Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Wizards break the rules!

ITL 30: "the attack is a free action – the wizard may use the staff’s strike along
with any option, including attacking, running away, or using the staff as a physical weapon."

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

If that is your "argument" ITL trumps that - If you are not arguing a "change of options" to allow a Wizard to make an attack, then specifically addressing Wizards Attacks, page 107 says

"A figure may not attack during a given turn unless he uses a "cast a spell" option (for magical attacks) or one of the attack options,: (b), (f), (j), (o), or (t)."

And I think it is "unreasonable" to claim "running away" is the same as Disengaging. Disengaging "takes the place of your action" is the clear explanation.

Making any sort of "attack" even a free action attack, while disengaging would directly contradict the phrase "instead of attacking"

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

IMO yes. This is how it works in GURPS 4e, if your arms are long enough.

Throw something!
 

If the player who runs the puny swordsman has an IQ greater than 7, she might has spent points on thrown weapon (2), or a missile weapon + Missile weapon talent. Honestly, a thrown mace, (quick drawn with no dx roll due to thrown weapon talent) will mean a 3/dx roll vs a 15 at range 2, and a hit will average 6 damage. Bye bye typical experienced character. You can run , but you can't hide.

Re: Throw something!
 

I think you many have just given away why that version of the two-handed sword counter in Security Station had a mace added to its belt!

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Note that if you are playing ITL RAW, ie using the options list based on the dreaded engagement status at time of movement, the tactics of the game change completely. One outcome is that it is possible for the lower-DX figure to force the action.

high-DX Chicken vs low-DX Sword. They start disengaged. If Sword can manage to move second following initiative, and can charge attack Chicken, the attacks are forced.

This is because Chicken was disengaged at time its turn to move came, and so cannot select option k (Defend) or option n (Disengage).

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Except there is no such rule in ITL/TFT. Giants have a 1 hex attack range. This would be a house rule.

Giants have other advantages:
- can knock down foes during movement
- can trample foes underfoot
- club that does a lot of damage
- is not help in engagement to the same way as 1 hex creatures

So, it can knock you down during movement and then get the +4 DX to crush you with the club during actions. Maybe even get a trample in.

So house rule or your own regional giants can have a 2 hex range.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

From ITL (Legacy) 102:

"During a turn, a player may change his mind about a figure’s option, as long as
• that figure has not yet acted, and
• that figure did not move too far to allow it to take the new option."

As long as Chicken moved 1/2 MA or less, it can still choose Defend after Sword moves up to engage in a Charge Attack. (Defend is the mirror image of Attack, and may be used any time you could use Attack.) Now if Chicken had stood still on its chance to move, it would still have the option to Disengage on its turn to act, and having the higher DX then that would come before Sword could roll to hit.

Earlier editions of the rules presented these things more explicitly and cited examples, with switching to Defend being one of those examples.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

This has been done to death already, but one more time!

Indeed you can change your options as you note. Now, what options can you choose from? In ITL Legacy RAW, that is -- not Advanced Melee, OG Wizard, are any of the other versions of rules available.

It can hardly be clearer in Legacy ITL RAW that the options available to you (and yes you can change between them) are based on your engagement status at the time of your movement. This is clearly SJ's intention in ITL Legacy and I would cite as evidence:
1.That is what the rules say, and in fact the phrase about options available based on time of movement is mentioned at least 3 times, and at least twice with emphasis.
2. The player option cards in DoD are designed this way and make little sense otherwise.
3. The hexagram article I wrote on this exact point was read by Steve. I wrote the article for an audience of 1 (SJ) in order to explain at length some -- just some -- of the problems with the new rules on combat options. And instead of rejecting the article (this is just wrong!!!), or issuing a clarification (really it's supposed to be just like Advanced Melee), he in fact accepted the point and produced a new player option card so that disengaged figures can select Defend. Not at all what I was hoping but at least he read it.

The rules you cite from p102 do not contradict this. These are different points. One set describes conditions allowing change of options (from the pointless initial declaration), and the other describes the options you can change between.

For you, me, and the majority of experienced TFT players, this doesn't matter. At all. Because I think few experienced players are using ITL Legacy RAW relating to combat options. We've been playing for years and encoded a set of rules we like and see no reason to change.

It's a bit of a shame, as the new RAW are evidently confusing for both new and experienced players. If I think about it, I get a little bummed out that SJGames wasn't able to use the community of long-time TFT players in their rules rewrite. It feels like a lost opportunity. But then I think that actually I'm really glad the game is living again, and that the different interpretations we all seem to have don't much matter for the health of the game, and certainly not for our own games.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

ITL page 106 says a player may shift 1 hex and still disengage. So, Chicken should still be allowed to disengage as long as he did not move more than 1 hex during movement.

By the same reasoning, Defend should only be allowed if Chicken moved 1 hex or less. Not 1/2 MA. I know in the older versions of Melee this was allowed, but the new wording of these options puts Defend and Disengage on equal footing. Defend MA requirement has been discussed a lot and is still not a settled point but it makes sense to be consistent with both Defend and Disengage.