the party leader always seemed to have Tactics. And if the campaign went long enough, he'd get Strategy.

In my campaign, I call this a 'last second twist'. People can change their facing after movement, but they are at a -2 DX penalty for the rest of the turn for jerking around at the last minute. When it matters, those who moved first must do the last second twist first.

Like so many other TFT mechanics, additional refinements can easily be added. And I don't have a problem with your refinement, though I'd only apply it if the figure is adjacent to more than one enemy. I think you can always turn to face one enemy easily, particularly if you see him coming.

My game design theory, which guided the development of A Fistful of TOWs is that *every* rule creates "friction" each turn. This is increased whenever the rule is actually used. This creates a zero sum game situation, since players have a finite limit on how much friction they can tolerate before enjoyment suffers.

Every refinement of the FFT basic system was ruthlessly subjected to a cost-benefit test. Ideally, it could not slow the game down (which meant you had to simplify or eliminate something else). At the very least, the benefit had to outweigh the cost.

The problem, of course, is that this is highly subjective.

So, it's a question of how much detail you want and whether the rule is worth the friction cost.

I was shooting for the simplest solution that addressed the issue (as I saw it).

It is a relatively uncommon occurrence, since it's a problem only if the enemy moves 1/2 movement or less (usually 6- hexes). But it does occasionally crop up. So I think it needs a fix, but a very simple one.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

SHIFTING...Currently, an engaged figure may shift one hex, but he cannot break engagement.

I like the RAW, as in addition to the physical threat, it also simulates the psychological *head-space* of being "locked into a dangerous situation".

I feel alteration of this rule would significantly lower the overall psychological tension-level of a combat; especially when it comes to making that critical decision of opting to engage an enemy, or not, knowing you may find yourself with a couple of tigers by the tail - which you can't just pivot-away from.

The RAW engagement rules properly reflect the danger of being: "Locked into Combat", so very well. Altering those rules will lessen that effect as a unintended by-product.

Additionally, allowing your proposed Pivot move would lessen the importance and gravity of winning the initiative in battle; and consequently, the value of the Strategist and Tactics Talents - in terms of their advantage to those figure who possess those talents - would also be reduced.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Once, we went back to the rules as written and my players did not like it.

I am not surprised! Being locked into combat is not supposed to be a pleasant prospect; and your player's reaction simply proves just how well the RAW achieves simulating the psychological dynamics of engaging in combat.

Please consider those elements as you gauge the desirability of what you propose.

JK

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

The RAW engagement rules properly reflect the danger of being: "Locked into Combat", so very well. Altering those rules will lessen that effect as a unintended by-product.

Please try some larger battles with the rule. It makes the game a bit more fluid - and tactics and initiative a little more important - but is hardly earth-shattering. It’s pretty much irrelevant in small battles. (Mass battles with hordes of weaker opponents was a very common occurrence in my campaigns.)

Additionally, allowing your proposed Pivot move would lessen the importance and gravity of winning the initiative in battle; and consequently, the value of the Strategist and Tactics Talents - in terms of their advantage to those figure who possess those talents - would also be reduced.

I lobby for the pivot option simply because the current rules enable ridiculous tactics. <shrug>

I am not surprised! Being locked into combat is not supposed to be a pleasant prospect; and your player's reaction simply proves just how well the RAW achieves simulating the psychological dynamics of engaging in combat.

Please consider those elements as you gauge the desirability of what you propose.

JK

Yes, but remember that the monsters get the benefit as well. My players - mostly wargamers by the way - thought that allowing figures to shift away from adjacent enemies made the game more tactically interesting. And as noted, there’s a compromise solution available - allow one enemy figure to advance into the hex vacated.

[ecz]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

I like the RAW, as in addition to the physical threat, it also simulates the psychological *head-space* of being "locked into a dangerous situation".

(...)

JK

Jim are you aware that RAW actually allow a figure to disengage when shifting?
one hex shift is always possible, if you stay adjacent, and even if the figure moves off the enemy's front hexes

See the discussion on the thread "the CA Heresy"

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=159289

where I discovered that shift can break the engagement (so ultimately my group used a house rule prohibiting the shift off the enemy front hexes )

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by ecz

Jim are you aware that RAW actually allow a figure to disengage when shifting? one hex shift is always possible, if you stay adjacent, and even if the figure moves off the enemy's front hexes. See the discussion on the thread "the CA Heresy".http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=159289.where I discovered that shift can break the engagement (so ultimately my group used a house rule prohibiting the shift off the enemy front hexes )

Disengaging under the RAW comes with a risk and a price - that's the key. As I understood Ty's proposal, no such vulnerability, nor risk would be present, as it is under the RAW - unless I missed Ty's meaning.

JK

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by ecz

Jim are you aware that RAW actually allow a figure to disengage when shifting?
one hex shift is always possible, if you stay adjacent, and even if the figure moves off the enemy's front hexes

See the discussion on the thread "the CA Heresy"

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=159289

where I discovered that shift can break the engagement (so ultimately my group used a house rule prohibiting the shift off the enemy front hexes )

“An engaged figure may move only one hex during the movement phase, and must stay adjacent to all figures to which it is engaged; this is called a SHIFT.”

AM, pg. 4

Interestingly, a figure engaged by two or more figures cannot shift because he will break engagement with at least one of them.

This would seem to make the rule rather pointless. I generally interpret rules so that they aren’t pointless, hence my lobbying for a change to the rule.

At the very least, it could be stated with more precision: “A figure engaged by one opponent can shift one hex but must stay adjacent to the engaging figure. A figure engaged by 2+ opponents cannot move.”

EDIT - turns out I’m not correct. A figure can shift if he’s engaged by exactly two enemies who are separated by one hex.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Disengaging under the RAW comes with a risk and a price - that's the key. As I understood Ty's proposal, no such vulnerability, nor risk would be present, as it is under the RAW - unless I missed Ty's meaning.

JK

I think you did. My proposal *would* allow a shift to break engagement, but the figure must remain engaged by at least one enemy figure. So it doesn’t accomplish the same thing as the disengage action.

And as I noted, if that’s a little too fluid for your tastes, you can allow one enemy figure to occupy the hex that the figure vacated.

In my own experience, we infrequently sparred with 2 on 1 and it’s possible to maneuver so that two opponents get in each other’s way. So I don’t have a “realism” problem with the rule.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

I think you did. My proposal *would* allow a shift to break engagement, but the figure must remain engaged by at least one enemy figure. So it doesn’t accomplish the same thing as the disengage action.

And as I noted, if that’s a little too fluid for your tastes, you can allow one enemy figure to occupy the hex that the figure vacated.

My point was never about fluidity nor realism, but rather, my point was about the risk and vulnerability of being "locked into combat" - and the risk of trying to get out of it after you have joined into it - as represented by the RAW.

To retain the level of risk of retribution for disengaging, the only thing I could say is, if you are not going to consider a figure who is engaged by 2 figures at the same time, and must remain engaged to both enemies even if he can shift, unless he chooses to actively "disengage" as outlined in the RAW - and if you instead propose to allow a figure to shift-away and disengage from the one, while remaining engaged to the other. then *in that case*, I would deem the enemy whom your figure disengaged from, gets a free attack on your figure, and while having to remain engaged to the other enemy - if for no other reason than to maintain the threat of reprisal of becoming engaged in the first place, and maintaining the physical risk and psychological tension of joining in a battle.

Again, however you play it, I would not discount what that psychological element of being locked into a dangerous situation brings to the game, even over enhanced mechanics - but, that's my tastes. You may find the loss of that dynamic not as significant to you.

JK

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Again, however you play it, I would not discount what that psychological element of being locked into a dangerous situation brings to the game, even over enhanced mechanics - but, that's my tastes. You may find the loss of that dynamic not as significant to you.
JK

Fair enough. But consider this - I personally think that TFT's combat system really shines in the way it handles movement and tactics.

The hit and damage systems are workmanlike, but hardly unusual by 1980. The "roll to hit, roll for damage, armor absorbs damage" model was implemented by T&T and Runequest, as well as most RPGs that didn't directly imitate D&D. By 1980, that was a lot of games.

*If* I am correct, then anything that makes the game more fluid is probably a good thing. Unless it enables ahistorical tactics, of course.

Locking figures into combat can create the exact problem that Steve tried to solve with Melee - "you just rolled dice and died" is a paraphrase.

So, I want movement in my battles. I don't want the movement system to enable ahistorical tactics, nor do I want it to consume too much time. The change I'm lobbying for does neither. And of course, you can always ignore the rule if you don't like it.

But if the rule is a decent idea, I think that a game designer with decades of experience is likely to come up with (or accurately evaluate) a better solution than the typical ad hoc solutions individual gamers would.

I do wish you'd give it a try.