Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Hi Rob and all:

Please see my post from April 20th in the FnordCon 2 thread:
SJ Games clarifies that you aren't necessarily committed to an option at the time of your movement phase.

I was replying to your post in that thread. I'm sorry that you must have missed my reply.

I really appreciate your article in Hexagram 3 Rob because I struggled with this confusion a lot. And your "misinterpretation" reignited the issue with me and caused me to ask the question to Steve at FnordCon 2.

I believe it was last year in the forums that Skarg really helped to set me straight on the changing of options. I believe you were in some of those threads but may have missed some of his points. It is very hard to filter through everything without any kind of summary or synopsis of these discussions.

As crazy as it sounds, the keyword "move" is interpreted by Skarg as an oversight by Steve Jackson as meaning any time you touch your piece or get a turn with it like moving a chess piece. This would apply to your "move" as an action. Crazy I know, but I didn't write the rules.

Admittedly those rules were not worded well. Truth is that the rules could benefit from a list of formal definitions and adherence to them. However, Steve's style, for better or worse, is much less pedantic.

The veteran Skarg backed up a lot of his interpretation by comparing with the original rules from the '70s.

I was very interested in your Hexagram 3 article because I thought you would have addressed this larger issue. But it inspired me to ask for a resolution during the virtual FnordCon 2 via Discord (the weekend of April 17 - 19). As you will see in my post linked above, I got a definite answer from Steve and team.

Steve thought he had addressed the changing options issue, but I do not remember seeing his input in the forums. Admittedly, I may have missed earlier posts. Several of us asked about the issue multiple times last fall, and Skarg seemed to be one of the most insistent voices of reason.

I'm pretty surprised that this issue wasn't even addressed in the Hexagram 3 list of printed errata. I still appreciate your article. It's surprising that it didn't motivate some clarification from the editor or again trigger an additional errata entry.

Anyway, we now have an official response from "the man" himself. Maybe we'll get it in writing sometime.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Tom, that is excellent news. I had not seen your posts on this clarification. It gives reason to think that if errata are ever issued this issue can be addressed. Thank you so much for following this up. We got there in the end!

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Hallelujah and amen! High-fives all around!

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

A little thread necromancy because things have been wild.

Ah, I meant that all of the links were demonstrating how players actually play - just observation. I do particularly like your way of laying it out, within the universe of ways of viewing the same actual sequence (and that's a compliment).

The "incoherence" referred to is trying to actually play with engagement at the start of the movement phase (and at no other point in the turn) affecting what actions are available.

Oh! I misunderstood - I thought you were approaching it in a way similar to HCobb's Molly (pointing out perceived flaws with tongue-in-cheek thought experiments that only directly, but still opaquely, discuss downstream effects, not the actual issue).

Anyway, I'm glad to hear someone asked about this at Fnordcon, and that it was resolved in a way we all favor! I was specifically frustrated at myself for missing Fnordcon because I had intended to ask about this myself :)

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

I enjoyed some bourbon on ice and a rare Shepheard's Hotel while pondering all this two years later. Have returned to Melee after a hiatus. I closely read the comments, and I got a lot out of them [especially as I am also a technical writer and reviewer of rules]. So thanks to all.

RE: the Defend / Disengage issue, I concur that a defensive stance is a defensive stance, and it seems if you are engaged and choose "Defend" and your opponent Disengages, then someone can shoot you with 3 instead of 4 dice since you are not Dodging and you took no attack for nothing.

I've modified the rules for both Dodge and Defend so that any missile / hand weapon attack would be with 4 Dice, reflecting the alert, defensive stance vs. any attack.

It seems to me that the other issue of great interest is Options:
1) are you locked into an Option that you picked and then moved accordingly?
2) OR, do you only lose options based upon your Move choice [0, 1, 2, 1/2 or Full Move]?

I think I'm inclined to #2, as the Game Mechanics of Move-Action [in adjDEX order] force an artificial 2-stage process on all activity. But that's how the game works. In most RPGs, this is not bothered with, and everyone either "acts simultaneously" by stating their intent or sequentially in some sort of speed / initiative order.

For example, if you are Engaged, and only Move / Shift one hex, you can do everything except pick up a weapon [a 0 hex move]. If you are attacked by a higher adjDEX figure, who misses and breaks their weapon, but you chose Defend, you now cannot attack to take advantage of the situation [#1]. If we're going with #2, you can attack instead. This seems preferable to both game play and "reality" I think.

Overall, game flow seems to favor #2, IMHO.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

If you enjoyed the benefits of Defend by having the higher-adjDX figure roll 4/DX instead of 3/DX to attack you, you are now locked into Defend and can’t take any other action. Whether you were hit or missed by the attack is irrelevant.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

You've got it. It is #2, but once you do choose you are then locked in. During the movement phase you choose a movement with an intended action. But as the action phase unfolds, specially when there are multiple actors on each side, when it becomes your turn to act you can chose any action that your movement did not exclude. The Defend/Dodge options differ only in that they can be committed to out of your normal adjDX turn order. But in concept, it is the same as once you commit to one of them then that is what you are doing for that turn. This is why it is best not to declare Defend until someone states they are attacking you, unless they are slower than you in which you will have to make the assumption that the attack is coming when it is your turn to choose an action.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Agreed. But if you are faster than them, you'd be Acting before them and have to declare it anyway. If you are slower, and someone chooses to attack you, then you'd have to declare it [sorta out of sequence].

This is actually something of an argument to say that you have to pick Option in Move Phase and then stick with it.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

The rules do explicitly state that one can change options before they act so long as they did not move too far to allow the new action. The example given is changing from Change Weapons to Attack when an enemy moves into your front hex after you moved and declared Change Weapons.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Only two cases here:

1. Foe attacks before you and you can start the turn with a declared defend and then if not attacked disengage.
2. Foe attacks after you disengage.

Combine with Dagger Expertise and you're golden. (Pole weapons expertise and Shield Expertise could combine for a +2 to turn order to help with the above.)