FACING for Prone figures

[Skarg]

Hcobb has mentioned (in his own way) several times over the past months that (to paraphrase in a way that makes more sense to me) the rules don't explain facing for prone figures, which is important because prone figures can cast spells and use ranged attacks.

(I didn't bother to answer this before, because I thought he was just making silly side-comments about the letter of the rules, which seemed to me not worth the effort to address, but it recently threadjacked the other "Prone figures" question thread and seems to be causing confusion, so I started this new thread.)

Seems to me it's extremely easy to handle: Have prone figures declare a facing, which determines which way they are looking, and gives them a 180-degree field of view for spells, ranged attacks, and other acts of observation etc.

Hcobb's point that the rules say prone figures have no front hexes is irrelevant, it seems to me, because front hexes do not apply to most spells or ranged attacks anyway - the 180-degree field of view has always determined that, so there is no real issue to make confusing remarks about.

[Helborn]

Prone figures obviously face a specific direction. I believe the rules specify that they have no facing for the purpose of engaging. (My interpretation). Also, they are a 2 hex figure when prone. So the front hexes are the same as for any 2 hex figure for firing purposes. However, since they are prone any thrown weapon gains the +4 DX adjustment for rear hexes as well as any melee weapon. Missile weapons are specifically excluded from the +4 DX adjustment.

[Scintillant]

Originally Posted by Helborn

However, since they are prone any thrown weapon gains the +4 DX adjustment for rear hexes as well as any melee weapon. Missile weapons are specifically excluded from the +4 DX adjustment.

Thanks Helborn. I see the rule now re: missile weapons not benefiting from the facing of the target, but I don't see anything in this regard re: thrown weapons. I suppose that in the absence of such a RAW you expect these are handled the same as melee weapons. Is that correct?

[Helborn]

Originally Posted by Scintillant

Thanks Helborn. I see the rule now re: missile weapons not benefiting from the facing of the target, but I don't see anything in this regard re: thrown weapons. I suppose that in the absence of such a RAW you expect these are handled the same as melee weapons. Is that correct?

Correct. See pgs 106 to 108 and 114. It does say that a thrown weapon attack is treated exactly as regular weapon attack. Since there is no exception for thrown weapons and facing, it seems to me that the facing rules apply. E.g. A prone character gives +4 DX to all non-missile attacks.

[Skarg]

I agree with you on this part:

Originally Posted by Helborn

Prone figures obviously face a specific direction. I believe the rules specify that they have no facing for the purpose of engaging. (My interpretation).

But not on this part (unless you mean a house rule you use):

Originally Posted by Helborn

Also, they are a 2 hex figure when prone. So the front hexes are the same as for any 2 hex figure for firing purposes.

GURPS has 2-hex bodies, but TFT never did. There was not even a 2-hex figure facing diagram published until Death Test 2 and SJ's ITL/AM/AW errata article in The Space Gamer, and it was for horses and giant lizards, not fallen humanoid bodies.


Nor on this part:

Originally Posted by Helborn

However, since they are prone any thrown weapon gains the +4 DX adjustment for rear hexes as well as any melee weapon. Missile weapons are specifically excluded from the +4 DX adjustment.

We never thought of having facing DX mods applied to thrown weapon attacks. I don't think that was ever the intention, or it would be called out somewhere. I think the lines you've mentioned about Thrown Weapons being like normal attacks is just an unfortunate wording attempting to explain to new players that they roll 3d6 to hit. And I think the wording about Missile Weapons not using facing was not meant to imply that Thrown Weapons do use facing DX adjustments. If being that literal about it, then I'd point to the line about Thrown Spells that says they're "exactly" like Thrown Weapons, which would imply you could cast Thrown Spells at a bonus for target facing, which seems even less likely to be the intention.

Also, I would point out that the rules for facing benefits say "attacking from a side hex" or "from a rear hex" and those hexes are defined as hexes adjacent to the figure, so even if those modifiers apply, they're only about attacks from an adjacent hex.

[hcobb]

Thrown weapons are at -4 against prone targets behind cover. See page 116.

[Helborn]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Thrown weapons are at -4 against prone targets behind cover. See page 116.

We're not talking about behind cover. That's a special situation.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Helborn

We're not talking about behind cover. That's a special situation.

If you throw from an adjacent hex then cover applies, but if you smash down with a wielded hammer then it doesn't.

[Helborn]

Originally Posted by Skarg

And I think the wording about Missile Weapons not using facing was not meant to imply that Thrown Weapons do use facing DX adjustments. If being that literal about it, then I'd point to the line about Thrown Spells that says they're "exactly" like Thrown Weapons, which would imply you could cast Thrown Spells at a bonus for target facing, which seems even less likely to be the intention.

Also, I would point out that the rules for facing benefits say "attacking from a side hex" or "from a rear hex" and those hexes are defined as hexes adjacent to the figure, so even if those modifiers apply, they're only about attacks from an adjacent hex.

This where we will have to disagree. Keep in mind that a thrown SPELL can be aimed at any adjacent hex including rear and side ones. So, not exactly like thrown weapons. Also pg 115 says that they are TARGETED like thrown weapons.

What do you mean there are no 2 hex figures? What about horses (pg 130) and wyverns to just name two? A 6 foot individual will definitely occupy 2 hexes when prone. A Dwarf or other humanoid won't.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Helborn

This where we will have to disagree. Keep in mind that a thrown SPELL can be aimed at any adjacent hex including rear and side ones. So, not exactly like thrown weapons. Also pg 115 says that they are TARGETED like thrown weapons.

The reason I mentioned spells was to give an example where the rules similarly said "exactly like" but would more clearly be weird to take that "exactly" literally.

It's off the point, but I also don't think a wizard can target Thrown Spells behind their (usually 180 degree) vision, since they can't see to target there... unless they have Eyes Behind or something (it might do to just know about some static target back there?), but I think that's a grey area in the rules (or one I've forgotten if it's made clear somewhere).

I wouldn't really object to using the facing modifiers for thrown weapons IF they only applied where they do for melee weapons: from one hex away only. After all, TFT diagrams facing and ranged front/rear zones quite clearly, but never specifies side and rear arcs more than one hex away. On the other hand, there's also usually nearly zero reason to throw a weapon at someone close enough to hit normally.

Originally Posted by Helborn

What do you mean there are no 2 hex figures? What about horses (pg 130) and wyverns to just name two? A 6 foot individual will definitely occupy 2 hexes when prone. A Dwarf or other humanoid won't.

I didn't write "there are no 2 hex figures", I wrote that there were no 2-hex figure facing diagrams until later products, as one example of why I'd say bodies were not 2-hex figures, as otherwise they would have needed to have been diagrammed in Melee, have some rule reference anywhere to them being 2-hex figures, hopefully some sort of rule for how that works and how you determine which second hex to use, what to do about hand-to-hand combat. Instead, all of the references to fallen figures talk about their hex (always singular).

I like GURPS and wouldn't mind house rules for 2-hex bodies in TFT, but I think it's clear that RAW TFT has humanoid bodies taking up one hex.

As for geometry, I don't see an inconsistency since bodies don't necessarily lie stretched out, the hexes are 4 feet across, and the obstacle effect of a body or prone active figure is significant and I think more like where the torso is - the arms or legs being partly in another hex or two shouldn't affect movement and footing as they do in the rules.

Also it is rather more complex to handle two-hex prone figures. GURPS has much more elaborate position rules, which I like but I think make more sense for GURPS' more specific detail level (3-foot hexes, 1-second turns, more detailed actions etc) and I expect the "keep TFT simple" players wouldn't want to add to TFT.