Movement Rule Tweak

[Kirk]

Because of that very problem, and how we read the rules, the side that moved first moved and faced and that was that. It was one advantage of moving second. Moving first, you had to position your characters to cover your backside or move such that you couldn't be surrounded easily, this is part and parcel of the game.

The ability to engage is another critical feature of TFT, so that sometimes the solution was to engage the enemy when moving first to set the stage for who could go where.

We *really* like the way TFT works, I have never found any other system that feels right and encourages proper group tactics and doesn't just frustrate me, and so therefore just doesn't get played.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Kirk

Because of that very problem, and how we read the rules, the side that moved first moved and faced and that was that. ... The ability to engage is another critical feature of TFT, so that sometimes the solution was to engage the enemy when moving first to set the stage for who could go where.

Well said!!

And it's another great point you have brought out; yes, the "invisible force-field" of Engagement - which some folk don't care for - is another absolutely critical design-element for simulating the psychological weight of the making the decision to commit to engage an enemy - another potential "no recourse" situation - which ramps-up the simulation and excitement of strategic play; in addition to "working it" to cut-off, or force, avenues of approach and the enemies ability to maneuver themselves without getting caught en-route to their desired position in battle - as you have pointed out above.

You have my Marine Corps-brain fully activated, and thinking about "interlocking field-of-fire" as it relates to crossbowmen at-range in fighting-positions, and establishing controlled avenues of approach with halberd foot-soldiers at the flanks... Now, where can I get some Molo-tail Claymore mines to ring the parameter with... We got Orcs in the wire...!!! ;-)

Outstanding point KIRK

JK

[Rick_Smith]

Hi all,
I allow people to change facing after movement. This is called a "Last Second Twist". Anyone who does this is at -2 DX for the rest of the turn.

Warm regards, Rick.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi all,
I allow people to change facing after movement. This is called a "Last Second Twist". Anyone who does this is at -2 DX for the rest of the turn.

Warm regards, Rick.

I let them change facing as well, but with no negative. In a 5 second turn, I don't think that it's any big deal to turn around, particularly since the figures are actually moving at the same time.

Here's a rule, cribbed from my miniature wargame A Fistful of TOWs:

After all sides have moved, any figure may pivot (i.e., change facing) but only if at least one enemy figure began its move in the figure's frontal arc and moved into the figure's side or rear arcs during the movement phase.

This avoids the most abusive situation - someone zipping across your front and into your flank while you are immobilized since you "already moved". But it forces figures to react during their movement phase to enemies that begin the turn in their flanks.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

I let them change facing as well, but with no negative. In a 5 second turn, I don't think that it's any big deal to turn around, particularly since the figures are actually moving at the same time.

Here's a rule, cribbed from my miniature wargame A Fistful of TOWs:

Wow,... Holy Random Synaptic-Connections, Batman! Do you recall HT's "take-that parting-shot" entitled: A Fistful of Turkeys, by "Some Turkey Games"? Such draaaaama back in the day LOL!

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

After all sides have moved, any figure may pivot (i.e., change facing) but only if at least one enemy figure began its move in the figure's frontal arc and moved into the figure's side or rear arcs during the movement phase.

This avoids the most abusive situation - someone zipping across your front and into your flank while you are immobilized since you "already moved". But it forces figures to react during their movement phase to enemies that begin the turn in their flanks.

That works too of course.

Actually ALL these methods work; it just depends on how your group wants to play it, and what your house-style is.

JK

[RobW]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

This avoids the most abusive situation - someone zipping across your front and into your flank while you are immobilized since you "already moved". But it forces figures to react during their movement phase to enemies that begin the turn in their flanks.

This abusive situation shouldn't occur as the enemy is engaged when they enter your front hex, and so can't proceed to your flank.

[RobW]

It is interesting to see all the different play styles emerging from the same set of rules. We played according to the rules as we read them, and I believe this is different from Kirk, tybeard, Rick Smith, and probably many others:

No changing facing after movement (except by a disengage action, or advance after retreat). This meant that a single figure engaged by two enemies would have to directly face one of them and allow the other to shift to the side or rear (at least if the initiative roll led to the isolated figure moving first). A lot can depend on the initiative roll, and tactics skills are really valuable.

Actions were taken in order of adjDX and could be changed freely as long as you met the movement requirements. We never ran into Kirk's nightmare scenarios simply because the high adjDX had to choose an action, and the lower adjDX did not. For example fast elf wants to attack slow troll. Troll says he's defending if attacked. Elf says fine, I won't attack you then, I'll do something else. In that case, Troll never had to defend and so can now choose another action when his turn comes. Elf couldn't pre-commit Troll to an action.

I can say with 100% certainty you can play by these rules and have a great time. I think they follow the rules as written, but obviously that's arguable. Many other groups playing with different interpretations can say exactly the same.

I guess my point is that for a rules set that always seemed so clearly written (for the most part), it is fascinating how many interpretations we've seen on such basic mechanics: facing, initiative, and order of actions.

[Kirk]

We fundamentally play this way, the confusion comes when adjDX is of two types, that is, does it make you faster or more accurate? When you add in changing conditions, such as clumsiness spells, missile weapon talent, cover, prone, etc. it *can* get convoluted.

If you treat any DX change as a change in speed as well as accuracy, it can be a little less complicated.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Kirk

If you treat any DX change as a change in speed as well as accuracy, it can be a little less complicated.

True, however:

Just as we factored damage against ST from: a) INJURY and b) FATIGUE, as two separate things, we (personally) likewise factored DX as: a) SPEED (Order-of-Attack), and b) ACCURACY (To-Hit) as two separate things; while others did the easier all-in-one calculation for their game.

To each, his own.

The fact that we have a 3 core attribute system in TFT, which utilizes the same attribute values for various sub-functions is where some the variations in interpretation of the rules and play-styles comes from, and why so many personal interpretations exist.

The interesting secondary effect of open-interpretation allows people to tailor the game to suit the style of the GM or their individual gaming-group, as still "play by the rules" - as they read them to mean, or seem "more correct".

So, now let us ask ourselves: If we gave SJ all the time in the world to write the definitive final-decree on how all things in TFT are to be played - with no gray-area left undefined - would that be a desirable thing, or might it diminish the some of the magic of it all, by depersonalizing the rules-set?

Thoughts?

JK

[Kirk]

In the Advanced Squad Leader world a good friend of mine wrote an article titled something like ¨The problem of Variantism in ASL.¨

I tend to want to be able to play the fundamentals anywhere TFT is played, and let the GM put the flavor in with situations, story lines, characters, etc. within a well-defined set of rules, nevertheless knowing that the GM is the ultimate authority in any game session and can declare whatever he wants, if he wants to do it.

So not having to argue about a perhaps deadly interaction between a alley-way thief putting a knife to a wizard´s throat and who goes first in various situations of posture, cover, and talents would be comforting to me.

Diminishing devastating pole weapon charge attacks by allowing a block or getting inside the point of the weapon, or perhaps having characters at small negative STs not necessarily be mortally wounded, etc. are all things I would like to see in the rules.

So my vote is to fix up typesetting and paste up errors in AM, AW, and ITL, double check the job system to ensure it works reasonably, better?, hit the other issues we have talked about, and then.. DEVELOP AND RELEASE SOME EXCELLENT PROGRAMMED ADVENTURES that allow beginners and experienced alike the ability to quickly get a group together and try to make it through an interesting and well-written adventure in one evening. :)