For SJ, where's the Move and Defend and option?

[RobW]

The forums here have many, many threads with questions about Defend (let's leave Dodge out of it for now). These questions come from new and experienced players alike.

I will give some examples of problems with the Defend RAW below. But I could also point to the literally 100s of forum posts on the topic that some clarification is evidently needed.

[RobW]

The Rules As Written

The only option that includes Defend is option (k) Shift and Defend. This option is only available to a figure engaged with an enemy when its turn comes to move (Skarg, please hang on....!).

Therefore RAW, to be able to select option (k), the only Defend option, you have to be engaged with an enemy when your turn comes to move (emphasis in original in multiple places pp 102-103).

[RobW]

This leads to many problems and very weird situations.

RAW: You CAN'T defend against a jab
That's because the jabber won't normally be engaged with you when it's your turn to move, and so the Shift and Defend option is not available to you.

RAW: You CAN defend against a jab, if a different enemy is also engaging you.
If an enemy has you engaged at the time of your movement, then you can select option (k) shift and defend. Now you can defend against the jab that is two hexes away (as well defending the against the enemy next to you).

RAW: You snuck up behind your opponent, but oh no, now you can't Defend!
That's because you were not engaged if you are in the enemy's rear hex, and so you can't select option (k).

You and your buddy have surrounded the troll, Buddy's is in the troll's front hex, you're in the troll's rear hex. Troll has initative and makes your side move first. You and Buddy stay put! You've got the troll surrounded! But now troll spins around to face you. Since you weren't engaged when it was your time to move, you couldn't select option (k).

RAW: Pole weapons are a good choice for a duel, but should they be THIS good?
In a duel, there is no way to defend against a pole weapon charge attack if the pole weapon does not want to allow it.

It's Halberd vs Sword, they start with 1 empty hex between them. Sword wants to Defend against Halberd's initial charge, but he can't -- he is disengaged when the moment of his turn to move, and so option (k) is not available. So he moves just out of charge attack range, 5 more hexes back. Halberd shrugs, charges to within jabbing distance and gets a free attack (no defense possible here either). Now we're back to where we started. In this duel there is no way for Sword to Defend against the initial charge if Halberd wants to prevent i t.

[RobW]

Possible solutions

1. Add option (b2) for disengaged figures, Move and Defend. You could allow move of 1/2 MA, 1 hex, or whatever, but that would help all the examples above.

2. Reinterpret the phrase about option choice. Instead of reading the moment "its turn to move comes", as meaning that possible options are determined in the movement phase, just say instead options are determined "at the moment its turn to act comes". Or elaborate the rule for "changing options" to somehow allow for selecting options that weren't available to you at the start of movement.

This might work, but TBH the current wording is all over the place. And because the only Defend option is still (k) Shift and Defend, and "shift" is elsewhere defined as remaining adjacent to enemies, this is still unclear. Much more unclear than it needs to be

[RobW]

Player cards "play aid"

As mentioned above, when the player cards come out, these problems will be more obvious than they are now.

I'm not sure how these cards are meant to work, but reasonable expectation might be: Player's turn to move comes. If engaged he takes cards representing options (j) through (s). If disengaged he takes cards representing options (a) through (i). If in HTH selects cards (t) through (v)

Now it will be crystal clear there's no way for disengaged figure to Defend.

But I can't believe this is the intention of the rules, given how they worked in previous editions, and given all the weird bugs that emerge with the current RAW.

[Chris Rice]

I don't believe it is the intention of the rules, but Steve and co. have steadfastly avoided answering rules questions on the forums. I guess that's because it a bit of a rabbit hole and they realise once they start down that route it'll never end and they'll never get anything else done. Still a clarification would have been nice.

[oldwolf]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

I don't believe it is the intention of the rules, but Steve and co. have steadfastly avoided answering rules questions on the forums. I guess that's because it a bit of a rabbit hole and they realise once they start down that route it'll never end and they'll never get anything else done. Still a clarification would have been nice.

The other problem with them answering on the forum is it :

A. Creates a cloud of "official" rules clarifications and changes that is floating around someplace on the internet. This results in no one knowing what the actual rules are at any given moment.

B. It creates a group of "elite" players who regularly read the forums and who think they know the right way to play. A sure way to alienate most players.

To my way of thinking, discussion on the forum is a good thing but official rule clarifications and changes should be published as a downloadable pdf and, perhaps, as an errata and clarification update available through the TFT Helper.

[oldwolf]

Regarding the topic of this thread, I think the whole thing revolves around:

"During a turn, 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."

Pg 102 ITL

To me, the fact that the only two things listed as limiting a players ability to change his mind about his option are "has not yet acted" and "did not move too far", is critical. Whether or not one is engaged or disengaged is not mentioned as a restriction.

[larsdangly]

I understand this 'problem' is a logical consequence of the wording in the RAW, but I don't believe it was the intent. I interpret defend as being something you can elect whether engaged or not, so long as you haven't moved more than 1 hex. I've not seen anyone advocate for another interpretation.

[Skarg]

I think this really does need an answer and/or errata, because of all the confusion.

I am very clear myself that these and a few other things are all unfortunate misunderstandings caused by the new edition's attempts to streamline wordings, which sadly left out clear rules which were in the originals. It looks pretty clear to me too what happened, though it may be presumptuous, but it seems Steve tried to have basic Melee be his model, and as he wrote right before the final PDF draft, he didn't understand what the issue was (so no, this is not a case of some subtle act of genius intentionally changing the game) when several of us were trying to get him to re-insert some of the clarifying language, particularly the very clear language which occurs identically in Wizard and Advanced Melee, in the Changing Options section.

I guess I need to quote it again:

CHANGING OPTIONS
It is legal to change options AFTER the movement part of a turn, to meet changing conditions. The only requirement is that the figure must not already have moved more than the NEW option allows. If you moved 0 or 1 hex, you may switch to any option you could have taken when the turn began; if you moved 1/2 your MA or less, you may attack, defend, dodge, or drop; if you moved 1/2 your MA you may do nothing else that turn.

I have also suggested many times that he must have meant the "act" sense of the word "move" when he wrote in the new edition "The options available to a figure depend on whether it is engaged, disengaged, or in HTH combat at the moment its turn to move comes." Which would mean the same thing as the Wizard / Advanced Melee rules, at least to me.

(The other confusion of course is the mis-reading of the options list to assume that figures can only defend if they moved 0 or 1, because defend happens to be listed as an engaged option, but to me that's obviously a confusion caused by the options list organizing into engaged and disengaged, and it's double-obvious to me and explicitly incorrect when considering the original Wizard / Advanced Melee Changing Options rule above, which says the limit for Defend is 1/2 MA, and has no requirement to be engaged either. And it also makes sense and cleans up all these questions in one quick surrender to the old rules.)

I know from these forum discussions that some people were also confused by the old rules (especially people who kept referring to basic Melee), and some people are used to (and/or simply prefer) play styles where there are more rigid limits on what options are available and when people can change them.

However it seems to me that the Wizard/Advanced Melee Changing Options section resolves a long list of these subtle-but-sometimes-important issues in a very simple way that makes sense, as opposed to the weird arbitrary/mistaken technical limits from mis-applying the letter of the Option List to both the Movement Phase and the Action Phase, which seems to me clearly not the intent, and a huge mess of silly side-effects.