Fencer example

[oldwolf]

Originally Posted by Skarg

I've done Defend both ways (works side/rear, or doesn't work side/rear). It's not that big a deal if Defend only gives one extra die, but if you stack it with this new talent, the talent's effects dwarf the +2/+4 for attacking from side/rear.

(I would not let the fencer abilities do things except against melee/jab attacks from the front.)

Especially since Master Fencer adds still another die for a total of six when one chooses the defend option.

[larsdangly]

Does anyone know if defending to the side or rear has been addressed in the rules or some official voice in an errata? It strikes me as something that should obviously not be allowed.

[hcobb]

Can you dodge a shot in the back?

[oldwolf]

The only thing I can think of that might give a clue to SJ's thoughts, short of him telling us, is the single die roll a person makes in response to someone attempting to initiate HTH against them. It is made in all cases, however its most extremely successful defense roll (a six) is disallowed and the die is rolled again if the attempt came in from the rear. Side hex sides get the full benefit of this defensive roll and the rear hex side still gets one chance in five of some defense.

[oldwolf]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Can you dodge a shot in the back?

Why not? Dodge could easily be ziz-zaging while you move, something one could do moving away.

[Chris Rice]

I've always allowed Defending against attacks from any direction, seeing it as a generalised protective posture or attitude. The attackers already get bonuses from the side and the rear, so to take away the Defence bonus from those directions reduces the usefulness of the Defend option too much for me. It also adds an unnecessary complexity.

[oldwolf]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

I've always allowed Defending against attacks from any direction, seeing it as a generalised protective posture or attitude. The attackers already get bonuses from the side and the rear, so to take away the Defence bonus from those directions reduces the usefulness of the Defend option too much for me. It also adds an unnecessary complexity.

Since my initial question on this, I have read over everyones comments and reread the relevant rules.

The rule states " Bonus to defend: All melee attacks against a Fencer who has weapon(s) in hand are at -1 DX. If a Fencer chooses the Defend option, attackers must roll an extra die when attacking."

Further, the expertise rules for other weapons also state: "Bonus to defend: All melee attacks against an Expert who has weapon in hand are at -1 DX. If an Expert chooses the Defend option, attackers must roll an extra die when attacking."

All melee attacks clearly means ALL melee attacks. If the author wanted limits he would have stated them. He does not, repeatedly. I was over thinking things with my original question and assumptions. You are right sir, I was adding unnecessary complexity.

Note to self: Oldwolf, remember KISS"

[larsdangly]

Perhaps, but the rules in ITL can be a tricky mixture of very specific and vague. The game depends on chess-like specificity to how everyone moves and acts, but there are tons of places where some specific situation isn't addressed. E.g., there was a thread active a couple of days ago where we were trying to sort out whether a creature on the ground but capable of flight could disengage 'up'. There is no rule explaining how this should be handled, so you have to interpolate based on principles you see expressed in other rules. This is just the nature of the beast. Anyway, I believe it comes down to a judgement call. My judgement is that it makes no sense to let people get a defense or parry bonus vs. things coming at them through a rear hex side. But if you think it is all good then you should permit it.

[oldwolf]

Well, parry is a whole different thing from defense option. That I am still thinking about.

[hcobb]

Are fencers trained to react to attacks from all around them or only from a well defined forward foe?