Munchkiny starting characters

[RobW]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Which makes it clear that either SJ meant to write "act" rather than "move" on that line, or that the new rules don't make any intuitive sense.

My memory is that in the long "Defend" thread, several people including you and myself tried to explain to SJ as clearly as we were able what the issue was with RAW. I think his last comment was that it seemed like hair-splitting and he didn't see what the issue was. So I'm not convinced that SJ meant to write anything other than what he did write.

hcobb's example shows one possible justification for the Defend RAW, which is that it prevents the aggressive use of 5D and 6D Defends.

[RobW]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Which is another reason why SJ must have meant "act" not "move", because that also makes no sense.

I'm not positive, but I think you are referring to the fact that in RAW you can't defend against a jab. (Unless there is a third figure engaging you, in which case it seems you can).

There's no intuitive reason you could defend against a charging spear but not a jabbing one. This is just a bad rule IMO, but again this was all put to SJ.

hcobbs example might justify why only figures engaged at movement time can select defend. That is, why you can't "charge defend" in the way you can "charge attack. But I really can't see any justification for no defend against jab.

[RobW]

Originally Posted by Skarg

t's also a flawed analysis of the situation even if playing by the bizarre-o literal RAW reading, because the options depend on the actual sequence and hex positions.

I'm not sure what's meant here by "flawed analysis", I'm reasonably certain these are RAW but would be delighted to be proved wrong.

If all you mean is that you can't sub in spears for javelins in hcobbs team of beginning characters, I agree and wasn't trying to suggest otherwise, as my main point is that hcobb's strategy isn't compatible with RAW. I was just riffing off of hcobb's ideas to say, if you did have analogous spear masters for A&B (eg 34pt characters), it raises a tricky situation for the enemy: they need to work their way past the spears to engage the crossbows, but while they are doing that they are being jabbed with no defense possible. That ABCD team would be really really annoying to fight.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by RobW

My memory is that in the long "Defend" thread, several people including you and myself tried to explain to SJ as clearly as we were able what the issue was with RAW. I think his last comment was that it seemed like hair-splitting and he didn't see what the issue was. So I'm not convinced that SJ meant to write anything other than what he did write.

Yes it was, but to me that indicates that he did not understand the problem, probably because he was faced with a lot of dense text from us and didn't get the wording distinction that "move" was being read as literally during the movement phase even if you're moving first, and applying that throughout the action phase, which if true would be a sweeping change to explicit past well-working rules about how the current situation is what matters, and that figures are allowed to change options during the movement phase based only on how far they moved (and what makes sense in the current situation, which you very much do not get if you base it on what a figure's engagement state was at the start of that figure's movement - instead, you get exploits, gamey tactics not based on the game state, frustration, and illogical situations).

Originally Posted by RobW

hcobb's example shows one possible justification for the Defend RAW, which is that it prevents the aggressive use of 5D and 6D Defends.

Um... hmm... I would say that's merely an accident of two issues slightly offsetting each other when looking at one exploit from one perspective.

Originally Posted by RobW

I'm not positive, but I think you are referring to the fact that in RAW you can't defend against a jab. (Unless there is a third figure engaging you, in which case it seems you can).

There's no intuitive reason you could defend against a charging spear but not a jabbing one. This is just a bad rule IMO, but again this was all put to SJ.

Yes, exactly. It is an illogical rule that the example you just mentioned makes extremely clear.

I think it's pretty clear that SJ had a huge task at hand in re-writing and reformatting the rules and even redesigning some bits and adding a fair amount of content in talents and spells, while still running the company and going to conventions and doing interviews and publicity and so on. And that unlike you and me, he hadn't played & GM'ed years of TFT and then continued to think about and discuss it with other such players through the intervening decades. And it's clear that he was not able to keep up with the huge volume of text and discussion. (Even for me, not having to do everything else SJ did, and having no trouble and enjoying following all the details of discussion, just following the forum discussions was often like a part-time job.)

So my reading is that these are just details that didn't get full consideration, not that it was some stroke of considered genius to mess up the logic of what options are available, and to intentionally prohibit Defending against 2-hex jabs.

Originally Posted by RobW

hcobbs example might justify why only figures engaged at movement time can select defend. That is, why you can't "charge defend" in the way you can "charge attack. But I really can't see any justification for no defend against jab.

You used to be able to Charge Defend, if you read old Wizard or Advanced Melee, rather than starting with an overly-literal reading of the basic Melee options list. I don't see 5-die Defend as a reason to completely mess up the logic of what options are available. If that needs a fix, I'd think it'd be more like something that means you can't keep people stuck unable to move away from you if you Defend.

Originally Posted by RobW

I'm not sure what's meant here by "flawed analysis", I'm reasonably certain these are RAW but would be delighted to be proved wrong.

I would say those are RAW _IF_ we read "move" literally in the line about what options are allowed, and if we don't decide that the ability to change options and base logic on the current situation overrides that.

I think it's more reasonable to just consider that a weak wording which means in detail:

"When your turn to Move comes, it looks like what you can do is based on your engagement state, and that does determine how far you can move, but later during the Action phase, when your turn to "move" (i.e. Act") comes, or when you react to changing conditions, it will be based on your engagement state at that time."

Originally Posted by RobW

If all you mean is that you can't sub in spears for javelins in hcobbs team of beginning characters, I agree and wasn't trying to suggest otherwise, as my main point is that hcobb's strategy isn't compatible with RAW. I was just riffing off of hcobb's ideas to say, if you did have analogous spear masters for A&B (eg 34pt characters), it raises a tricky situation for the enemy: they need to work their way past the spears to engage the crossbows, but while they are doing that they are being jabbed with no defense possible. That ABCD team would be really really annoying to fight.

Yes, sorry for the overstated complaint.

The ABCD team is really annoying to fight, in any case. It's basically a similar strategy to the famous ridiculous strategy posted in a Space Gamer article about putting one or two guys in plate & shield up to engage and defend while you use halflings exploiting boomerangs and other peculiar weapons to take them out, only substituting the form of missile attack and the form of hard-to-kill annoying defenders.

And yes, 2-hex jabs can make the tactic more annoying, especially if using the reading that RAW means you can't Defend against 2-hex jabs (unless, as you pointed out, you happen to be engaged by someone else at the start of your turn - LOL).

What I meant to observe though was that since A & B's main strategy is to engage foes not to kill them but to prevent them reaching the crossbowmen (via ironic use of engagement movement restrictions), so the crossbowmen can kill them, that A&B would prefer engaging to jabbing, since if they move to 2-hex range to jab, the foes might win the next initiative and be able to run around them then to get to the crossbowmen.

[larsdangly]

I also followed the thread on the Defend option, and my reading of the 'spirit' of the official responses we got was that combatants should be free to select the Defend action so long as they have an appropriate object in their hands (weapon, shield or improvised defense) and so long as they haven't moved more than 1 hex in the movement phase. I'm projecting and filling in specific rules where what we got was vague. Basically, the only thing that was clear from that discussion was that the designer thought we were crazy for thinking the rules meant all the peculiar things we were suggesting. It's a little frustrating because it is totally obvious that the 'logical operators' of the rules mean you can't select the defend option unless you start your movement phase engaged and are armed with a weapon. Yet SJ's comments suggest he thinks you should be able to use the option in other (unspecified) circumstances. I doubt we'll get much more on this point, so we are on our own to figure out 'best practices'.

By the way, if you think you might want to Defend but start the turn disengaged, you still have this option on your plate if you win initiative. I.e., if you make your opponent move first, they elect to engage you, then you are engaged when your turn for movement comes. Thus, the only situations where you cannot defend after starting the turn disengaged are if you lose initiative and your opponent forces you to move first, or if you charge up to someone (i.e., if you force the start of engagement you can't defend on the first turn you are engaged). In this case, they will be able to attack you without your being able to Defend against their attack on that first turn. In all other situations I think you can find a way to Defend so long as you plan ahead. As I write this, I'm not sure I disagree with this reading of the rules. If you lose initiative it means you were caught a bit flat footed and perhaps shouldn't be permitted to 'set up' for the Defend option until the next turn (which you'll obviously start engaged...unless you are already dead by then). And if you charge someone I can understand why you shouldn't be allowed to defend as part of that charging approach.

[hcobb]

Note the logic of the Javelins is that if Able & Baker are forced to engage then they'll at least strike first at 2d, which is likely to put at least 5 hits in.

The enemy then strikes back at 3/DX, minus 4. (And the adjDX 15 crossbows will surely strike before they do.)

[RobW]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

Basically, the only thing that was clear from that discussion was that the designer thought we were crazy for thinking the rules meant all the peculiar things we were suggesting.

Ha! You might be right. Rules lawyers!

Originally Posted by larsdangly

And if you charge someone I can understand why you shouldn't be allowed to defend as part of that charging approach.

I agree, disallowing "charge defend" is not unreasonable, although not my preference. If it weren't for the way this rule interact with jabs I would probably just go with it. We'll probably try it for a few sessions anyway.

If and when SJG release the "option cards" they are considering, the problems with RAW might become more obvious.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

I also followed the thread on the Defend option, and my reading of the 'spirit' of the official responses we got was that combatants should be free to select the Defend action so long as they have an appropriate object in their hands (weapon, shield or improvised defense) and so long as they haven't moved more than 1 hex in the movement phase. I'm projecting and filling in specific rules where what we got was vague. Basically, the only thing that was clear from that discussion was that the designer thought we were crazy for thinking the rules meant all the peculiar things we were suggesting. It's a little frustrating because it is totally obvious that the 'logical operators' of the rules mean you can't select the defend option unless you start your movement phase engaged and are armed with a weapon. Yet SJ's comments suggest he thinks you should be able to use the option in other (unspecified) circumstances. I doubt we'll get much more on this point, so we are on our own to figure out 'best practices'.

On our own, or we can just look at old Wizard or old Advanced Melee, where it's clear and has no such logic issues.

As you write, since SJ thought we were crazy, I think he just didn't follow the overly-literal-and-restrictive readings, and so effectively meant (changes in bold):

The options available for movement purposes to a figure depend on whether
it is engaged, disengaged, or in HTH combat at the moment
its turn to move comes. During the Action Phase, a player may change
his mind about a figure’s option, as long as
• that figure has not yet acted, and
• that figure did not move too far to allow it to take the
new option. (Attack, Defend, Dodge or Drop require moving 1/2 MA or less.)
During the Action Phase, the options available are limited by the (dis)engagement/HTH status of the figure at the time it acts, not what its state was at the start of it's movement.

[RobW]

Now I'm reading through the rules on Turn Sequencing again. Really frustrating. For me -- contrary to the SJ staff -- what makes TFT special is that at its core is a really balanced and ingenious boardgame, ie set of *rules* for battle. Wizard especially is special I think, for creating a system where a battle of interesting and complex spells can be fought without needing a GM for controlling the story or interpreting the effects.

Anyway, the heart of TFT for me is the rules, and the heart of the rules is the Turn Sequencing, and it is currently a mess: it is simply confusing to tell players to first chose an option for their figure, then execute the movement part of that option, then when their turn to act comes, select any option based on their engagement status back at the time of moving and how far they have moved.

I think this is where my frustration really lies, not in the Defend option per se, but in the fact that despite all the cool addition and improvements in what I consider to be the extended game, the fundamentals of the game have been confused, not clarified for a bigger audience. Yes, there are many good reasons for this, but it's still frustrating. Yes, it will be no problem to create house versions of the Turn Sequencing rules, but it's still a little disappointing that it should feel necessary.

[larsdangly]

I agree with much of what you are saying, though I don't think the rules as they stand are significantly compromised. Games should lead with their strength, and a major core strength of TFT is its very rational, concise and 'chess like' system for controlling the flow of movement and actions inn combat, perhaps most uniquely (as you say) the role of magic in combat. I can't imagine wanting to walk that back. And fortunately the Legacy Edition is very much in keeping with this traditional strength. The confusion over how the Defend option should be interpreted is a pretty unusual spot of ambiguity. I can't say I understand why it wasn't tightened up when it was so clearly pointed out in the beta-testing period, but that's water under the bridge.