Help support TMP


"Maximum modifier value for TSATF?" Topic


15 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to The Sword and The Flame Message Board



365 hits since 5 Aug 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

OSL200005 Aug 2017 1:26 p.m. PST

Do players of TSATF use a max modifier value when figuring out melee? It seems the british reg forces could max out with a very high melee modifier. Curious if anyone places a cap on the highest value they can obtain. Hope this makes sense.

Personal logo ColCampbell Supporting Member of TMP05 Aug 2017 1:55 p.m. PST

We don't (And we helped Larry develop the set.). The modifiers, both positive and negative (if any) are cumulative. Tends to help the British keep the natives from coming over the wall, don'cha know. grin

Jim

Personal logo chicklewis Supporting Member of TMP05 Aug 2017 2:34 p.m. PST

I vividly remember a Burmese War game using tVAG's supplement for Burmese troops, who as published, had a -3 for close combat (!!!)

It became clear to us that this modifier had never actually been play-tested, because it meant that the individual Burmese almost never 'retired' from combat, 2/3rds would be killed, 1/6th wounded, and only 1/6th retire.

VCarter Supporting Member of TMP05 Aug 2017 6:30 p.m. PST

Not sure you have that right. The way we do melee results for the loser is only on a natural 1 is the figure killed, 2 is a wound, and any other result is a run.

Modifiers only apply to the win/loss on the melee.

79thPA Supporting Member of TMP06 Aug 2017 5:45 a.m. PST

That's how I remember it; you need a natural 1 for a kill.

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP06 Aug 2017 7:33 a.m. PST

VCarter and 79thPa are correct.

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP06 Aug 2017 7:38 a.m. PST

I tend to not allow an excess. If a 6 can't beat a 1, then just have all the puny guys run away.
That's for privates vs Warriors of course.
If a leader is overpowering, he naturally seeks out his counterpart as soon as he is able.
If British Lancers are charging native artillerists in the rear, it's just sadism to continue. But Young Winston can always roll that 1.

OSL200006 Aug 2017 8:13 a.m. PST

Thanks for the clarification. Once again TMP has come through

SgtGuinness Supporting Member of TMP06 Aug 2017 8:57 a.m. PST

VCarter, you are correct. The mods determine who wins but the actual die roll determines the effect of the win. 1 KIA, 2 WIA, 3-6 fall back. Unless there are campaign or scenario specifics that change the core rules, like the FFL version or TSIA, etc.
Cheers,
JB

Personal logo The Virtual Armchair General Sponsoring Member of TMP07 Aug 2017 4:08 p.m. PST

By way of clarification, the rules for Burmese alluded to by Gentleman Gamer, Chick Lewis, appear in the campaign rules "The Sun Never Sets," still very much available via this link

The draconian penalty applied to the Burmese in Close Combat reflects their SEVERE reluctance actually to come to blows with anybody, and their reliance on musketry at point blank range within rifle pits behind their wooden/bamboo palisades.

To characterize these "passive aggressive" warriors as anyone relying on shock tactics to break their enemies is wander into the realms of fantasy games, thus the serious encouragement to fight as they did, but not flatly to prevent them storming out of their works if the opportunity presents itself.

TVAG

Personal logo piper909 Supporting Member of TMP07 Aug 2017 9:45 p.m. PST

There seems to be some problem with TS&TF close combat modifiers -- sometimes it makes sense for them to be cumulative, other times, not so much. That is to say, I do not allow formation modifiers like Square or Close Order to add on to defending a wall or barricade modifiers. One sort of contradicts the other.

Personal logo The Virtual Armchair General Sponsoring Member of TMP07 Aug 2017 9:58 p.m. PST

piper909!

You are dead right, Sir!

You're in Square, get that bonus.

In Close Order, get that bonus.

But adding the two is just rules lawyering of the lowest stripe. I once knew a fellow who insisted on forming his mounted Lancers in Square in order to pile up bonuses. Allow me to stress the tense: I KNEW him.

Being in Square is the maximum formation benefit by itself.

TVAG

VCarter Supporting Member of TMP08 Aug 2017 6:21 a.m. PST

Patrick,

I'm with you on the close order or square bonus, however, what about the close order +1 in fort +2. Do you give them +2 or +3?

As long as we are going there, what melee bonus would a mounted British regular cavalry office have +2, +3 or +4?

Thanks,

Vince

Personal logo The Virtual Armchair General Sponsoring Member of TMP08 Aug 2017 10:15 a.m. PST

VCarter!

To me--and perhaps only me--it's clear that when The Immortal Sergeant Brom composed TSATF, his modifiers were primarily meant to be taken singly.

Yes, Officers get a +1, but only to whatever the rest of the unit might receive. Just piling on bonuses simply makes the Brits/Europeans functionally invincible, and that was surely not his purpose.

In correspondence years ago, he indicated that his heart ran with the foxes, not the hounds. That is, he sympathized with the "Natives," consequently the rules tended subtly to help even the field.

Indeed, at the time just prior to the release of TSATF20, Larry said that he'd been keeping track of his and other's games, and realized that the "Natives" were winning twice as often as the Brits (66% to 33%)! This had been our local experience, too, and we couldn't be sure if our Brit players were simply foolish or unlucky too often.

Consequently, some of the rules changes and additions were pointedly intended to swing the needle closer to the middle.

TVAG

VCarter Supporting Member of TMP08 Aug 2017 12:57 p.m. PST

Thanks.

Vince

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.