Munchkiny starting characters

[RobW]

Re-reading the Turn Sequencing section of Advanced Melee, it seems clearer and simpler in structure, although still carries the pointless bit about choosing an option, then doing the movement part, then doing whatever option you prefer when the time comes to act.

Originally Posted by Skarg

(Attack, Defend, Dodge or Drop require moving 1/2 MA or less.)

On this specific point, AM is clear that Defend is only available if you stood still or moved one hex. So in that sense, AM allows for only a very limited "charge defend", more like a "shift defend".

Also AM seems clear that you can Defend against a jab, ie you can Defend even if not engaged.

Hey, I like these rules!

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by RobW

On this specific point, AM is clear that Defend is only available if you stood still or moved one hex. So in that sense, AM allows for only a very limited "charge defend", more like a "shift defend".

It implies that on the options list, but read Changing Options on page 4, where it very specifically says you can change your option to Attack, Defend, Dodge or Drop if you moved 1/2 MA or less (as the only restriction).

[larsdangly]

Indeed, the X's and O's side of these rules was clearer in the old AM. Sometimes streamlining is just good editing, but sometimes it throws a veil of ambiguity over something that used to be clear. In any case, I think the AM version of events is what most people here seem to want to do, and it isn't too hard to remember.

[hcobb]

Do you dare step adjacent to the man holding two fine javelins?

ST 9, DX 12, IQ 11, MA 10
Two fine Javelins(1d+1)
Pole weapons(2), Two Weapons(2), Weapons Expertise - Pole Weapons(3), other stuff

If you gently step adjacent to him then he declares a charge attack defense as per page 111, rolling at adjDX 14 and 10 for his two attacks of 2d+1 each.

Should you survive this then next turn he double-defends and you need to roll 6 dice at -1 DX to hit him and if you do hit he gets to subtract 4 from the damage done.

Right?

[larsdangly]

I would not say that you can 'double dip' on defense by using the Two Weapons parry action as well as the Defend action.

[Skarg]

Better than stepping up to the octopus with three pike axes.

I too do not think that you get to add a die per Defending weapon. Defend is still not particularly formidable since it involves no attacks, except in these situations where it's letting someone else shoot you, or something.

[Chris Rice]

The Defend/Dodge options have always felt a little anomalous to me as they don't seem to fit into the "move then act in order of DX" scheme.

On that basis, I'm considering the idea that a figure who has chosen to Defend does not Engage an enemy (although they engage him) because he is not trying to actively attack them.

In other words, if you want to Engage the enemy, you must actively do so.

[RobW]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Do you dare step adjacent to the man holding two fine javelins?

I don't dare that.

For your ABCD team, one of the ABs might take Tactics instead of Brawling, as winning initiative is so useful for this team.

[Helborn]

My rule has always been that a charge attack requires at least a movement of 2 hexes. I know this contradicts ITL but it makes better sense. No one goes from 0 to 30 in 4', not even 0 to 10 without starting blocks. And a charge should require some momentum.

[larsdangly]

I would not recommend changing the rules of engagement for defenders or movement for chargers unless you play exclusively with a group that buys into these sorts of changes. TFT combat is so tactical and dependent on player choices that it will trip people up to have to adapt to a different rules set. It's a little like deciding that at your chess board pawns diagonally or bishops can only move 4 squares or something. The result would be chess-like but not chess.