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.

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.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

That is it. Thanks!

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.

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.

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!

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.)

Re: Defend and dodge
 

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.


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:

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.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

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.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

I feel like this is one of those issues where everyone knows what they want the rule to be, including the designer and every experienced player I know, and some versions of the rules support this interpretation. So we just have to get over the fact that the current edition RAW disagrees with this 'common law' rule.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

If it feels good to you, great.

And yeah, I don't think it has a major impact, though mainly just because not many people use Defend very often anyway.

On the other hand, I can think of a wizard who might be dead if he couldn't have Defended the other day, from EITHER of the two fishy new RAW changes. i.e. "Oh you didn't creep along at 1 hex per turn, so you can't Defend." Or, just as silly: "Oh, you were not engaged at the start of your movement, and even though you were standing still, a foe came and engaged you, and you can't Defend because of a ridiculous rule that says your options are based on your engagement status at the start of your movement phase."

No, sorry but as much as I do love and respect Steve, it's pretty clear this is just a mistake, to me.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

Defend and Dodge get used a lot at my table, but generally only in conflicts that have multiple combatants on one or both sides. If you are in a 1 on 1 face off, the opportunity cost of defending (i.e., you didn't attack that turn) generally out weighs its benefit, unless you are in some very peculiar temporary pickle. But in more tactically complex situations you will often be better off defending while a compatriot does something else. I would say it is not uncommon to have at least one combatant chose to defend on every turn in a fight with a half dozen people on a side.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

Staff IV, Knife, and Two Weapons for double parry and occult blast.

Four points of protection.
Attackers must roll an extra die to hit.
Attack at adjDX 14 while ignoring the target's armor.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

interesting. So I'm curious how your group plays this, as it didn't seem clear from what I read in your earlier comments.

Do you allow people to Defend regardless of their Engagement status? If not, do you require them to base it on their engagement status at the start of their movement, regardless of current status (i.e. A is disengaged, moves 1, then gets engaged, but not allowed to defend?)?

Do you allow Defend after 1/2 MA, or only after 0 or 1 hex movement?

Re: Defend and dodge
 

Yes, I allow people to defend on any turn they moved 1/2 MA or less and are subject to a melee attack that entered through one of their front hexes. I would be open to the argument that you should also limit movement to 1 hex, but my starting position is that defending shouldn't be more restricted than attacking, and you can move 1/2 MA and attack so...

Re: Defend and dodge
 

Yep, my feelings too, and how we've always played it. Thanks.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

Thanks for all the replies. We have pretty much been playing that you can defend or dodge whenever you want as long as you have not acted or moved more than 1/2MA. The only issue is I get "well if you are going to defend, I am going to attack someone else," but I am okay with that.

The problem I am having is that my kids are old enough now to read the rules themselves which leads to some heated debates. This is of course is half the fun.

Tonight we are going to try playing with the charge-defend option against pole weapons. I thing that is RAW for melee (we are just playing melee). Those spears are still too lethal.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

The way to deal with a line of fixed spears is to push them back and trample them with your cavalry before they have a chance to strike.

If you're short on horses you can use dragons instead, but just keep in mind that dragons have a very low power to weigh ratio so their fat overgrown bellies are the only thing they're good for.

Example of running over spearsmen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kg8bKDFouc

Re: Defend and dodge
 

Player A: "I attack the orc."
Orc: "I defend."
Player A: "well if you are going to defend, I am going to attack someone else"
Me as GM: No, you declared your action, and the orc reacted to it. Roll 4 dice to hit the orc.

I.e. When you attack on your action, you are actually doing that. If the target hasn't taken their action, they can react to that. You cannot react to them reacting to your attack by changing your mind and attacking someone else, because you only know he's defending because he reacted to you actually attacking him, and unless you're an octopus or something that gets more than one attack per turn, you only get that one attack you already declared.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

Precisely what Skarg said. The attacker can't change target or option after saying "I attack so-and-so."

Recall what the rules say the Defend option actually represents: parrying an incoming blow with your ready weapon.

You can't have parried an incoming blow that never came.

(There's a more extensive thread on all this in the archives)

Re: Defend and dodge
 

along with Steve, I also echo Skarg... Your character wouldn't know that the Orc was about to "defend" whatever that might look like, maybe a weapon parry, maybe a shield block, but they wouldn't know until they had engaged the Orc.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

A different perspective might be: that given a turn is not an single instant of time but a period of 5 seconds, the Defend option implies an "attitude of defensiveness" not simply a defence against a single attack.

This is justified by the fact that once a figure chooses the Defend option, every subsequent attack is at 4 dice, no matter how many attacks or assailants there are.

So: if I go to attack the Orc, but he's crouching and backing away from me, I might turn and attack his companion who is more obviously aggressive and not defending.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

I tend to look at the DEFEND option this way as well. In melee combat, a figure will usually assume one of three 'stances'... aggressive (charging forward), balanced offense (the default mode) and defensive. Your stance will influence the actions you can or cannot take and how effective attacks against the figure will be. I also agree that the chosen stance should be somewhat 'readable' by their opponents.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

Yes, but only if the orc is crouching and backing away from you (i.e. if he already committed to Defend).

If you force figures who have not acted yet to pre-declare a defense before any attack, then (1) it'd make Defend even less useful than it already is, and (2) you'd have people wasting their whole turn Defending even when not being attacked.

e.g. In a two-orcs-vs-one-elf situation, if one of the orcs defended, it'd waste their turn while the elf attacked the other orc. If supposedly the elf can read the body language of an orc who's not under attack that he will Defend for five seconds, then surely that orc can notice the elf ignoring him and attacking his pal for five seconds, and stop cowering and take action, no?

Re: Defend and dodge
 

Well, GURPS offers three such stances: All-Out Attack, Attack (and defend), and All-Out Defend. But how do you see TFT doing that? I only see Attack, and Defend, and Attack doesn't offer defense other than foes needing to roll 3/DX to hit you.

When we moved from TFT to GURPS, we it seemed us like the style of combat we'd been used to in TFT felt a little like almost everyone was almost always doing a GURPS All Out Attack (because they get no defenses), and the only other option was like a GURPS All Out Defense (with not very good defense skills).

Re: Defend and dodge
 

If your character is an IQ 15+ goblin then she can go and leave berserk at will.

No more weakness penalty for taking three points of damage from an arrow.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

At 2 fatigue per switch, berserk behavior with your ST 6 figure, and a non-zero risk of attacking your friends, I say, "knock yourself out" (perhaps literally...).

Re: Defend and dodge
 

Unless you are under a Speed spell, Haste spell or something similar , there is no time for this.

A 5 second combat turn implies quite a bit of dancing with the enemy, we are just rolling for that one attack of opportunity (split second chance), where you see the opportunity to slip your blade in just over the shield.

We are not assuming in TFT that you have a full 5 seconds to move your knight on the chessboard.

It just beats the hell out of a 60 second D&D round.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

Really? It's a tactical game. What are we assuming then?

Re: Defend and dodge
 

I'm probably in a minority, but I've always felt since the first time I played Melee that Attack, Defend, and Dodge were tactics you declared yourself to be engaged in, from the time you picked one until the end of that turn. None of those were just a single instance of anything -- how could they be given 5 seconds? Yes, there's only one "to hit" roll, and one damage roll, but there's no reason to presume those aren't to assess the aggregate of results from multiple sword swipes, stabs, jabs, or axe swings.

Otherwise, two warriors standing in place but only swinging at each other once per turn would be combat in slow motion -- super slow motion.

For me the Attack option in TFT represents a flurry of attempted blows, while Defend is a series of parries, ducks or swerves to avoid those blows landing. By definition Defend and Dodge have to work that way, because they apply to multiple incoming Attacks in the same turn. And if the intent of the rules has always been that Attack and Defend are mirror-image options, and I believe it is, then Attack represents more than one motion as well.

A game with 1 second turns would have to be different, but that's not TFT.

But as to a figure changing actions after announcing Attack because the target then says Defend, that's just scamming the Turn Sequence. A figure (if acting first) with an enemy in each front hex could "shop" for a target that wouldn't Defend by calling Attack on each, changing their mind each time one picks Defend, possibly ending up free to pick another, entirely different option without any regard of the three enemies hurting them that turn. That's clearly not the intent of the game. "You're defending? Ok. And you're defending? Ok. You're defending too? Great, I've tied you all up. Now I'm ignoring you all to throw my axe at the princess you were supposed to be guarding, and none of you can touch me this turn." No, no, a thousand times no.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

Exactly. Not to mention Dodge, where everyone who could make a ranged attack get to poll all targets and then change their mind about what to do based on that information. If I'm a wizard and I know a missile spell, can I do that every turn just for extra info, and then cast whatever other spell I want?

Re: Defend and dodge
 

Missile spells don't exist until after you put fatigue into them. Rolling to hit comes after you create the spell.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

I was just going for the most hyperbolic example someone might try.

Re: Defend and dodge
 

I wholeheartedly concur

Re: Defend and dodge
 

The actual reason to not waste two points of mana on berserk is that you want to combine Dagger Mastery Defend with Occult blast.

GM: The giant swings his club!
Molly: I'm defending with my master dagger of mastery so that's six dice vs DX -2.
GM: The giant breaks his club!

Re: Defend and dodge
 

Speaking of the Defend option.... my old group house ruled it into non-existence, replacing it with a Parry option requiring the defender to actively make a DX roll to deflect the incoming weapon with their own. At a huge DX penalty if the parrying weapon just happened to be substantially lighter than the attacking weapon, and an automatic break weapon result for the parrying weapon if the DX roll succeeded in these cases.

Good golly Ms. Molly, I guess we were looking far, far into the future with that one :)

Re: Defend and dodge
 

Yes, Molly does need to carry the only break weapon immunity in the game. Wizards only of course.