Quick question about UC II and above.
 

ITL41 says:

Evade. Hand weapon attacks from your front hexes are at -1, and damage done to you is reduced by 1 hit per attack.

Does the damage reduction apply only to hand weapon attacks from the front hexes or to all attacks? (I know the comma is trying to tell me something, but it's not clear what.)

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

Like a lot of the technical rules, this one isn't clearly interpretable just based on parsing grammar. But my interpretation, given the context and other similar examples, is that the -1 damage modifier carries the same conditions as the -1 to-hit modifier. I.e., you only get it against hand weapon attacks through your front hex. If you want a more general natural damage reduction, take Toughness.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

Thanks. Makes sense to me.

I'm sure that comma is doing some work there, but I'm not sure what.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

Note by the wording on UC V that this is no defense against pole arm jabs.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

I notice there's a little inconsistency in UC III, where the evade is described as applying to melee attacks from the front hexes, not hand weapon attacks.

I wonder why evade doesn't work with unarmed attacks. Or does that count as "hand weapon"?

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

Personally, I treat all non-thrown, non-missile attacks as part of the same category with respect to these sorts of rules, so a jab is the same as a 'melee' weapon attack is the same as a melee unarmed attack and so forth. The narrowest reading of the rules would suggest some of these are handled differently from the others, but this leads to unnecessary fussiness in play (and feels like nonsense). See the discussion of the Defend action for another case where people have considered how to respond to peculiarities in the language uses in the rules.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

I think that seems reasonable. Surely, a martial arts expert can dodge a fist or spear jab as easily as a sword. And, I suppose, he can evade a bite as well, though that one's a little less obvious to me.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

Huh? So, you guys think maybe Steve's intent was that only UC III protects against unarmed melee attacks, while UC II, IV and V only protect against hand weapon attacks but not unarmed attacks, because of wording?

$1000 says it's meant as all melee attacks.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

I think that Lars said it protects against all melee attacks and I agreed.

It would seem odd that a guy with UC talent wouldn't be able to defend against unarmed attacks. But I took the literal word until I heard other opinions.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

I also agree with the consensus that both the -1 DX and -1 damage apply to all melee attacks.

I am uncertain about 2 hex jabs.

Also keep in mind the evade can only be done by someone with both hands empty and armor no heavier than Cloth. As with all UC abilities.

It is these two restrictions to UC skills that make them pointless for me. A character with a high level of UC ability can be very dangerous but it is a long way to get there. In the meantime you are a low damage dealing and thin armored fighter. Brawling seems more useful if you are concerned you may not draw your dagger in time in HTH.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

I have long thought that Brawling is more useful that UC for PCs, but I'm writing up non-PCs for whom UC makes sense. (Buncha monks.)

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

Since the limitation on "adjacent hexes" only shows up in UCV, I would suggest that the GM has a choice - ignore it for UC V OR apply it for all UC levels. My personal choice (call it a house rule) is to ignore it since it does not appear in 4 out of 5 descriptions.
So, Evade applies to 2 hex jabs.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

I think it makes perfect sense for a martial arts expert to evade a jab.

And I've watched my share of Hong Kong movies, so I know stuff.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

I take it to mean Evade works against all melee attacks which the UC expert is facing. That is, it does not apply to HTH, thrown or missile; nor does it apply to attacks from flank or rear.

I find the wording to be much more likely to mean it is excluding HTH, then to mean it is excluding spear jabs.

So yes, UC evade is effective against jabs.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

That is how I read it now as well.

Thanks to all for their input.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

I have an additional question about U.C. II and above, this time about the throw ability.

Throw: You may “shield-rush” without a shield. Use the shield-rush rules, but if your target falls, you may immediately move on top of them to attempt HTH.

If I' playing right, when one attempts HTH successfully, they immediately roll an attack. Also, if the target is on the ground, HTH attempts fail only on a roll of five (six is a reroll).

Does this mean that a UCII user gets to immediately move into the hex of the fallen character and roll dice for an HTH attack (barring a role of five)?

Thanks.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

Yeah I saw that and feel it is inconsistent or did not fully explain with some bits of the HTH rules. Yes a 6 roll is ignored/rerolled since the foe is down and a 5 roll blocks you from moving onto your foe. Secondly, the UC fighter already had his attack this turn so he should not get a HTH attack too.

The short of it: I allow the UC fighter to move into HTH for free except on a 5 roll and do not give him/her an additional attack.

I would say this is how I play it and it may differ from others.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

Figures on the ground (say after the throw) get no HTH defense roll. The exception from Multiple HTH Combat (ITL 117) applies to all downed foes.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

Thanks for the reminder and correction. Yes, it is down gets no save. And from behind gets the 5 but not 6.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

Ah thanks. I had originally written that and couldn't find evidence it was so. I went back to edit my post to change it to match HTH initiation from the rear.

Makes perfect sense. Hard to prevent entry when downed.

By the way, a downed character is facing rear in all sides. Do people allow backpacks/slung shields to stop one hit in those cases? As a player pointed out, someone falling down due to a hit is hardly certain to land face first, regardless of whether his stance makes the to-hit roll effectively rear-facing.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

I don't allow slung backpack/shield to help when the character is down. It is rear from all sides to explain the DX bonus.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

Thanks.

(That's all I wanted to say. This parenthetical is to pad the length to at least ten characters, which it certainly has done...

Overkill, really. Should have stopped dozens of characters ago.)

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

Note also "A figure may move into a hex with a fallen, unconscious or dead figure
and stop." -ITL 104

The UC is simply allowing you an additional hex of move.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

Well, it's letting you move after a successful unarmed throw during the action phase, only. You had to move 1/2 MA or less to do that, so the only way I'd think of this as "allowing you an additional hex of move" is "an additional hex after moving 1/2 MA and making a successful flow". Not so simple.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

It's also a special move. After the move, you're in HTH, so you're engaged on the ground. It doesn't let you just stand above the fallen man.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

Actually it does. ITL pg 42 "and you may immediately move on top of them to attempt HTH". So the choice is yours to move on top or to stand above.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

Let me see if I understand your reading. I've thrown a guy. Now I've got three options:

(1) Do nothing.
(2) Move on top of him, remain standing.
(3) Move on top of him, initiate HTH (going prone), but do not attack this turn (since the throw was your attack).

Is that how you're reading that word "may"? I read it as saying you can take option (3) or option (1). I could also see it as saying you can take option (2) or option (1). I'm having trouble seeing how it could be all three options, but I might just be misunderstanding you.

In terms of realism (very loosely interpreted), seems to me that standing in a hex with a prone but conscious baddie would allow him to trip me pretty damned easy, but I don't see that in the RAW.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

I read it as 1 or 3. When "standing" I meant not in your foe's hex.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

Ah, I get you now. I misread your post.

We're in agreement.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

I have finally started to play with Unarmed Combat and I have to say I'm rethinking my agreement with Axly.

The general consensus in this thread is that after a successful throw, the UC guy can immediately enter HTH but not attack this turn. The reasoning is that one can usually attack only once per turn (though a Staff IV wielder is an explicit exception).

But what sort of benefit is it to enter HTH this turn rather than next? The UC guy can enter HTH next turn during the movement phase without a die roll, so long as he's able to move into the hex at all. The only time this is not possible is if he's engaged with other figures, but moving into HTH during this turn is not much of an advantage per RAW, since any figures he's engaged with will be able to strike him at DX +4[*] this turn if they have not yet acted. It is a rare situation that moving into HTH immediately but not attacking immediately would be any advantage at all.

If the UC guy is engaged with only one figure, he can enter HTH next turn during movement unless he is engaged by another figure in the interim.

If he is engaged with two figures adjacent to each other, entering HTH this turn is a strong disadvantage unless the second figure has already acted.

If he is engaged with two non-adjacent figures, entering HTH this turn provides the advantage of disengaging this turn "for free".

So, I'm kinda thinking that this benefit is supposed to be more beneficial. Giving him a second attack after a throw is pretty beneficial, but it's for a skill that requires IQ 11, DX 11 and two skill points (because UC I is a pre-requisite) and the target gets a saving throw to remain standing. The second attack is a regular HTH attack +2 damage (same damage as one with the Brawling talent and less than a dagger). That's a nice benefit but it's not an overwhelming benefit.

I'd like to hear from those who read this argument and still disagree. It hasn't come up in my game yet, but it will, so counterarguments would be useful in making up my mind. Thanks.

[*] In a recent thread in the house rules section, I've chosen to take away that advantage when one strikes from the sidelines into HTH combat. Even without this bonus, the UC guy loses any defensive bonus that UC grants, since he will not be attacked from a front hex.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

A related question for the hive mind:

Perhaps there is an official errata on this, but I can't recall off hand what people make of the damage for a kick in the new UC talents. Take UC IV for example:

• Punch. Does 1d extra damage with bare hands in either
HTH or regular combat.
• Kick. In regular combat, roll to hit at your adjDX and
do an extra 1d+1 of damage compared to your barehands
attack.

So, does that mean Kick = base HTH damage +1d+1, or base HTH damage +2d+1? The language is never explicitly clear, but at the lower levels of UC you could argue the DX penalty for kicks makes up for adding the two damage bonuses together. But at UC IV and V you seem to suddenly get a big jump up in your kicks - the DX penalty is gone and both the hand and kick bonuses are going up, so it is like adding a level of the talent raises your offensive output in three ways at once. I'm cool with whatever, but was curious what people are doing with this.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

All modifiers are on the base hand damage listed in the table. They do not stack.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

I tend to agree with Henry, but I hadn't noticed the wording that Lars brings attention to. Your bare hands attack does more, per the entry for punch, and kick does more than your bare hands attack. A literal reading does suggest Lars is right.

It's only my gut saying that the literal reading isn't the intended reading. In each UC, the bonus for kick is strictly greater than the bonus for punch, so I doubt it's additive.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

I'm sure no unarmed attack bonus damage is supposed to stack.

I think the only way to get a HTH attack for damage on the same turn you enter HTH, is to enter HTH during movement. If you use your action to initiate HTH during combat/actions, either by "Attempt HTH" or by an UC throw, then you don't also get to attack for damage. (And if the victim hadn't acted yet, no, they don't get a HTH attack either - their action is falling down and/or whatever they did as an HTH initiation defense - otherwise, there's this weird situation where it's safer to initiate HTH with higher-DX opponents, which would be silly) Or at least, that's how we've always played it.

Choosing to move into HTH after an UC throw may or may not be a good idea, but I don't think it needs to be be improved, because it's an option you can either take or leave. I think that, like all changes to position that happen without using MA (including the normal Attempt HTH action phase option), there is no restriction due to Engagement. So yes one use is to get away from someone who may be about to attack you, though yes it may not be the best thing to do. That's ok because you don't have to do it. There are other tactical situations where it might matter and be desirable to get to move one hex during the action phase and/or jump into HTH immediately rather than wait for the next movement turn.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

You certainly have a different interpretation of attempting HTH than I do. Here's why I think that everyone who attempts HTH (whether in movement or as an action) gets an attack. From ITL 103, Options for Engaged Figures, emphasis mine:

Now I don't think that's altogether decisive because that option is a bit loosely written. It doesn't even mention that there's a die roll to see whether the attempt to enter HTH is successful. You might squint and say the attempt to hit does not happen this turn, but I think the simpler reading is that one moves onto the hex, rolls for defender's reaction and attempts to hit all in one turn.

Those who don't think that initiating HTH as an action gives one an attack this turn would certainly conclude that the throw doesn't give one an HTH attack this turn. I reckon the disagreement between your reading and mine is more fundamental than details of UC skills.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

As I wrote, it's how we always played, and we mainly used (and in some cases continue to use) Advanced Melee. I'm not very happy with a great many wording details of the basic-Melee-based Legacy version of the options list, including that one.

In Advanced Melee, the option was to move half MA or less, and attempt to initiate HTH. You can do it during movement if you can do it without getting engaged. Otherwise your action would be to try to get them in HTH.

I don't particularly mind the idea of also allowing an attack, but it seems off to me, and I think it adds some complications that seem strange to me.

Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
 

I never used the Advanced Melee rules, having come to TFT only with the Legacy Edition. But I have a copy at hand and you're right that it doesn't mention attempting an attack when initiating HTH.

Without some official word, I reckon we're both parsing tea leaves to some extent. Your reading is more plausible in the Advanced Melee rules and mine with the description of options in Legacy ITL (in my humble opinion). The question is, I suppose, whether the new wording on ITL 103 is a clarification or a misleading edit.

For now, I reckon I'll assume it's a clarification and one can roll to hit on the turn he initiates HTH, whether it's in the movement or action phase. Reading it your way would certainly weaken HTH as an option, for better or worse.

Both editions have the confusing wording that "Initiating HTH combat is considered an attack," which seems to be a point against my interpretation and also your reading that you can attack if you initiate during movement.

I wonder what complications you have in mind. Do you have something specific here?