Defend and dodge

[red2]

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.

[larsdangly]

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.

[red2]

That is it. Thanks!

[Chris Rice]

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.

[larsdangly]

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.

[RobW]

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!

[Skarg]

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.)