Movement Rule Tweak

[Kirk]

I could go nitty gritty with each point, but we obviously see different ways to interpret the rules.

We do allow for various DX values to affect *when* someone can go, so we declare our options as the rules state one should do, and don't just explain it away as something only beginners need to do or for reasons that don't really apply.

We do it because if you declare Move one and cast spell, and your DX is 12, and someone else acts before you, you are *not* dodging, you are in the midst of casting a spell!

If you select move and dodge, and someone shoots at you, you are *dodging* and can't suddenly switch to cast spell. The 5 second turn is short enough to allow some changing, perhaps, but we don't see it as something someone can afford to think about.

This interpretation works, makes declaring an option as stated in the rules making sense to do, and allows us to have DX alterations affect speed, with ones that we feel should affect when you act, not just your accuracy, whether it is a newly downed opponent or a talent or a spell or whatnot.

The key to all of this is a *clearer rules set* with *examples*. Then the mystery will be solved and we will all be able to avoid rules variantism and the schisms it can produce.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Kirk

I could go nitty gritty with each point, but we obviously see different ways to interpret the rules.

I see where the initial explanation of the sequence of play and the options list can lead people to read it the way you guys play it.

And I am not trying to say that's a bad way to play it, or even an uncommon reading. I get that the way you play it adds an element of commitment and different decisions that can be thought of in a way that makes sense. And of course players can play however they prefer.

I just don't think that's the original intention (at least as of my edition of basic Wizard), and I think it is contradicted by the Changing Options rule (which isn't in basic Melee). I am also sure it's not necessary to play it that way, as we and others have played it the other way and we don't run into the dilemmas you've suggested will come up, so I keep explaining for the sake of making these points.

Originally Posted by Kirk

We do allow for various DX values to affect *when* someone can go, so we declare our options as the rules state one should do, and don't just explain it away as something only beginners need to do or for reasons that don't really apply.

With your interpretation where you can't switch to Defend/Dodge when someone attacks you (which I'm not trying to say is a bad way to play), then yes certainly there's a reason. If however you play that someone can Defend if attacked before their action, then there's little or no reason to commit to an option during Movement, and often in practice we don't (rather like the combat examples, that just say figures move, then they do things limited by how far they moved). (It's also nice not to have to remember what everyone's declared option was, especially in the larger battles I've run...)

Originally Posted by Kirk

We do it because if you declare Move one and cast spell, and your DX is 12, and someone else acts before you, you are *not* dodging, you are in the midst of casting a spell!

If you select move and dodge, and someone shoots at you, you are *dodging* and can't suddenly switch to cast spell. The 5 second turn is short enough to allow some changing, perhaps, but we don't see it as something someone can afford to think about.

Ok, so it seems like one could say that you have a house rule that adds several restrictions to the Changing Options rule (since it says "you may switch to any option you could have taken when the turn began"), yes?

Originally Posted by Kirk

The key to all of this is a *clearer rules set* with *examples*. Then the mystery will be solved and we will all be able to avoid rules variantism and the schisms it can produce.

Sure.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Kirk

The key to all of this is a *clearer rules set* with *examples*. Then the mystery will be solved and we will all be able to avoid rules variantism and the schisms it can produce.

I think we all want this, if for no other reason than to feed our desire for more, More, MORE.

Again, I do want to ask an important philosophical point regarding alterations to the rules set. I asked this question before - somewhere around here - and the reply was :::crickets:::

So, I will ask everyone again:

IF we locked SJ in a room, and did not let him out until he clarified each and every point on the rules - leaving no gray area whatsoever - Could we run the risk of depersonalizing the rules, by eliminating all possible variations of interpretations, and, potentially kill-off what might be a key part of the unique MOJO that makes TFT, TFT?

JK

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

IF we locked SJ in a room, and did not let him out until he clarified each and every point on the rules - leaving no gray area whatsoever - could we run the risk of depersonalizing the rules, by eliminating all possible variations of interpretations, and, potentially kill-off what might be a key part of the unique mojo that makes TFT, TFT?

1) I prefer the "be nice to Steve" strategy.
2) I think we all would love some more clarity, and some of the ambiguous or oft-misread bits would be great to clear up, and the funky bits to improve.
3) I think Steve also tends to mention that people can of course play as they prefer in any case, so I don't expect any "you must play this way" vibe.
4) I am sure the players, especially experienced ones, will tend to house rule some things no matter how good the rules are.
5) I am sure the people who still play TFT and prefer the basic Melee rules (of which there are some) will also continue to play the way they like to play.

For me, while TFT invites house rules, we actually played mostly by the book in all ways at least for the first few years. We had every optional rule available from Interplay etc., but we only used the fraction that we liked and thought fit best. It was only after several years of regular play that we started wanting to change things a lot. I have played some straight TFT recently, and enjoyed it, but I was really aware of all the things I'd want to change if I were playing it regularly, especially in a campaign.

[Jim Kane]

Well SKARG, In the hypothetical, it was assumed that feeding, watering, and bathroom-breaks would be allowed... hypothetically anyway ;D

JK

[Chris Rice]

I'm coming to this discussion late so I apologise if I've missed anything or am repeating something already posted.

I do think that the DEFEND/DODGE options were grey areas in the rules and I'd like to see them set out clearly in the new edition. However, I'm not sure where this "move 1/2 and DEFEND" comes from. In my edition of Melee, DEFEND is only an option for ENGAGED figures. In my copy of Advanced Melee, this has changed to STAND STILL OR MOVE ONE HEX. So it's never much use in advancing towards a Pole Weapon user, unless you're going to do it very slowly!

[Jim Kane]

CHRIS - In a discussion with KIRK I wasn't clear in a narrative combat example in a question I posed to him; which ended-up reading as: "Move 1/2 MA and Defend" - in order to "get inside" a Pole Weapons "Charge Bonus" range, and close for normal combat; which I later restated long-form for clarity, and poised the combat example to my question of him properly.

However the original "prose accident - post #21 - read as: lazy communicating" opened up an interesting "WHAT IF...?" dialog, and then drifted into discussion with KIRK and SKARG's post on #33, on "HOW and WHY" different people interpret the rules differently, etc.

And then it boiled down to: people just play the game the way the like best in the end anyway, regardless of what is, or is not, printed as "rule".

LOL! Sounds like I am an announcer at a Baseball game!

There you go my friend, no worries, you are now you are up to speed and all is right on Cidri.

JK

[Chris Rice]

Thanks Jim 😊😊

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

I do think that the DEFEND/DODGE options were grey areas in the rules and I'd like to see them set out clearly in the new edition. However, I'm not sure where this "move 1/2 and DEFEND" comes from. In my edition of Melee, DEFEND is only an option for ENGAGED figures. In my copy of Advanced Melee, this has changed to STAND STILL OR MOVE ONE HEX. So it's never much use in advancing towards a Pole Weapon user, unless you're going to do it very slowly!

It comes from the rule section titled Changing Options, which appears in Wizard and Advanced Melee, and says you can change your option at any time to respond to changing circumstances, limited only by how far you moved, and including Defend as one of the options available to anyone moving 1/2 MA or less.

The section listing options for engaged and disengaged figures I think simply lists Defend only in the Engaged section and Dodge only in the disengaged section as a holdover from original Melee and because it just usually only makes sense to Defend when engaged because it's used against hand weapons, but it makes less sense if you consider the 2-hex jab (why couldn't you defend against that from 2 hexes away?) or even people who have to move before their opponents and don't know if they'll be engaged or not (should they really need to pre-declare their Option and only move 1 hex or not be able to try the (rather lame and pointless in most cases anyway) Defend option?).

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Skarg

It comes from the rule section titled Changing Options, which appears in Wizard and Advanced Melee, and says you can change your option at any time to respond to changing circumstances, limited only by how far you moved, and including Defend as one of the options available to anyone moving 1/2 MA or less.

The section listing options for engaged and disengaged figures I think simply lists Defend only in the Engaged section and Dodge only in the disengaged section as a holdover from original Melee

The citations SKARG is quoting can be found on:

1. TFT: Advanced Melee, page 4: "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 new figure must not already have moved more than the NEW option allows. If you move 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 over 1/2 your MA you may do nothing else that turn."
   
   
2. TFT: Advanced Melee; page 3:" LIST OF OPTIONS: II: Move half your MA or less and: c. Dodge.* "

Defend is present as a legal option in one case (Page 4) and absent in the other case (Page 3).

Hopefully SJ is aware and will reconcile or clarify this anomaly in the re-edit.

JK