|
Facing
Feb 15, 2013 12:19:16 GMT -5
Post by mister frau blucher on Feb 15, 2013 12:19:16 GMT -5
Recently I have been using Facing in this manner:
During your Turn, Facing is irrelevant*. You may move and attack in any direction from your curent hex.
Facing becomes important when you are defending. In your opponent's Turn, when you are attacked for the first time, you determine your facing. Subsequent attacks during that same Turn that come through one of your three rear hexes (there are three front and three rear; no side hexes) get a +3 to the DX check and ignore shield protection.
When it is your Turn again, facing again becomes irrelevant.*
*If you attack someone with a pole arm, and they attack you first (as polearms are allowed to do in my house rules), you must declare your Facing. But since you were planning on attacking them, it is kinda obvious that you will not be presenting your back to them...
Been using this for a while now, and it is simple but does incorporate the old facing tactics of Melee when you are up against multiple opponents.
Bret
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Facing
Feb 15, 2013 12:48:30 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 12:48:30 GMT -5
not trying to change your facing rule; just trying to re-word it for my own understanding..
Facing Characters declare their Facing direction at the end of their Movement, Actions, and Reactions. Attacks from the rear 3 hexes gain a 3 point bonus to the hit roll and ignore the armor provided by shields.
is that correct?
|
|
|
Facing
Feb 15, 2013 14:05:31 GMT -5
Post by mister frau blucher on Feb 15, 2013 14:05:31 GMT -5
That's pretty close, amigo, and maybe more logical. But the catch here is that the Facing is nor being declared until he is attacked, whereas your wording has him declaring his facing before the first attack.
The rationale is that the character being attacked has to decide at the moment he is attacked the first time in a Turn; then any other attackers could take advantage of the facing.
By declaring the facing at the end of your Turn, you are essentially "freezing in place." Not tha this is horrible, that is how Melee did it at the end of a character's move (and before they attacked). The way I am doing it now makes it a little more dynamic.
So during your Turn, there is no facing at all for your attacking charcters (unless you are moving beside a polearm wielder). Only characters being attacked declare their facing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Facing
Feb 15, 2013 14:59:05 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 14:59:05 GMT -5
as you said, most of the time, the facing doesn't matter until you are defending. it is the same with my wording. my way is dynamic also. you can change your facing as part of your reaction. pretty much everytime i'm hit the first time, i attempt to dodge (react). i can't imagine how anyone survives otherwise. changing face and reaction line up pretty well. at least, they do when i use the battlemap. maybe i'm doing something wrong.
doing it your way, i could change (really, declare for the first time, but it's really a change) face the first time i'm attacked but make no reaction. when the second attacker comes, i can react and change face again. is that intended?
|
|
|
Facing
Feb 15, 2013 15:37:03 GMT -5
Post by mister frau blucher on Feb 15, 2013 15:37:03 GMT -5
as you said, most of the time, the facing doesn't matter until you are defending. it is the same with my wording. my way is dynamic also. you can change your facing as part of your reaction. pretty much everytime i'm hit the first time, i attempt to dodge (react). i can't imagine how anyone survives otherwise. changing face and reaction line up pretty well. at least, they do when i use the battlemap. maybe i'm doing something wrong. doing it your way, i could change (really, declare for the first time, but it's really a change) face the first time i'm attacked but make no reaction. when the second attacker comes, i can react and change face again. is that intended? Interesting. This is why it is good to have other eyes on what I am doing. Changing facing is not a Reaction. So you could establish your facing on the first attack (not a change, because you had no facing to begin with). On the next attack, you could opt to react, in this case Dodge to an adjacent, empty hex - but you would keep your facing. The facing is established once, during the first attack, and maintained the rest of your opponent's Turn. You could also Dodge the first attack. You would have no facing at this point, since you did not take the attack. You would establish your facing on the next attack you receive. This is how i have been playing. But maybe your facing SHOULD be established by the first attack, even if you Dodge. This might be simpler to put into wording.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Facing
Feb 15, 2013 15:45:10 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 15:45:10 GMT -5
your facing MUST change when you dodge. you've changed hexes. (using true-column grid) if orc1 attacks from the North hex and i dodge to the NW hex, am i still facing North? what if i dodged to the SW and there is an empty space between me and the attacker i just dodged? a Reaction dictates a Facing change.
a counterattack would definitely dictate facing.
also, even though this is not in the official rules, i think many people have some sort of Parry reaction. a Parry would definitely dictate facing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Facing
Feb 15, 2013 15:50:08 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 15:50:08 GMT -5
i've looked over the original Melee rules. it seems to me that LAW developed Reactions to take the place of Facing, Dodging, and Defending in Melee.
i'm not real crazy about adding Facing back because a defender with 3 attackers is already at a disadvantage. he can only React to one of those attackers.
however, i can deal with facing if it is kept simple and clear.
(i LOVE the Reactions so please don't drop those in favor of Facing.)
|
|
|
Facing
Feb 15, 2013 16:39:50 GMT -5
Post by mister frau blucher on Feb 15, 2013 16:39:50 GMT -5
your facing MUST change when you dodge. you've changed hexes. (using true-column grid) if orc1 attacks from the North hex and i dodge to the NW hex, am i still facing North? what if i dodged to the SW and there is an empty space between me and the attacker i just dodged? a Reaction dictates a Facing change. a counterattack would definitely dictate facing. also, even though this is not in the official rules, i think many people have some sort of Parry reaction. a Parry would definitely dictate facing. Why must the facing change when you Dodge? When you Dodge, you are moving away from that attacker {sidenote - you cannot Dodge into a NW hex if the orc is in the N hex - as the rules state you must Dodge away from the attacker, so this make only three hexes available, assuming they are unoccupied.}. You don't have to spin while doing so. In your example, you are attacked by an orc in the N hex. Say you have already been attacked by an orc in the NW hex and established your facing as NW. You Dodge the N orc's attack, moving to the SE hex. Why must this dictate a facing change?
|
|
|
Facing
Feb 15, 2013 16:45:00 GMT -5
Post by mister frau blucher on Feb 15, 2013 16:45:00 GMT -5
i've looked over the original Melee rules. it seems to me that LAW developed Reactions to take the place of Facing, Dodging, and Defending in Melee. i'm not real crazy about adding Facing back because a defender with 3 attackers is already at a disadvantage. he can only React to one of those attackers. however, i can deal with facing if it is kept simple and clear. (i LOVE the Reactions so please don't drop those in favor of Facing.) It also was developed in response to Engagement. In Melee when you move beside somebody, you must stop moving as you are now Engaged. Engaged goes way back in its wargaming roots, and some people like it, some don't. I like it in company or battalion-sized actions, where contact with an enemy slows a larger unit down. For one on one sized actions, though, it doesn't make as much sense, as there is no force field that stops your movement. However, you can't run willy-nilly through a group of armed men, so the Counterattack Reaction. You can try to run by them, but they can strike at you as you do so. Facing is something separate; it won't replace Reactions. It simply has a bearing on where you are able to deploy your shield when facing more than one opponent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Facing
Feb 15, 2013 17:45:42 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 17:45:42 GMT -5
In your example, you are attacked by an orc in the N hex. Say you have already been attacked by an orc in the NW hex and established your facing as NW. You Dodge the N orc's attack, moving to the SE hex. Why must this dictate a facing change? as far as Dodging _away_ from the attacker goes...oops, i missed that. i've been dodging all around my attackers. i'll have to correct that. that situation doesn't dictate a facing change. what if NW orc was NE instead. then my facing was established when he attacked. i'm facing NE. orc N attacks and i dodge to the SE. NE orc is now directly N of me and orc N is now an empty space away from me to the NW. yet my facing is still NE and i can't change it? that sucks. the notion that i could Dodge but not be able to change my facing is ridiculous. Do you care to address how Counterattack would not dictate a facing change, instead?
|
|
|
Facing
Feb 15, 2013 17:58:59 GMT -5
Post by mister frau blucher on Feb 15, 2013 17:58:59 GMT -5
In your example, you are attacked by an orc in the N hex. Say you have already been attacked by an orc in the NW hex and established your facing as NW. You Dodge the N orc's attack, moving to the SE hex. Why must this dictate a facing change? as far as Dodging _away_ from the attacker goes...oops, i missed that. i've been dodging all around my attackers. i'll have to correct that. that situation doesn't dictate a facing change. what if NW orc was NE instead. then my facing was established when he attacked. i'm facing NE. orc N attacks and i dodge to the SE. NE orc is now directly N of me and orc N is now an empty space away from me to the NW. yet my facing is still NE and i can't change it? that sucks. the notion that i could Dodge but not be able to change my facing is ridiculous. Do you care to address how Counterattack would not dictate a facing change, instead? Ridiculous seems a bit strong to describe it. When you are Dodging, you are stepping away more or less, usually backwards, so it makes sense that you would not spin around. However, i can see the wisdom that if you are moving away, you might change your perspective and therefore facing. Still playtesting this idea through, but honestly haven't come up with a situation where your facing would obviously change as you back away from an attack. As far as Counterattacking, you could say that you are limited to Counterattacking only what moves through your front three hexes; but that seems needlessly restrictive. So when Counterattacking, your facing would be re-set.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Facing
Feb 15, 2013 18:16:53 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 18:16:53 GMT -5
does my facing returns to the 'undeclared' state at the beginning of each round?
also, when the first attack occurs, can i choose any facing direction i want? let's say there is an orc at NW, N, and NE. NW-orc attacks me and misses. do i have to face directly NW or can i choose to face N, thereby keeping all 3 orcs in my front 3 hexes?
|
|
|
Facing
Feb 16, 2013 11:16:25 GMT -5
Post by mister frau blucher on Feb 16, 2013 11:16:25 GMT -5
does my facing returns to the 'undeclared' state at the beginning of each round? also, when the first attack occurs, can i choose any facing direction i want? let's say there is an orc at NW, N, and NE. NW-orc attacks me and misses. do i have to face directly NW or can i choose to face N, thereby keeping all 3 orcs in my front 3 hexes? The whole point of the Facing rule is to reintroduce the tactical aspects of flanking from Melee, but in a simpler manner. With it only being relevant when you are defending, maybe it is not as simple as it seems to me. But this is why we throw things out there - to get another perspective. As stated above, facing is irrelevant during your own Turn. You move and you act. At the beginning of your opponent's Turn it is irrelevant as well. It is only relevant when you are attacked, or you Counterattack someone moving by you. At all other times, it is "undeclared." When first attacked, yes you can face any direction you want, including AWAY from the attack, if you feel that a more powerful enemy might try to flank you, so that you can bring your shield to bear against him. And the more I think about it, i like the idea of retaining the same facing as you Dodge away, if it has already been established by a previous attack. And likewise, you are restricted to counterattacking in your front hexes, if you have already had to establish your facing from a previous attack during this opponent's Turn. These add to the tactical dimensions, I think. but we'll see how more playtesting goes...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Facing
Feb 16, 2013 16:08:40 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 16:08:40 GMT -5
i am ok with facing remaining unchanged by Dodge (and even Counterattack, if it were so) because facing is re-set to the undeclared state at the beginning of each round. for some reason, i lost sight of that.
i like the Counterattack resticted to the front hexes bit. Perhaps Dodge should be restricted similarly? that makes sense to me.
i really think it would be simpler to just do full facing. declare it at the end of every Movement Phase (after movement if any, before actions and reactions). i don't see what is gained (in simplicity or tactical advantage) by leaving it undeclared at the start of every round until i'm attacked. if enemies had a habit of suddenly appearing out of thin air in an adjacent hex (like teleporting), i could see some value in it tactically...but that seems to steal some tactical value from teleporting.
...or using Speed to quickly get around to someone's backside.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Facing
Feb 16, 2013 16:34:15 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 16:34:15 GMT -5
|
|