Not Errata but I could use some help

[platimus]

ParadoxGames posted some really good suggestions in the Errata thread. While I agree those things weren't really errata and were rightly removed, I think they did indicate an area where great improvements could be made. I often have trouble parsing some of the more "long-winded" OPTIONS. I am not an "old-hand" with Melee/Wizard as it seems most here are. I suspect those fairly new to TFT would also have trouble. Or maybe I'm barely literate.

Here's an example. Not the hardest example to parse. Just a simple example from Wizard:

* (e) READY NEW WEAPON. Move up to 2 hexes, re-sling (not drop)
ready weapon and/or shield, and ready a new weapon and/or shield, or
pick up and ready a dropped weapon and/or shield where movement ends
or an adjacent hex

I think I know how to parse that one but, again, I'm not 100% sure and there are others I'm even less confident about. Here's the way I parse the example above:

*(E) READY NEW WEAPON. Move up to 2 hexes and do one of the following:
   (1)re-sling (not drop) _a_ ready weapon and/or shield and ready a new weapon and/or shield
   (2)pick up and ready a dropped weapon and/or shield where movement ends or _from_ an adjacent hex

Someone please let me know if I got that right or wrong. My "writing skills" aren't great enough for me to rewrite that in a clear way with the proper punctuation, etc. so I used (numbered) options within the main OPTION.

My point is that there are so many ands, ors, and commas _and missing connecting words_ in these longer OPTIONS that it can get quite confusing at times. I remember reading ParadoxGames suggestions and thinking, "Yeah, that would help me a lot"

[Chris Rice]

Your interpretation looks fine to me, although I'm comfortable with the PDF version.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Your interpretation looks fine to me, although I'm comfortable with the PDF version.

Thank you. I may post some more and hope for your assistance. I just noticed that Melee is a little more clear in this example because it italicizes 'or' and isn't missing connective words. The copy/paste example above was from Wizard.

[Skarg]

The part that looks odd to me about that line is the "(not drop)" part, which I'd tend not to list, or to write as "(or drop)" - the intention seems (after a bit of though and further reading) to be that if you are disengaged, you have the option to put away your weapons nicely, and to draw a weapon and a shield. But if you are engaged, you can only ready one weapon per turn, and you have to drop equipment you don't want, not nicely re-sling it so it's still on your body.

Reading your re-write, I also notice that as written it implies you can draw weapon & shield but cannot draw two weapons, but I doubt that that is actually the intention.

[GlennDoren]

I would have to agree that this is an example of something that is not a "typo", but clearly could use a rewrite. Now's the time to clarify these types of things in the rules, I would think (hope!).

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Reading your re-write, I also notice that as written it implies you can draw weapon & shield but cannot draw two weapons, but I doubt that that is actually the intention.

Just to be clear, I didn't really re-write anything. I just re-formatted it. In my mind it should be implied (and understood) that if you can re-sling a weapon AND a shield, then you can also re-sling a weapon AND a another weapon. Same goes for pick-up and ready.

Now that you mention it, I agree about changing (not drop) to (or drop).

I will now attempt to actually re-write Disengaged OPTION (E):
(picks up 3d6 and rolls versus IQ...LOL)

(e) READY A NEW WEAPON. Move up to 2 hexes then either re-sling (or drop) an item in each hand and ready a new item in each hand OR pickup and ready an item in each hand from the hex where movement ends or an adjacent hex.

As said earlier, the formatting of the Melee version is better than the Wizard version. Therefore, I took the Melee version and modified it.

[Isosceles]

On missile weapons passing through hexes with people in them on the way to or past the target. The Wizard version could use some work.

Melee Page 15:

"Exception: If you roll to miss an enemy (for instance, to hit a more important foe) and fail the roll, you do not hit the enemy you tried to miss . . . instead, the weapon falls to the ground in his hex, unless you roll a 14 or above. (This keeps a clumsy figure from “trying to miss” and hitting easily.)"

Wizard Page 13:

"When rolling to miss an enemy figure, a “miss” on the miss is not a hit;
that would encourage players to say they are trying to miss when they want
to hit. Instead, a missed “roll to miss” an enemy just fizzles in that hex."

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Isosceles

Wizard Page 13:

"When rolling to miss an enemy figure, a “miss” on the miss is not a hit;
that would encourage players to say they are trying to miss when they want
to hit. Instead, a missed “roll to miss” an enemy just fizzles in that hex."

LOL
I think I've read that in a Dr. Seus book!

I think what is/has happened here is that SJG has focused on editing the Melee rules in Melee and just the Wizard rules in Wizard. At some point down the road, the Melee stuff will basically get copy/pasted over the Melee stuff within Wizard. And hopefully at some point after that, Melee and Wizard will get copy/pasted somewhere into ITL.

[ParadoxGames]

Originally Posted by platimus

ParadoxGames posted some really good suggestions in the Errata thread. While I agree those things weren't really errata and were rightly removed, I think they did indicate an area where great improvements could be made.

I don't remember posting any errata. Not being familiar with the original TFT, I cant' compare it to the new rule set, whcih I'm finally getting to learn. Was I discussing it on the TFT Discord and someone posted it here? Since these suggestions were removed, I can't check them to try to jumpstart my memory. What were the suggestions?

[platimus]

I could have sworn it was you but maybe I'm wrong. Whoever it was said they had an English degree or something, taught technical writing, did technical writing, and currently wrote software or something to do with software. If that doesn't sound like you, I must have gotten your names mixed up.