Tactical Question: Disengage
 

My son and I were playing - for money, so this is a serious question, 25 cents is at stake, ya gotta help us out!

Two teams of two figs, one on each side got kacked. The survivor on one side is Tank with chain mail and large shield, mace. The other, Speedy, has just a Main Gauche and a saber, and 5 points of DX on the other guy.

The way I read the rules, Speedy can always Disengage from Tank with no repurcussions. Tank also cannot try and force Hand to Hand conflict on him, nor can he Shield Rush him. And Speedy has a higher MA by 4.

It seemed to me that it was a draw. Tank can never catch Speedy, and Speedy can't risk an exchange of Attacks with someone who can out fight him.

Please let me know if I am missing something.

The only thing I can see that might solve this, IF it is correct, would be to make Shield Rush part of movement not an attack, or drop some of the exceptions to forcing HtH on someone.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Yes, it is a bug (which I house rule away, click link below), but why shouldn't a faster character get to run away?

Best used with Javelin Expertise to alternate charge defense with free retreat.

A sneaky way to counter this is for the disengaged from figure to use the disengage option to reengage.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Don't see a link.
Hmm, I think faster characters should get away, in reality! It is however a game reason more than a reality reason. I think it is more fun not more realistic.

Wow! That IS sneaky! Still, the figure won't be attacked - it will just limit it's movement next turn as it is still Engaged. So you end up with the same problem, really - the free Disengage means you can't be attacked if you have a higher DX and don't want to be attacked.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

If he is so fast, can he win initiative and get around you and enter HTH from a rear hex? That would only take 7 MA! (assuming he is one hex away after a turn he disengages.)

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Yes, it is correct that a faster figure who doesn't want to fight can (terrain and other figures permitting...) disengage. If the slower figure doesn't have a weapon that can two-hex jab, or a thrown or ranged weapon, then the faster figure can probably stay away from him. Makes sense. Rules working as intended.


Henry brought up the common house rule that any figure can use "Disengage" to move one hex as an action, even if they are not engaged. That's logical, since being Engaged probably shouldn't make you more maneuverable. As you say, this will tend not to allow the slower figure to attack, but will let them re-engage. But I would that that that situation is not rules-as-written nor rules-as-intended.

One way to fix that it to add more detail to the house rule, and say that a figure who Disengaged the previous turn, if they move first, won't be considered engaged by other figures who also used Disengage. Or perhaps simply that figures who Disengage do not engage any figures during the next movement phase.


And, by the way, there was a rule added to late editions of original Melee, that said that if a figure disengages from a figure who has not yet attacked, that that figure can try to attack the disengaging figure at that point, at a DX penalty equal to the difference in adjDX between the figures. (So for example, an adjDX 11 figure trying to hit a disengaging adjDX 13 figure would need to roll a 9 to hit them as they disengage.) Personally, I don't really think this is necessary, but if players are annoyed by Disengage, this is a house rule that can help address that.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

I would not let a disengaged figure select the option to disengage. The idea that a nimble foe can always escape a clumsy opponent is a feature, not a bug.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Another fix would be to adopt the most common weapon setup of all time. If someone disengages from you then hit them with a spear jab.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Interesting thought.

However, we have a contradiction of two rule mechanics: IN and Disengage. IN has the intent that the side choosing to move first has an advantage of positioning, maneuvering, and Engaging the opponent. Disengage, however, cancels out losing the IN since you have created an impervious wall of fighters who cannot be fought unless they feel like it - how awesome to have such god-like powers! Imagine, with a measly DX of 10 not even the power of a giant matters; he has to stop when coming adjacent and then you Disengage.

I think you get the point.

If someone wins IN and successfully Engages someone in combat before they have time to run away, than Disengage contradicts the obvious intent of the IN rule mechanic. By failing to win IN, you should open yourself up to some sort of consequence, but you don't. In fact, according to this rule, if I have a dozen warriors all of whom have ONE POINT of DX higher than a dozen opponents [say DX11 to DX10], then one side may NEVER combat the other side, without their consent. And that is just plain broken.

But, I'm not hearing that I have the rule incorrectly, so I'll just solve this with a simple house rule - you have to roll your DX to Disengage successfully, or perhaps...Disengage movement occurs at the end of the Combat Phase. If you don't want to have people attack you, then you should work hard to win IN 100% of the time!

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

It does achieve that, if/when the situation allows, and the winning player manages to capitalize on having won initiative.


No, Disengage does not cancel out losing initiative. If you disengage, you're not accomplishing much to win a fight. It also is only possible if you have an adjDX advantage AND you have someplace good to disengage to AND your enemy doesn't have things they can do with their time while you use your action to disengage.


No. Winning initiative generally does give advantages. It's usually a coin flip to answer the necessary question of who moves first, though, and is not intended to always guarantee an advantage. It's up to the players to move wisely and find ways to gain advantages.

Disengage in no way "contradicts" the advantages of winning initiative. I would say rather that it offers a faster figure a way to avoid a really bad position, which may or may not be the result of losing initiative. But if a figure does use Disengage to escape a bad position, they are also using their action for the turn to accomplish nothing else but moving one hex, which in general is not a productive thing to be doing. Maybe it's better than staying where they were, but if your foes are using their actions to move one hex, that's generally a worthwhile thing to get them to do rather than having them hurting you with weapon attacks instead.

That is, making an enemy take Disengage generally IS a valuable consequence.


Again, no, that's not a fact. That's you under-thinking the situation. Not only is a dozen warriors Disengaging no way to win a fight, but it also generally doesn't work when you actually have a bunch of figures on an actual map, for at least the dozen reason hcobb and I listed in response to your similar post in house rules.

Perhaps the most general reason why even if someone ever did try that (why, I don't know), it wouldn't work, is because Team Disengage can only move 1/2 MA and Disengage, while Team Engage can move full MA to envelop them, and then close in from multiple directions, and/or corner them, or whatever.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Sure, I understand your points in the full context of a game, and of course it is not a concern where both sides have victory conditions to achieve. So no argument from me on those points.

I still submit that it is broken to have a mechanic that allows one side to practice continual denial of action. As a matter of fact, if I have a giant, and you have 1/3 it's size in figs, you can move half, Engage, then disengage and deny it indefinitely, locking it into position with the Engage then denying it a chance to fight, while you shoot it to death.

See what I'm saying? That's a self-defeating design flaw, and it isn't necessary. If you have to roll your DX10 to Disengage from a DX9 Giant, and half your team succeeds, and the other half doesn't, you'll end up with half the team getting beat up. Now you are better off fighting. A design that pushes players to ACT positively is a good design.

The classic error with, say airplane or spaceship battles is to design a scenario where one side just wants to escape. Oops, boring scenario.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

I consider the OP's original situation to not be a problem. Just as it is possible to force a draw in Chess if you are in just the right situation to begin with, this potential in Melee simply reflects the fact that it is a well engineered game where the combination of tactical situations and player decision making can open up opportunities. If you want a tank who can get at a 'speedy', then plan ahead by entering combat with some weapon other than a mace. A spear would work (you can jab or throw). Or, if you had a missile weapon you could ready it and take pot shots until speedy either got hit by a lucky shot or decided to engage in melee or HTH combat, as that at least provides an avenue to victory (the preferred outcome once you have been denied a draw!).

Another important point is that some of these sorts of situations are only relevant to one-on-one duels on open ground, which is not really where the system is at its best. Just like chess, you can play with one figure vs. another, but it is a lot more interesting to play several vs. several, and/or with a more complex physical environment. Stalemates are much harder to force in those cases.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

The way to abuse Disengage is to have Dagger Mastery and a Dagger-Staff of Mastery. The foe is down 2 DX to strike your Molly so she acts first to Disengage and Occult zap. She'll only kill a dozen helpless muggles before she runs out of Mana and needs a week to recharge.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

I do see what you are saying, but I mostly disagree.

I agree that in theory there are potentially frustrating or wrong-seeming situations where figures could avoid being attacked by a single figure with even 1 point of lower adjDX, if that single figure has no pole weapon and no ranged attack, and the terrain is open enough (and if not using the Waiting For An Opening optional rule).

I disagree however that it is a design flaw, or that the design should artificially push players "to ACT positively". I think it's a feature if it is possible for some level of speed advantage to allow a figure to avoid a single sword/ax/mace opponent in clear open ground. I think that should be possible. q.v. fiction like Zorro, Robin Hood, or any hero using agility and maneuver to not be overwhelmed by large numbers of guards. In an arena combat scenario, you can just specify that if one side refuses combat, they forfeit the round as if they ran out an exit, which is also a valid move to survive if you don't think you can win the fight.


I also disagree in almost all of your details of how severe the situation actually is.
* Disengaging doesn't tend to get the disengager much except getting out of a bad position. It doesn't accomplish anything else.
* In situations with terrain and more than a pair of hostile figures, it's not always possible to disengage to a safe hex, and having one of your figures not attack tends to put you at a disadvantage.
* Pole weapons, ranged weapons and spells can be used against you while you're using your action to disengage.
* Pole weapons charges strike before disengagement can happen.
* If there's more than one foe, they can maneuver around you to prevent your escape.
* Disengaging only works if you have an adjDX advantage.
* Waiting for an Opening is a natural response to Disengage, giving your foe up to +2 adjDX, so you really need 3 higher adjDX to be sure to be able to get away from them by continuing to disengage.
* Waiting for an Opening also means that Disengaging a foe means giving them a +1 adjDX advantage next turn.


Having played TFT combat for many years, I also find that Disengage has never occurred as a problem during the play I've seen. If someone wants to disengage repeatedly, it generally means they're running away, or conceding a fight, or trying to fall back to a better fighting position. But that just has natural consequences, none of which I've seen to be a problem in practice. The only issues I've seen have been with new players or people with some other conception of how they want/expect combat to work, or who are just surprised and frustrated when a faster figure keeps avoiding melee with them.


And to address your giant example: First, 1/3 of a 3-hex giant is one, and (in the full rules, anyway) one or two figures can be Pushed into by a giant during movement, making them roll 3/DX or fall, though that's not really a great tactic in many cases. If you mean a 6-hex giant versus 2 figures, or a 9-hex giant versus 3 figures, well, you'd need to invent their stats, and I would tend to follow GURPS' example of giving such huge giants a reach advantage (reach at least 3 for the 9-hex giant), meaning they don't need to have a spear to hit you 2 hexes away. If giants were often being confounded by people teasing them by coming up and disengaging, they might take to carrying large rocks, spears, or longer clubs.


The scenario design is up to the players and/or GM in an RPG game. And scenarios where you want to escape can be really exciting, if you make it other than just an arena situation where one side can just leave. In an arena situation, you can just specify that if one side refuses to fight, they forfeit. If a player says they want to play an arena duel, and then just run away the whole time, that's mainly on them, or a misunderstanding about what the goals would be. It doesn't mean that a set of combat rules should make running away impossible. Now THAT I would see as a design flaw!


I do think that this and other (e.g. Expert/Master Defend) uses of engagement to pin melee fighters without really fighting them while others use ranged attacks to attack them, can be a bit of a problem, which I prefer to address with house rules that address all those issues at once (e.g. allowing moving through engagement but with the ignored figure able to act at that point to attack them).

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Yeah, we are at the Melee stage of things, and Wizard is next.

Haven't even really gotten into TFT yet. I am not really concerned with a GM dungeon crawl / adventure situation. That is easy to intervene in and wing it on the spot, e.g. "the giant bellows in rage and picks up a rock".

My concerns have to do with what is actually happening using just the core rules, or basic rules, or whatever people call the Melee / Wizard combo.

I regard it as inevitable that an RPG in its pursuit of variety will come up with "broken" combinations. It is then up to the GM to push back on them to keep the adventure interesting without killing all the character by having them run into Sauron or something.
:)

Thanks for the input, picked up a lot of useful rule bits including some insight into TFT and the "advanced" rules!

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Hi Skarg,
Waiting for an Opening will not help against a foe that is disengaging because Waiting for an Opening only works if you do not move. If your foe is avoiding combat but refusing the leave the field, then how are you going to get engaged again without moving?


Hi Aman,
Skarg is right about a lot of it but I want to double down on agreeing with him about Giants. Multihex monsters will move onto one hex figures and often knock them over, doing so right through the engagement so before there is any attempt to disengage.

Also I want to affirm your take that someone disengaging a lot can be annoying. If you were doing arena battles, you can just make a rule that more than 3 disengages in a row is a loss the same a leaving the field.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Hey Axley,
Haven't played with a giant yet, but looking forward to more arena fights in the gladiator tradition. Just using Melee for now, so it it's in there, we'll be dealing with it! My son is keen to try a giant - I'm uncertain which side he wants to be.

Yes, we're making our rules about Arena fights and draws. And betting on them! But I think there's a point about not fighting - no action, no prize money. In a labyrinth, the GM can decide; in the arena, the bloodthirsty crowd decides.
:)

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Ah, that's a good technical point, unless it's the first turn he disengages and you didn't move that turn - then you could switch to Waiting For An Opening in response. (This is often the situation when someone was fighting you for one or more turns, but then they later decide to try to get away.)

What can often happen in practice when someone's trying to escape several foes, is a pursuer will move and get around behind the figure trying to get away, or to some position such that the figure trying to get away moves (on their NEXT turn) into engagement range of a pursuer with the intent to Disengage out. In this case too, the pursuer could end up engaged without having moved on the turn the evader disengages. Then the next turn they can move up to 1/2 MA and attack at +1 DX.


Or if you're willing to go slightly off RAW, you could house rule that either:

1) if you're Waiting For An Opening with a hand weapon rather than a ranged weapon, you can move 1 hex and do it (I think this makes a lot of sense because real melee fighters often circle or vary their distance while evaluating each other before striking). This would tend to cover the repeat Disengager. They Disengage one hex, then you move first one hex to re-engage.

or

2) if a foe Disengages from you and you still have your action not yet used, you could be allowed to switch to Waiting For An Opening with a hand weapon regardless of how far you moved.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

It's a matter of taste but I'm tempted to go back to the alternative rule that a disengaging figure can be hit at a DX penalty.

As for Giants; shouldn't a long armed monster with a long club have the reach of a spear? That would make Giants a tougher proposition: so you disengage from the Giant before he gets to act. Big deal, he hits you anyway with his 10 foot reach.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Disengage is only useful if it helps you kill people.

Take a typical experienced character:

ST 6, DX 14, IQ 20, MA 12, Mana 40
Very Fine Silver Dagger(1d+3) with Staff V enchantment(1d+2)
Dagger Mastery, Running, Human tongue, Staff V, etc.

She selects the Disengage option against a puny human swordsman with ST 14, DX 17(15), IQ 9, Two Handed Sword, Leather Armor, etc.

She acts first because he is at a -2 on his DX due to her Dagger Mastery. She disengages then applies her occult zap against the helpless swordsman until he dies.

Q.E.D.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

You keep ignoring the fundamental flaw in your argument of "I disengage, and because I am no longer engaged I change my option to attack."

On page 106 of The Fantasy Trip LE rule book, where it explains how Disengage works. It clearly details that when your turn to "move" comes you stand still or shift one hex and then says:

"When its turn to ATTACK comes, instead of attacking, it moves one hex in any direction. You may move onto another figure to attempt HTH combat that same turn."

You keep suggesting that the disengage can occur, AND THEN a swap to a different option allows an attack that same turn. It cannot work that way. Disengaging TAKES THE PLACE of the attack portion of the option.

You can only change options if you have not "ACTED" (disengaging is the ACTION).

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.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

That's not RAW. That was the point of that example I gave, that a figure disengaged at the time of its movement will be able to choose among the options (a)..(i), as long as not moved too far, etc. None of those options allow disengage, which is only available by option (n). Note, when I saw that's not RAW, it's a compliment, it's better than RAW. RAW in this regard is unambiguous, it's just not good.

In Hexagram #4, where the issue of option selection and defending is explicitly discussed, SJ resolves this issue IMO. He created a new option, to allow a disengaged figure to move 1 hex and defend.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

That's not really true, or at the very least not exactly true.

Let's break down the problematic paragraph on 102:

"An option is a set of actions." -- there are multiple parts to an "option" and these are called "actions"...

"A figure may execute one option each turn" -- you get one set of actions... "and may not mix actions from different options." So you can't mix and match. You can't pick Attack and Defend, or Defend and Dodge, or Disbelieve and Change Weapons, because nowhere on the list can you find any of those paired within the same set. Of importance is that this prohibition on mixing has only been made is reference to actions, not to movement (which TFT treats as a separate thing).

"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." Yes, this is exactly true. When it's your turn to move, some options are unavailable depending on your engagement status. Really, really important here is that this rule does not speak to what options may or may not be available or what the criterion for those choices will be after your turn to move. Restrictions on your turn to act are impossible to make at this point, because everyone gets to move first -- positions, engagement status, range and other details are all in flux until the movement phase is over. This rule about "options available" is only speaking to the immediate, the movement part of the turn.

Now the juicy part: "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." <- [note that is past tense]

Wait, why isn't this in contradiction of the rule against mixing actions from different options? Because no actions have happened yet. There's no rule against mixing movement and actions from different options, only against mixing actions with actions from different options.

There is the constraint, given in the second bullet point, that the action you do settle on has to be part of an option (that set of actions) that followed the same movement you already executed. You can't have moved too far. Whether or not that finished move was constrained by engagement status, and whether or not that engagement status has changed after everyone has moved, is not even brought up. It is immaterial.

Not once does this paragraph on ITL 102 say the action you are choosing now, after the completion of movement, has anything to do with your engagement status at the time you moved. Your move itself was already constrained by your engagement status at the time, and that's over and done. There is no double jeopardy. As long as the move you made agrees with the set of actions found in the option you want now, and that option is allowed under your current engagement status, you are fully entitled to pick it. The RAW doesn't prohibit this, in fact it's literally telling you to do it.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

I appreciate the careful analysis. And for some reason I find this topic so engaging that I'm going to respond instead of work on the report I should be doing. Work from home, yay...

I've tried to read your analysis carefully, and I think I understand where I disagree with it. Where I think we agree:

1. Options have a part that is executed during the movement phase, and a part that is executed during the action phase.
2. During the movement phase, the options available to you depend on your engagement status. You declare your chosen option (pointless as you can later change it), and execute the movement part.
3. After the movement phase is the action phase. You can now change your option, as long as you haven't already acted (eg Defended) or moved too far for that option.

Now we disagree.
4. What options are available to a figure in the Action phase?

But don't the rules they say exactly that? Three times?
Options available to you depend on engagement status at the time of movement. During play, you may change options, as long as...

Why would they also need to say:
And after you've moved, the above is still true, the options available to you still depend on your engagement status at the time of movement. You may change options, as long as...

I originally had a much longer reply (believe it or not), but I think the above gets to the crux of it.

I also give reasons in my previous post why I think this reading is SJ's (current) intention. But maybe that will change one day, and SJ issues a simple powerful erratum to the sequence of play: the options available to a figure depend on its engagement status during the action phase.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

I've seen what seems like at least eight discussions on this forum just about the "at the moment its turn to move comes" wording.

I'm tired of arguing about it, and simply refuse to play that way unless it's an experiment to experience how awful the gameplay is when you play that way.

I encourage people who prefer that wording to playtest with that enforced, and see how awful it is. I've tried it. I hate it.

Previews:

* "Ok, remember what each figure's engagement status was when its time to move comes. Later engagement status will be irrelevant for option selection until next turn."

* "These two warriors just engaged each other this turn, but the one that moved to engage can't Defend because Defend isn't listed as a disengaged option. But the other one can because he moved second so he started his movement phase engaged."

* "Bob was engaged from behind at the start of his movement, but his foe then moved away. But Bob can't Dodge, because he was engaged at the start of his movement phase."

* "Can I use option (o) and attempt HTH as an action? Only if I was engaged with someone, anyone, not necessarily my target, when my turn to move came - not now."

Why?

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Oh I totally empathize Skarg! You have fought the good fight and more than earned the breather. I've been on the forum less than a year so I've seen fewer reruns than you. Even so, the next time this topic comes up, and we know it will, I'd better give it a rest too. I've found this go-round rewarding but the honeymoon is ending :)

Nor did I nor would I ever play with all those paradoxes going on. My group got so tired of these questions in our earliest years of play we banned the Defend option entirely, tore it up, burned the page, and made up our own rule -- on with the game!

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

And I'm dodging my taxes maintaining this exchange, but frankly this is a lot more fun!

And by way of a late confession, I must admit to having been behind in my reading -- when I replied to your first post in this thread I hadn't read your article in Hexagram3 yet! I hang my head in shame. Now having caught up, it was an excellent article I thoroughly enjoyed. I fear I over-explained my initial points because you'd obviously already considered all of them, and we've been in near total agreement all along. As to getting an option (b2) card added to Deck of Destiny, nicely done!

That completely solves any problem with Defend as far as I'm concerned, and we may hope SJ integrates that with all future printings of ITL.

Yes we agree on the first 3 points, but we don't really disagree on this one either. That is, we agree on how we play the game, which is all that really matters to anyone. The debate is really over how much SJ might agree with how we reached our conclusions, and that's just an academic debate for the heck of it.

I'm taking this:

Options available to you depend on engagement status at the time of movement. During play, you may change options, as long as...

And bending it by saying it's intended to mean:

Options available to you at the time of movement depend on engagement status at the time of movement. During play, you may change options, as long as...

Am I right to interpret it that way? Maybe not! About all I can say in defense is that this interpretation brings current ITL into more agreement with Advanced Melee and the 1978 edition of Wizard. What was more likely, an intentional change in game mechanics, or an abbreviated choice of wording with the unintended consequence of raising questions about those mechanics?

I'm going to guess it was the latter. Of course this desire is heavily biased by the fact I really don't want it to be the former, because I don't want those paradox situations you listed in your article, and Skarg just echoed in his last post, to keep popping up. Not that it will deter any of us from playing it as we deem best.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Great post, this feels like retiring to the drawing room, to smoke cigars, sip fine whiskey, and discuss the finer points of the game.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

While I quite enjoy Hexagram, I'm not convinced its content always reflects the 'intentions' of SJ so much as highly optional content (and even mechanics) meant to facilitate subsets of players 'style' of interpreting TFT. For example, 'if you want to make Astrology real in the game, here's one writer's way of doing it!'

Because these rules aren't "canon," the rules aren't always going to be airtight. For example, by Hexagram 4, adding a bronze boss and rim to your small wooden shield makes it worthless (while a wooden shield is, on the first hit, as effective as an iron or steel-bossed and rimmed shield). There's a similar problem for comparing wooden armor with bronze chain-mail, IIRC. But, the article stands as one player and writer's efforts to represent more diverse material, and while it isn't air tight it gets far enough along the way that it certainly is a useful article for someone who likes handling material in a similar way: perfect for Hexagram.

Similarly, I wouldn't assume that SJ plays the way you are describing (in fact, I think if we searched through example play videos enough we could find explicit examples where he doesn't*) just because Hexagram produced an option card to help cover some issues with "your" (I recognize you don't actually play this way) interpretation. This is because, on the off chance someone is interpreting it this way, or wants defend against jabs, or is even just playing the game with the classic interpretation but wants a card reminding them of the move and defend option when they're looking at the board at the start of movement, hey, here's a card for them to use: perfect for Hexagram.

I do think it would have made more sense, given your own inclinations on the rules, to submit an article noting the same contradictions and using this to argue that the interpretation is simply wrong. Ironically, I think Steve might have said "good point, but it's errata" rather than published a full article in that case (although the card has uses regardless of the interpretation). As it stands, it seems that SJGames actually misunderstood the problem your article is about. Note that in the current TFT errata this is noted as a potential issue worth revising about defend which misses the wider point - under your interpretation a figure can be put into HTH during the enemy's move but be disengaged during their own move, so they get to Ready A New Weapon and get a dagger out for free instead of with the usual DX test, or disbelieve, or heck, they can take a Missile Weapon Attack if you similarly misinterpret the rules for firing from prone. Similarly they can defend if they were engaged at the start of their move, and option otherwise not available to figures in HTH. And don't even try to interpret what "One Last Shot" missile attacks are actually supposed to do when you're allowing regular disengaged missile attacks by figures in enemy's front hexes!

There's a reason new players and old players all play it the same way (every play example I've seen, at least). It's why there's all of these fine reimaginings of the options list as a way of *organizing* the fundamental flow of moves restricted by engagement, actions restricted by moves and engagement/HTH status:
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread...27#post2284227
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=168290
It's just incoherent to interpret it otherwise and creates more weird rule ambiguity than it 'solves.'


*I looked and couldn't find any examples that would play differently either way, although the way SJ talks about it (he explains actions as having restrictions from how far you move) makes me believe that (if he is currently playing TFT) he plays actions the same way as they were intended in Classic TFT.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Quite so, suggestive articles are just that, suggestions. When the editor of a 'zine is also the designer of the game or other content under discussion within the publication, well first and foremost that's a very gracious thing, being allowed "in" as it were to offer critique and suggestions -- the same goes for this forum. It's healthy for the game, and for the community that plays it. It also reflects positively on the designer's confidence -- there's a lot of authors out there that would have melt downs over anyone besides themselves proposing variants and modifications to their work! I know a software writer who literally rips the heads off his own customers at the merest hint his design could be less than perfect. But I digress.

Ringing endorsements of fan contributions aren't SJ's style, and probably with good reason. Publications outside the official rules aren't the place to accept changes to those rules, because not everyone reads or sees them. It's just fairer to everyone if there's only one official set of rules at a time. Maybe RobW's move and defend option for disengaged figures will appear in the rules someday, and maybe it won't. Maybe it'll just remain a house rule for those who want to use it. Either way, we can be sure SJ didn't hate the idea or the article wouldn't have made it into Hexagram in the first place! That in itself is an endorsement.

I'm really not sure if that's a complement, criticism, or observation -- just wondering because the first link quoted is to one of my own articles. Any opinion is acceptable, just curious which it was -- well okay, I am kinda hoping "incoherent" wasn't a reaction I triggered :)

Anyone can think of this part of TFT's rules in a different sequence, and still be just as correct as anyone else. That's one of the things that's always been intriguing about TFT.

It's just like the question about the chicken and the egg. What came first? Engagement status? Movement? Action? You can say Movement distance is what determines options, but Engagement status determines restrictions on Movement. What restricts Actions, the distance Moved that was already restricted by Engagement? Or vice versa? Or all of the above? Now the result of an Action changes Engagement status... you can get dizzy thinking about it!

It all goes around in a circle, wheels within wheels, for as long as combat turns last. Superficially it sounds like a simple enough Turn Sequence, nothing to scare away a novice game player, but there are deep subtleties hiding in plain sight.

What comes first, what takes precedence, may be the wrong question. What comes next is the real question, the only one that actually matters.

And "next" is always determined by where you were last in the Turn Sequence. Whatever table helps you keep your thoughts organized is the right table for you.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

I agree with everything you say, but especially this. Yes, you are right, that is what I should have done. TBF that is what I thought I was doing, in a kind of collegial way.

Its not too late though, maybe someone else can take this up? I think I'm now out of the running (although there's always pseudonyms).

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.)

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Is that Melee 3rd ed? Or Legacy ITL? What page?

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

p. 102 legacy ITL under list of options 1st paragraph explains this well I think.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Melee 2018 page 6: "may change his mind about a figure’s option"

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

I only wish every version of the rules used the format for presenting the options that only appeared in Advanced Melee, pages 3-4. It is all so much more explicit there, there's practically no question about the intended design.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

I dont' think my gaming group from many years ago allowed for changing options after all movement was done. IMO I find changing options after movement and during the Actions phase to be a bit of a cheat method which is why I think we enacted that as a rule. We often did three or four combatants against each other - no teams

Eg two characters on one team closing in on a Crossbow wielder say two or three hexes away. Both choose Dodge because they haven't engaged yet. The Crossbow user chooses one of the two and attacks with the four dice. Now the other guy decides to change Options because the attack didn't come its way and throws a weapon.

The only Option changing we allowed was if everyone left HTH, the last character to choose to Stand Up now. And we allowed characters who choose to attack to change the target choice or change the spell choice. Or to choose not to attack.

IMO it gives low adjDX characters at times an unfair disadvantage. Imagine if a horde of any type of low DX critters all changed from the Defend option to Attack during the Action phase.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

This isn't new. See Advanced Melee 1980, page 4 "Changing Options"

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Actually, without it the low DX characters are at a big disadvantage. The high DX characters get to take their action immediately after moving, so the situation is exactly as they had been expecting. But the low DX character would be committed to actions that the high DX characters can then manipulate.

For example, during move if the low DX guy engages to high DX characters. If he is forced to commit during movement, he says he is attacking character A. Character A just needs to disegage and his friend gets to attack without a worry.

Or say the low DX guy was getting attacked by a high DX and decided a defend would be best. To his good fortune, his team has an even higher DX archer who scores 8 damage on the high DX foe knocking him down. So, now the low DX guy is forced to defend against a prone foe? This is what most low DX guys wait for: a prone foe.

By the time a low DX character acts lots of things change. Forcing them into a decision by the end of movement can be crippling. It also remove the excitement of characters changing up to handle the fluid situations. This is great fun.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

That's really restrictive. Changing options to meet changing conditions was built into the RAW since the beginning, and one of the things I find both logical and delightful.

That's where Dodge does get dicey. Unlike the options that say move so far, then do this, do that, or do the other thing, this one says:

(c) DODGE. Move up to half its MA while dodging.

It's that word while used in the conjunctive sense that makes this one different, so it honestly can't be treated as flexibly as the other actions when it comes to last minute changes or take-backs. DODGE is an action during movement, not after. It could almost belong in that section of the rules headed Actions During Movement – Jumping, Etc. rather than under the Options.

So if you want to get really strict about that one, I can't disagree. The probable way to enforce the RAI is to require the players to declare they are taking DODGE while moving their counter, and that's that. It can only be chosen on the Movement Phase, and if it wasn't then you can't use it during the Action Phase. And if you did declare it during Movement, then you can't do anything else when your chance to act comes up. I'm not totally in favor of that myself, I'm just saying that's what the rules seem to really mean (even without being explicit enough about that).

That latter part bothers me though. Rationally a figure should be able to stop dodging when it wants to, although then its alternatives should be highly limited. It could want to stop dodging to intentionally draw fire to itself rather than someone else, and I can't see any reason to disallow that. It should also be allowed to simply drop to the floor if it sees any advantage to doing so -- then of course it's no longer dodging and subsequent attacks would only be on 3d6, not 4. But change from DODGE to an attack after saying you were dodging? No, never. Just having said it aloud might change the opposition's thinking and decisions even if they never mention it.

Now my way of doing it is to accept a declaration "I'm dodging" reactively from anyone the moment they are attacked, as long as they didn't exceed 1/2 MA during the Movement Phase, and as long as they've done nothing else yet on the Action Phase. But that locks them in for the rest of the turn -- they can't change their mind afterwards for any reason.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Though there's a LOT of discussion here, I just came here to get a better understanding of the disengagement option for Melee/Wizard. I used to play back when these first came out, and only recently reacquired the two as part of a boxed edition of the classic games.

I think I got the gist of the explanation of the basic rules in that it seems any fighter with a higher dexterity can pretty well choose when to fight, since his turn to attack always comes first and if he chooses to disengage he pretty well can't be touched.

In my case, this question came up with a spear-armed high DEX fighter with no armor. As long as he doesn't a higher DEX opponent, he can disengage until he's in a good position to make a 3-hex charge. In which case, if he hits, he does an extra die of damage, or 2D+1, and stands a good chance of knocking an opponent's adjusted DEX down at least -2 if not knocking him to the ground completely.

A few repeated maneuvers like this and he has a good chance of killing an opponent unscathed. Of course, there are always lucky/unlucky hits and encounters. But, them's the breaks.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Even more powerful is to combine very fine javelin, small shield, Running, Pole Weapons Expertise, and Shield Expertise. If forced to move first then run off somewhere where the foe can't get a side shot at you. If moving second then stand vs charge. Force retreats and Disengage to ensure that every attack is a charge attack.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Just to clarify for any newcomers and as has been pointed out many times before, javelins are not cutting weapons and so cannot be made fine to do more damage.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

A fine javelin (not a cutting weapon) may still do +1 damage, just not +2.

ITL 123 says polearms, hammers and maces (and others), in the opening sentence of the fine section, may do extra damage. As hammers and maces are not cutting weapons, it clear means all listed may do at least +1.

Second paragraph says cutting weapons may have +1 or +2. This is where hammers, maces and javelins (I also would add tridents) are limited to +1 damage.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Correct. Henry mentioned very fine.

Re: Tactical Question: Disengage
 

Your comment is much appreciated! I had started to consider that using a javelin and shield might be a nice option. Kind of started to think of those scenes in the film Troy, where Achilles is fighting with the Javelin, and I seem to recall he "disengages" a lot to take advantage of his weapon.

As for the fine and very fine options in TFT, I'll keep them in mind.

Thanks all!