Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop

[RobW]

Originally Posted by Skarg

I agree that in all three modes of play, it probably does not come up very often, though I imagine it could with some perfectionist players

In fact, we started back in the day on 1st edition Melee, hyper-competitive teenagers, and a favourite mode was every-man-for-himself-battle-royale arenas. In this context, yes indeed, each player was looking for greatest advantage. Our mode of play -- defend and dodge don't happen until 4 dice have been rolled* -- might reflect that desire to optimise play in a boardgame.


*way back it might have been 3 dice at -4 adjDX?

[RobW]

Originally Posted by Skarg

A) When someone acts on their adjDX, they have to do what they choose, even if someone chooses to Dodge or Defend or whatever in response.

B) When someone acts on their adjDX, if their target chooses to Dodge or Defend, the attacker can change their mind.

C) When someone acts on their adjDX, the attacker can ask if any of their targets will Defend or Dodge, and then choose whom they attack. (i.e. They could even say, "I attack Q? Not dodging? Ok, then I attack X." which method B) above would not permit.

OK. I suggest (A) is best described as "Attacker does not know target status". (B) and (C) as "Attacker knows target status".

As MikMod and I have discussed before, in the context of an archer, I think most people would agree that in the real world an archer will usually know whether his target is dodging or not.

In the case of dodging thrown weapons, and defending against melee attacks I agree it's not as clear who would know what. I don't think many would relish having separate rules for dodging as compared to defending, but more power to them if so, it seems logical to me.

I play A), which I think is both the intended way, more logical, and the cleanest/fastest way.

Cool, we play (B) "Attacker knows target status". How does this relate to the intended way, logic, and clean/fast?

SJ intention. I haven't a clue, and I'm not sure who does.

Logic. Well, as I say my view is "Attacker knows status" is clearly more logical in the case of archers/dodge. In the case of melee/defend I'm willing to say less logical, if forced(!)

Clean/fast. This seems to be the main fear I am detecting. I've played a few times as "Attacker does not know status" and usually as "Attacker knows status". There's been nothing in it in my experience. To explain that further would be a separate post I think.

[Steve Plambeck]

And around we go, where the wheel stops nobody knows :)

I mentioned in an earlier thread on the Dodge/Defend Debate but not here yet:

My group circumvented any questions where Defend is concerned by throwing that option away, replacing it with our own house ruled Parry option. Parry, unlike Defend, could only be chosen after the attacker's successful roll to hit was completed. And as the dice had been rolled, there was never a question about taking the attack back.

From then forward, we never had to explain the differences between Dodge and Defend to new players that joined us.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by RobW

OK. I suggest (A) is best described as "Attacker does not know target status". (B) and (C) as "Attacker knows target status".

That might make sense to you in your way of thinking about it, but to me it just looks like a wording that implies a situation that I don't think is the case.

Status to me would imply people who can't change their actions. Your wording would not be in sync with the way the rules are worded.


I think we can leave it as we disagree on almost everything about this. I could try to explain relative to your latest post, but I'd mainly just be repeating a position I've explained multiple times above.

[Chris Rice]

Late to the discussion on this. Surely if I attack Hobgoblin A and he chooses to Defend then he's doing so in response to my action. In other words, I've already started to act. I can't then choose not to perform this action because I don't like what the target is doing in response.

[Chris Rice]

I'm wondering if it would just be simpler to make Defending and Dodging specifically part of the movement portion of a turn. This would avoid these sort of arguments and make everything completely clear.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

I'm wondering if it would just be simpler to make Defending and Dodging specifically part of the movement portion of a turn. This would avoid these sort of arguments and make everything completely clear.

Yes.

Dodging is already worded that way, as an action taken while moving. You cannot really move without picking an option, and there is no option that just says "move" without an action attached to it. And during the interval between moving and your chance to act, you don't get to change anything.

Defend may not be as explicitly worded, but we're all pretty sure the mechanics of it were always intended to be the same as Dodge. They are two sides of the same coin.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Late to the discussion on this. Surely if I attack Hobgoblin A and he chooses to Defend then he's doing so in response to my action. In other words, I've already started to act.

That was my thought. The problem (that is, the problem that exists in the minds of hyper-legalists looking for trouble) isn't with the turn sequence. ITL 102 says "as long as (1) that figure has not yet acted". "I attack Hobgoblin A" is an action. The player's declaration is not "If I were, hypothetically, to choose in the future to attack Hobgoblin A, what would that figure do in response?" before the player attacks so that he can then change his mind.

To create the loop, you have to assume both that declaring your intent is not yet "acting" (possibly reasonable, though there doesn't seem to be a later demarcation point), and also that the possibly defending figure is reacting to that intent, even though you haven't "acted" (very odd at best). Make weird assumptions about language and you get weird results. That's projecting Murphy into the rules, not finding him there.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Late to the discussion on this. Surely if I attack Hobgoblin A and he chooses to Defend then he's doing so in response to my action. In other words, I've already started to act. I can't then choose not to perform this action because I don't like what the target is doing in response.

Yes, exactly.

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

I'm wondering if it would just be simpler to make Defending and Dodging specifically part of the movement portion of a turn. This would avoid these sort of arguments and make everything completely clear.

No, because it causes even worse (in my opinion) situations where people are unable to do anything appropriate for a whole turn, and gamey exploits of moving second, etc.

[larsdangly]

It works well as is, provided you understand how the core principles of the rules should apply and you don't insist on having your cake (acting first) and eating it too (making your foe commit to a later action now).