chase and fly's attempt at a wargame

[Icosahedron]

Well, from my POV I was hoping for:

1. a consensus opinion of my rules ideas from multiple interested parties so I can improve my rules, and

2. an ideas swap with other rule tweakers so I can add to my rules.

I'm not sure that's gonna happen here.

However, whilst I'm here...
I was looking at a cinematic rule to allow a character to dive through covering fire.
Effectively it would be a Trot Move to the edge of the field of fire and a dive to the other side using Evasion DMs. You end up prone.
Additionally, following a successful Dex roll the diver can make a single snapshot during the dive. The shot uses the Evasion DM as an additional negative to hit DM.
What do you think?

 

[Icosahedron]

I like the idea of failure consequences, though I don't want to get rule-bloat with a list. I can't imagine a more critical failure than a belly flop in the shooter's line of fire! :rofl:

What ideas do you have for adds/mods to AHL/Snapshot?

 

[Icosahedron]

As for ideas on AHL/SnapShot. Yeah, I have a few but have been not posting them because of one reason.
My thoughts make both games more miniature/decision/AP intensive which I believe is the opposite of what you and flykiller were wanting to do. (see my extended AP list in an earlier post

One thought that I did have about both games, (again more miniature oreintated) is to have 3 levels of play:
Quick easy, anyone could play with just a few choices in the beginning and very limited but flexible choices during play.
Kind of as is now with a few rules for clarifying and making both games interchangable & to include RPG cross over guides.
Detailed, gritty, everything plotted/paid for in AP's to include sequencing, morale, combat and noncombat actions and etc.

Well, now that we've moved away from 'we're going to design a game and here's the contract' towards 'here's a rule idea I had, can anyone pick holes in it?' I don't see any reason not to post your ideas. Apparently there's nobody here but us chickens. You're not outnumbered any more, so it doesn't matter what we discuss.
My thoughts on the game are pretty fluid and I might just decide to incorporate something I would never have thought of alone, and I can act as a sounding board for your ideas just as much as you can for mine, whether they're my cup of tea or not. And better still if we do get more people visiting.

What do you mean by RPG crossover? I want to integrate it more with Traveller PCs, stats and role-play. Is that what you mean? Maybe it's something we can work on.

For me, AHL is a 'level' of play in itself - I might insert it into a Striker game if combatants enter a building, for example, and I'd like to devise a sub-level of combat detailing a blow by blow account of the 'brawl' that ensues when two AHL characters enter the same square.

Or it might go the other way: maybe two characters argue, then scuffle, then a barroom brawl breaks out, then the cops are called, then the local rednecks dig out their gun stashes and a Striker firefight ensues. Maybe the original PCs sneak away in the confusion...

Do you have any suggestions on playing out a brawl?

 

[Icosahedron]

Yeah, really really sorry about that getting to carried away with the legal mumbo jumbo.

No worries. Just recapping for any lurkers (Please join in if you're out there).

Right with the first guess, Yeah.
Basically my idea on this is similar to the way Warhammer RPG handled it in 3rd Ed. Basically you Role Play and do combat just like the rules in the RPG part. When you want to deal with masses or have set move and react detail combat you switch to the miniature part. They are similar in general but the miniature rules leaves out the non-combat type things. It also allows more maneuvering to take place. Not as fluid as a story or movie but very controlable.

I haven't played many games other than Traveller (early D&D and Runequest is about the limit) so you'll need to spell out any non-Trav references. This sounds similar to my system: Roleplay Trav until you need to detail a combat situation, then bring out the miniatures combat rules, then revert to core Trav to roleplay the consequences. I've always had minitures on the table in my RPGs, right from my D&D days.

AHL is very close to the concept of a science fiction on ships miniature game to me. SnapShot was kind of a bit of both RPG and miniatures, but beginner level if you will. It left out lots of things that I would like to see in a miniature set.

I don't think AHL is limited to ships. It lost something of the RPG angle by using Striker damage but I like the Striker penetration system, and one of the things I'm working on is to figure a way to reconcile Striker damage with Trav damage. (maybe it's been done elsewhere) I also need a way to incorporate RPG actions into combat ("I scoop up some sand into his eyes - that should lose me an action point or two, but I should get an advantage on the next phase, cos he can't see me and his eyes hurt like hell.") But I need a very freestyle CT way of doing it. Rules-bloat is anathema to my game concept.
Maybe we should start with a list each of what we think is missing and work on the common ones - though I suppose we're doing that already.

Striker, though I liked it, to me there was several other minature games out there that were more statisifying to play. It was cool to build your own troops, but it came down to math and knownledge and you would win. Then there would be arguments about who did what correctly or not on the building of said troops, etc. I did not like spending time arguing about things like that. I just wanted to play.

Yeah, the troop and vehicle building aspect is what attracted me to Striker - and the fact that it's canon CT.
Imbalances have never really bothered me because my games have never been competitive. I don't have players taking opposing teams, it's usually the PCs together fighting a bunch of enemies controlled by the GM - RPG style. This is why I was only lukewarm about the boardgame design thing. At present my Trav gaming is entirely PBEM.

 

[Icosahedron]

The playing card brawl system sounds good. I can't pick any holes in it at first pass - except how do you equate the outcome to Trav stats and damage?

I don't mean to diss it out of hand, but I prefer to stick as close to Trav principles as possible, and that generally means dice - and if possible 2D6.

I like some of the aspects you included there - knockouts, breathers, opportunity to surrender or walk away, dodges punches and kicks, but I'd like to include other things like bottles, chairs and knives, or guns going off in a struggle.

There comes a point when a large brawl is a small melee and a melee with firearms becomes field combat. I'd like a set of rules that allows the GM to move seamlessly from one to the other, so I don't want my detailed brawling rules and detailed melee rules to be radically different from the AHL core rules, just a more detailed subset.

Yeah, I know, I want the moon - with honey on it.

 

[tbeard1999]

You might want to take a look at Lace & Steel, an Australian RPG from long ago. It had a card based dueling system that looks a lot like what you're describing. And today, you can churn out custom decks by using business card stock in your laser or inkjet printer.

 

[Icosahedron]

Not a problem. See the problem is mine
I play and own so many different games that ususally when I make up rules I try and keep them generic so that I can use them anywhere. Also this is a bit more cinematic versus hard core miniatures or RPG dice rolling. It kind of changed up the pace once in awhile.

Makes sense.

As for damage, Hmm, lets see, each knockout takes stat to zero.
And/or, instead of cards being discarded from your hand, you take the damage to your stat.
And/or, the Ace unblocked is a straight knockout/stun, no matter what your current stats are.
And I will have to think some more on it before I can post some other ideas.

This raises another pet problem of mine. Do fisticuffs and tranqs do 'real' damage that takes days/weeks to recuperate? I was wondering about 'virtual damage' working by reducing APs to zero instead of reducing stats/hit points. That way, you get 'grogginess' as APs are reduced and recovered, but no long term damage. I'm gonna work on that.

Ah, there are some rules for that, but you have to make up cards to represent them or else you start having to remember what card means what. Thats, why I said I was only going to explain a fist-a-cuff first. Other wise it gets bogged down real fast for first timers.

Well, as I said, I'm not intending to go with cards unless I have to, but I certainly want a quick and flexible system like that. I've been checking out a few freebie games on the net (is 'Indie' the right term?) looking for easy-play ideas that will tailor in.

Welcome Ty, the more the merrier.

 

[tbeard1999]

This raises another pet problem of mine. Do fisticuffs and tranqs do 'real' damage that takes days/weeks to recuperate? I was wondering about 'virtual damage' working by reducing APs to zero instead of reducing stats/hit points. That way, you get 'grogginess' as APs are reduced and recovered, but no long term damage. I'm gonna work on that.

I make brawling damage "stun" damage. It works like regular damage, but you get it all back after you rest. I then increase the brawling damage to allow for an average of ~2-3 good hits to settle a fight. (See below).

In a particularly cinematic campaign, I might let players make a dramatic move and immediately recover all stun points. This power works once per game, but the player has to describe the move -- it must be dramatic and within the bounds of fight movie cliches. For instance, Bruse Lee rips off his shirt in the climactic fight with Chuck Norris in Way of the Dragon. Bruce Leroy has a moment of clarity when Sho-Nuff is drowning him in The Last Dragon. Etc.

Well, as I said, I'm not intending to go with cards unless I have to, but I certainly want a quick and flexible system like that. I've been checking out a few freebie games on the net (is 'Indie' the right term?) looking for easy-play ideas that will tailor in.

Welcome Ty, the more the merrier.

Thank you sir.

As someone who ran a LOT of Fantasy Trip campaigns, I offer this cautionary observation. Engaging combat systems --and there is none better than TFT's IMHO--can be a lot of fun, but they tend to overwhelm the game and convert the RPG into a series of skirmish battles. So beware.

Also, the more engaging a 1:1 dueling system is, the more fun it is for the character engaged in the duel. But this usually comes at a cost in time. Long battles, no matter how much fun for the player(s) involved, can be excrutiating for the other players.

So these days, my preference is for mechanics that play fast and that produce relatively decisive outcomes. Thus, I prefer an all-or-nothing armor mechanic (see my Combat System C for details) over an armor-absorbs-damage mechanic. Even if I want PCs to be able to take serious damage before dying, I like systems where they have a high likelihood of being KO'd by a good hit (like CT's damage system).

I'll try to read the previous posts and comment further if I have anything worth saying.

 

[tbeard1999]

Why I'm Not Wild About Action Points...

Okay, I've skimmed the thread and it looks to me like y'all are bearing down on a re-write of Snapshot or AHL, with action points, etc. Here's my off-the-cuff list of reasons I'm not wild about action points, along with some observations/comments. Not intending to crap on your parade, but you might want to address these concerns if possible (or not).

My CV: Been a wargamer longer than a roleplayer ~32 years vs 30 years, if I've got it figured right. Designed one series of commercial miniature rules (A Fistful of TOWs, FFT2 and the upcoming FFT3, which will include a sci-fi supplement). Have released a dozen or so sets of free miniature rules (and scores that were far too awful to ever see the light of day) on the internet about assorted odd topics. Been a CT referee since the beginning. I have some very strongly held opinions about what makes a good game design, but I'm also willing to admit that most of them are highly subjective. Anyhow, on to the comments:

1. Seems to me that any game that requires tracing APs will necessarily limit the number of figures involved to a dozen per side. So this is what I'd call an MTM game, (man to man), not a skirmish game proper (where each side can have scores of figures).

2. AP systems require that only one figure act at a time. Even with interrupts, only one figure is actually doing something. This has several implications:

a. It slows the game down. If each figure consumes an average of (say) one minute per game turn, then a battle with 12 men on each side will probably take 30 minutes per turn. Twice as many figures will double the time required. This also seriously limits the number of figures that the system can easily accomodate.

b. Modern infantry tactics require that soldiers act in unison. An AP system seems to me to be singularly ill-suited for modeling such tactics IMHO. There are several reasons, but the main one is that in AP systems, each figure does his entire action (perhaps subject to interrupts) and this just destroys the feel of simultaneous operations. I think that a tactical game has to have a carefully crafted sequence of play to accurately model real world infantry tactics. For an example of how I'd approach the subject without APs, see my Combat System C in the CT forum. http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=17031 (I am *not* trying to hijack the thread. Merely showing how I put together a sequence of play that I think can model infantry tactics like bounding overwatch, suppression fire tactics, etc.)

c. I've always found AP systems to just "feel" too artificial.

3. As players of Fistful of TOWs are aware, I prefer single die mechanics. (Combat System C uses 2d6, but that's *only* because it's a CT plugin; I'd prefer to use 1d10 for all 2d6 rolls). The main advantage is "batch processing" -- you can make a large number of rolls at the same time. If the system is well designed, you can make two or three series of rolls extremely quickly. For instance, this is the to hit system for my d10 version of Combat System 3:

--Roll 1d10 to hit. Automatic weapons get multiple dice.

--For each hit, roll 1d10 to penetrate.

--For each penetrating hit, roll 1d10+damage modifier for damage.

Three fast rolls, successive rolls using dice that succeeded in the previous roll. I strongly recommend the mechanic. However, I understand that Traveller has mostly been a 2d6 kinda game.

4. AP systems are very multiplayer game unfriendly because only one figure (and its player) is doing something at a time.

5. I'll always pick fast and fun mechanics over detailed and painful mechanics, even if the fast and fun mechanics are less "realistic" (whatever that means).

6. I believe that a game should show *only* the amount of detail that is important for the fight. So in FFT, for instance, a tank stand is removed whenever it is out of the current fight. The rules don't distinguish between a catastrophic ammo hit, a damaged track or a sudden uncontrollable desire to retreat. They're all "kills" in game terms. An RPG combat system needs far more detail than a wargame. Seems to me that a wargame could get by with Combat Effective, Combat Impaired and Combat Ineffective.

7. I design for the most common conditions. I.e., the most common conditions are built in to the mechanics. If, in most combats, a figure will be in cover, then I'd assume that in the combat charts. Then, I'd give a bonus to hit someone in the open. That kind of stuff.

8. In the Real World, combat always takes far longer than it should. So I'd avoid turns that model incredibly short periods of time.

More to come, I'm sure.

 

[Icosahedron]

Okay, I've skimmed the thread and it looks to me like y'all are bearing down on a re-write of Snapshot or AHL, with action points, etc. Here's my off-the-cuff list of reasons I'm not wild about action points, along with some observations/comments. Not intending to crap on your parade, but you might want to address these concerns if possible (or not).

I'm sure we'll each bring our own contribution to what the thread is about, but yes, fundamentally it is a matter of taking Snapshot/AHL as a base, warts and all, and then trying to add or subtract a few things to make a better game. Dave is more interested in Snapshot while I'm more interested in AHL, but the two games have a lot of overlap so that's cool.
Personally, I don't want a complete re-write, or to design an entirely new game, I just want to tweak AHL and fill in a few gaps with houserules, but for the game still to be recognisably AHL. For me, this thread is a sounding board for my own tweaks and a source for some new ones.

1. Seems to me that any game that requires tracing APs will necessarily limit the number of figures involved to a dozen per side. So this is what I'd call an MTM game, (man to man), not a skirmish game proper (where each side can have scores of figures).

Yes, AHL fills a particular role in my Traveller game; that of resolving a running firefight or melee between a handful of characters. As you say, it doesn't scale up well - I use Striker for that - and it doesn't scale down well to a two-man brawl. (This is a hole to be filled, and this too, might require a new game rather than trying to add detail to AHL - though I'd rather not do it with cards.) Nevertheless, I think AHL does what it's supposed to do quite well - hence my using it as a base.

2. AP systems require that only one figure act at a time. Even with interrupts, only one figure is actually doing something. This has several implications:

My understanding of AHL is that actions within a phase take place simultaneously. I've not done enough playtesting to figure how well this works and I'm not sure if it's the same in Snapshot, but my overall take is that AHL is a RPG not a wargame, and hence the GM retains a lot of power to arbitrate (dictate) the outcome of any clash of action points.
Its use of short timescales also helps to alleviate some of the problems of alternate play.

a. It slows the game down. If each figure consumes an average of (say) one minute per game turn, then a battle with 12 men on each side will probably take 30 minutes per turn. Twice as many figures will double the time required. This also seriously limits the number of figures that the system can easily accomodate.

True, but I only use AHL for small knots of figures, so it doesn't matter too much.

b. Modern infantry tactics require that soldiers act in unison. An AP system seems to me to be singularly ill-suited for modeling such tactics IMHO. There are several reasons, but the main one is that in AP systems, each figure does his entire action (perhaps subject to interrupts) and this just destroys the feel of simultaneous operations. I think that a tactical game has to have a carefully crafted sequence of play to accurately model real world infantry tactics. For an example of how I'd approach the subject without APs, see my Combat System C in the CT forum. http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=17031 (I am *not* trying to hijack the thread. Merely showing how I put together a sequence of play that I think can model infantry tactics like bounding overwatch, suppression fire tactics, etc.)

I'm not sure to what extent infantry tactics applies to a local affray of three or four persons per side, often inside a building. It's more applicable to a Striker-level field skirmish.
My use of Snapshot/AHL is mostly for figuring what happens when my band of PCs meets a group of thugs.

4. AP systems are very multiplayer game unfriendly because only one figure (and its player) is doing something at a time.

5. I'll always pick fast and fun mechanics over detailed and painful mechanics, even if the fast and fun mechanics are less "realistic" (whatever that means).

6. I believe that a game should show *only* the amount of detail that is important for the fight. So in FFT, for instance, a tank stand is removed whenever it is out of the current fight. The rules don't distinguish between a catastrophic ammo hit, a damaged track or a sudden uncontrollable desire to retreat. They're all "kills" in game terms. An RPG combat system needs far more detail than a wargame. Seems to me that a wargame could get by with Combat Effective, Combat Impaired and Combat Ineffective.

I agree with all of this, and I think the Snapshot/AHL rules are effective over the range of play they are designed for - a RPG combat situation with up to half a dozen figures per side in a cluttered and often non-military environment.

 

[Icosahedron]

OK, you know what sucks, not being able to find your notes several years later that you wrote. :devil:

Tell me about it! I get that all the time.
One day, I'll get the time to consolidate all my scrappy notes into a single, indexed volume of houserules.
One day...

I still left room for GM decisions, since I don't like RPG combat systems that tell you every little detail to do. (Thats for miniature games

Agreed.

Please feel free to do any of the following in any order that you wish:

Destroy the rules posted
Comment on rules posted
Use the rules posted (just give credit as due)

How about 'borrow a couple of key concepts and adapt them to dice play'?

It seems to be a well thought out and complete system. I don't think I can improve on it. I don't want to use it myself, but there are a few ideas in there that I can bear in mind when I seek or create a set of fistfight rules - thanks.

Please note: I have not proof read for spelling on the above, only game play. Thanks

Makes no odds to me - if I can read it, it'll do.

 

[Icosahedron]

It's a good game mechanic, Dave, and all done with a deck of cards. Great for guys in the field.

I haven't had time to give the concept much thought as yet, but here goes:

I like the way it plays fast.
I like how it describes different types of attack (punches, kicks, throws, blocks, etc).
I like the way you have natural lulls in the proceedings with opportunity to break off.
I like how there's not much book keeping
I like the option to submit.
I like the maneuvering rules
I like the dirty tricks inclusion
I like the bit about disarming

I don't like the playing cards for Traveller.

I'm currently thinking about reducing APs instead of stats to represent 'stun damage'.
I might even reduce APs as part of real damage, too. I've never really liked how you can run around the arena unhindered when you only have 3HP left. It's not quite as Pythonesque as Runequest, but...

 

[Icosahedron]

Update: I'm digesting some reading material just now, I'll respond in due course.

 

[Icosahedron]

Those dice conversions look good, Dave, I might be able to incorporate something like this.

Right now, I'm looking at a number of different approaches, yours is one, my AP removal is another, I've found some non-Trav martial arts rules that look promising, and I just got a copy of En Garde, whose fencing scripts present another option.

Needless to say, all this will take some time to mull over, so I think I'll come back to brawling later, if that's ok with you?

Meanwhile, I was looking at AHL rule 8, about carrying or dragging fallen comrades. Dunno about Snapshot, but in AHL there is no connection with characteristics. So...

What if we assume that strength is related vaguely to body weight, and so in order to carry/drag as per the rules, your current strength needs to exceed the initial strength of the body? This could lead to a situation where a very strong person might drag two bodies, or a very weak/wounded person might struggle (or fail) to drag even one. Perhaps, in the case of assistance, the combined strength of the draggers must exceed the combined strength of the bodies.
If you are not strong enough, you take longer to drag the body, perhaps adding 1 AP for each strength point deficit?

 

[DaveChase]

...

Meanwhile, I was looking at AHL rule 8, about carrying or dragging fallen comrades. Dunno about Snapshot, but in AHL there is no connection with characteristics. So...

What if we assume that strength is related vaguely to body weight, and so in order to carry/drag as per the rules, your current strength needs to exceed the initial strength of the body? This could lead to a situation where a very strong person might drag two bodies, or a very weak/wounded person might struggle (or fail) to drag even one. Perhaps, in the case of assistance, the combined strength of the draggers must exceed the combined strength of the bodies.
If you are not strong enough, you take longer to drag the body, perhaps adding 1 AP for each strength point deficit?

That looks good, and I have only one suggestion (which might make it more complicated than you want)

An individual who is strong is not always big/heavy and someone who is big and heavy not always strong. So I would suggest that the 'dead weight' body being dragged has their average of Str and End as the check factor.

Also according to various Traveller rules you can not carry more than your Str in KG before becoming over burden. If you are not wanting to 'weigh' every piece of equipment on the body being dragged, I would suggest that you assume that the a normal loaded combat loaded individual is double weight. If they are wearing combat armor or even (ouch) power armor then their weight needs to be increased.

So, yeah, your suggestion is quick and very easy for players to grasp. I would just make sure to consider at the very least how much equipment/armor the 'dead weight' body has on it.

Dave Chase

 

[Icosahedron]

As you obviously appreciate, I'm looking to enhance the existing rule a little to incorporate characteristics and a bit of uncertainty, but without over-complicating the issue.

Using Str vs ((Str+End)/2) is a good idea for the reasons you suggest, I think I'll adopt that, thanks. I'm not so sure about the extra complication of equipment, though.

Since the Str+End/2 thing is pretty nebulous, it could include 'a reasonable amount' of equipment, and the Referee could step in (as always) in the case of something unusual such as power armour or a pack full of 'acquired' gold bullion. :smirk:

As a referee, I would generally allow rescuing a fallen comrade as an exception to the burden rules - though I might limit the additional carried equipment of both parties. "Your partner or your ammo/bullion?" :devil:

Maybe if you have the required strength, you can drag or carry the body, but otherwise you are limited to dragging only, and at progressively slower speeds for weaker people.

Do you think there should be a limit at which dragging a body is impossible, or should it simply add 1AP per Str deficit, rolling on to multiple movement phases if necessary, thereby allowing the petite female doctor to spend a couple of phases dragging the unconscious barbarian hero out of the line of fire?

 

[Icosahedron]

I hope I didn't offend Ty.
We haven't heard from him since I began debating the use of APs with him.

 

[DaveChase]

...
Since the Str+End/2 thing is pretty nebulous, it could include 'a reasonable amount' of equipment, and the Referee could step in (as always) in the case of something unusual such as power armour or a pack full of 'acquired' gold bullion.

As a referee, I would generally allow rescuing a fallen comrade as an exception to the burden rules - though I might limit the additional carried equipment of both parties. "Your partner or your ammo/bullion?" :devil:

Ah, the choices a player has to make, yes that is good. I don't like automatic, you done it decisions. And I don't like roll for everything games. So I think (IMO) that you have found a good balance.

Maybe if you have the required strength, you can drag or carry the body, but otherwise you are limited to dragging only, and at progressively slower speeds for weaker people.

Do you think there should be a limit at which dragging a body is impossible, or should it simply add 1AP per Str deficit, rolling on to multiple movement phases if necessary, thereby allowing the petite female doctor to spend a couple of phases dragging the unconscious barbarian hero out of the line of fire?

I think that you are are using AP and appling an additional cost factor for the weaker to pull the bigger then you are fine.

And Here is a 'HEROIC' type suggestion: Say the individual does not have enough Str to pull a fallen comrade. Then allow them to roll versus END and if they succeed they can drag that individual 1 square/space. They roll for each turn that they attempt this.
Allow modifiers to the Heroic rule like:
Best Friend in the world
Only individual that can do X, and X is needed or they all die
Lover, spouse, child, parent
Code (one that they have been actively roleplaying not just one written done on their PC sheet)

I hope I didn't offend Ty.
We haven't heard from him since I began debating the use of APs with him.

Nah, He has been busy in RL for a bit. But you could PM him and flykiller to see if they would like to input any to these discussions.
I am getting the impression after a year of trying that most individuals on this forum are more RPGer's and are only interested in combat related to that style of gaming.

Dave Chase

 

[Icosahedron]

Giving a little more thought to brawling, I've decided to run with a simple extension to AHL just to give players an option, then make brawling the subject of a whole new ruleset, in addition to Striker and AHL, to focus down onto single combat if desired.
(A project for a later date).

My proposed AHL addition is effectively this:


Rule 17D and 17E, Melee Addendum.

D. Brawls: A brawl is a melee in which the combatants occupy a single square and are effectively in constant physical contact. When engaged in a brawl, characters may only use unarmed combat, daggers or clubs. Sharp weapons may be used as daggers, blunt weapons or firearms are used as clubs.
Firearms may go off in a brawl. If the person holding a firearm rolls boxcars to hit, it has shot his enemy (or a preferred target), if he rolls snake eyes, it has shot himself.

NB. This leads to a situation in which characters with longer weapons may want to keep range at adjacent squares whereas brawlers will want to get in close. Whichever character has the highest melee factor chooses the range for the phase, unless stunned or unconscious, of course. If the brawler can remain close, his opponent’s weapon is classed as a brawling weapon both for damage and for determining Melee Factor.

E. Fatigue: Melee rounds create fatigue identical to, and cumulative with, trotting fatigue.

 

[tbeard1999]

I hope I didn't offend Ty.
We haven't heard from him since I began debating the use of APs with him.

Oh no, not at all. I just got wrapped up in other stuff. And my wargame design time is being monopolized by A Fistful of TOWs 3. I've been ordered by my collaborator not to expend game design energy on anything but FFT3. As he's done the lion's share of heavy lifting, it seem wise for me to agree.