Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > The Fantasy Trip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-28-2020, 06:52 PM   #1
red2
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Default Defend and dodge

Hello all, I have had the opportunity to play quite a bit of melee the last few weeks, after a long break. IIRC the ambiguity around defend and dodge options have been clarified somewhere on this forum. Can someone please direct me to the thread? I am unable to find it with the search feature.
red2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2020, 07:51 PM   #2
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: Defend and dodge

I am not patient enough to track down the links, but I know the most official SJG statement on the issue can be found in Hexagram #2 or #3. The short version is:

- I'm not aware of any concerted push to change how Dodge words from RAW, but note that you can declare it as your action at any point in the action segment, assuming you still meet the constraints on the action (i.e., wrt movement and engagement).

- It recommended (though clearly not RAW) that you permit people to use the Defend action against a jabbing pole weapon, even if you are not engaged. Basically, you can select it under any circumstance where you meet the movement restrictions, and can declare it whenever you are first attacked if that happens before your turn in the action order. Though it obviously only applies to melee attacks.
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2020, 08:15 PM   #3
red2
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Default Re: Defend and dodge

That is it. Thanks!
red2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2020, 11:37 PM   #4
Chris Rice
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
Default Re: Defend and dodge

Lars wrote:

"- It recommended (though clearly not RAW) that you permit people to use the Defend action against a jabbing pole weapon, even if you are not engaged. Basically, you can select it under any circumstance where you meet the movement restrictions, and can declare it whenever you are first attacked if that happens before your turn in the action order. Though it obviously only applies to melee attacks."

I do consider this RAW, as the jabbing poleweapon attack is an exception to the normal engagement rules, but is nevertheless a Melee attack rather than a Ranged attack. Viewed this way, I believe it is acceptable to to use Defend against the Jab.
Chris Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2020, 09:53 AM   #5
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: Defend and dodge

I've never seen anyone disagree that you SHOULD use a more liberal interpretation of when you can declare he Defend action, but it isn't RAW. The rules are explicitly clear that you must be engaged to choose Defend (among other constraints).

I think 'rule zero' for ITL is that you simply must use your better judgement when adjudicating these things. The game is extremely 'game-y' - competitive, and rules-bound. But the rules are not written like Squad Leader or something; they are a lot looser, like common roleplaying games. As a result, people who want to 'game' the rules for advantage, or who want to mis-interpret them for reasons that escape me, can find lots of fodder.
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2020, 10:37 AM   #6
RobW
 
RobW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Default Re: Defend and dodge

TL;DR -- SJ seems to have clarified his intent that a disengaged figure may move ONE hex and choose Defend.

I had an article in hexagram #3 ('what do you mean I can't defend....), that compiled some of the odd things in RAW like defend vs jab, defend when your for spins to face you, etc.

It was written for an audience of one -- SJ! I know he read it, as we had a very brief though pleasant correspondence. I was hoping there might be an official clarification re Defend (and perhaps Dodge), but there was not.


BUT, but ......

The article suggested that if you insisted on playing with the "player cards", and choosing options based on your engagement status at time of move (which many do NOT do and few experienced players would recommend), then you need a new card, with an option for disengaged figures, "move and defend". I suggested that move could be 1/2 MA or 1 hex. As long as it was something.

SJG published the article and actually added a new "player card" themselves. The card they printed with the article allows disengaged figures to move up to 1 hex and defend.

I think this might be the closest we will have to a clarification on SJ's intentions about Defending and moving -- 1 hex!
RobW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2020, 10:53 AM   #7
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: Defend and dodge

Even strictly RAW, a figure can Defend against a jab if they're Engaged by some other foe.

So it would seem to me to be ridiculous to not allow them to Defend against a jab if they're NOT engaged by some other foe.

(TFT has a clear intent to represent situations in ways that make sense, and it seems clear that this wording gap is an unintended result of the options list being written for original basic Melee, before 2-hex jabs were added to the game system.)
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2020, 11:33 AM   #8
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: Defend and dodge

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobW View Post
The article suggested that if you insisted on playing with the "player cards", and choosing options based on your engagement status at time of move (which many do NOT do and few experienced players would recommend), then you need a new card, with an option for disengaged figures, "move and defend".
Yes, definitely.

In particular, "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" is, in my considered opinion, an invitation to illogical nonsense and a requirement to remember engagement status not shown on the current map position. A lot can happen during enemy movement and the action phase.

Even worse is when players think they need to commit to Defend and/or Dodge during Movement, and then their later-moving foes can move to make their choices useless.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RobW View Post
I suggested that move could be 1/2 MA or 1 hex. As long as it was something.

SJG published the article and actually added a new "player card" themselves. The card they printed with the article allows disengaged figures to move up to 1 hex and defend.

I think this might be the closest we will have to a clarification on SJ's intentions about Defending and moving -- 1 hex!
Sadly, yes. I agree with you though that it should be 1/2 MA and Defend.


i.e. I play by the original Wizard & Advanced Melee rules and the nice clarifying paragraph that sadly was not included in Legacy ITL:
Quote:
"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."
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2020, 12:25 PM   #9
Chris Rice
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
Default Re: Defend and dodge

Ok, here's another way of looking at it. Since the poleweapon jabber and his intended victim are not ENGAGED in the RAW, why not just allow the DODGE option. There's already a card for that. Consider it a THROWN attack for this purpose.
Chris Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2020, 12:28 PM   #10
RobW
 
RobW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Default Re: Defend and dodge

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
. I play by the original Wizard & Advanced Melee rules and the nice clarifying paragraph that sadly was not included in Legacy ITL:
A maximum one-hex move before defending was a change for us. It prevents a defensive tactic we often used, of charging up to a dangerous foe and then trying to thwart their attack by defending. We jokingly called this charge-defending. But TBH removing that tactic hasn't impacted the flavour of the game, and it feels good to follow SJ's intent on the issue.
RobW is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.