Engagement and unready missile weapons

[KevinJ]

I see this as coming down to AdjDX.

If the intent of the attacking swordsman is to pass the bowman in the same turn in which the bowman shot at the swordsman and the swordsman has the movement to do so, then he could because the bowman has already used his combat action to shoot.

If, on the other hand, the swordsman cannot move past the bowman on that turn and instead they will both act in the next turn, it comes down to AdjDX. Each character chooses their combat action and determines AdjDX for that turn.

If the Bowman has the higher AdjDX he could drop his weapon and engage the swordsman in normal combat with punches and kicks to force his engagement.

If the Swordsman has the higher AdjDX he could advance past the bowman without becoming engaged. He might still be attacked by the bowman, but that would come after he has already advanced.

[hcobb]

Unloaded missile weapons are "unready" so don't engage.

[Terquem]

I didn't understand that it was "weapons" that created the "engaged" condition. I understood it was intelligent creatures/people/monsters with intent to do you harm, that created the engaged condition.

[hcobb]

Note difference between

ITL 102: "The concept of “engaged” is used to identify figures who are actually involved in combat, and standing next to an enemy who endangers them physically"

and

ITL 106 "one-hex figure is engaged if it is in one of the front hexes of an armed
enemy."

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by KevinJ

I see this as coming down to AdjDX.

If the intent of the attacking swordsman is to pass the bowman in the same turn in which the bowman shot at the swordsman and the swordsman has the movement to do so, then he could because the bowman has already used his combat action to shoot.

If, on the other hand, the swordsman cannot move past the bowman on that turn and instead they will both act in the next turn, it comes down to AdjDX. Each character chooses their combat action and determines AdjDX for that turn.

If the Bowman has the higher AdjDX he could drop his weapon and engage the swordsman in normal combat with punches and kicks to force his engagement.

If the Swordsman has the higher AdjDX he could advance past the bowman without becoming engaged. He might still be attacked by the bowman, but that would come after he has already advanced.

That's interesting, but I don't understand the sequence of play you are using.

In usual TFT play, running past someone would happen during the movement phase, before any missile weapon attacks, so I don't understand how you are playing that it would be possible for an archer to already have shot before his target moves on the same turn?

Do you play in a way where figures both move and act in order of adjDX?

Originally Posted by hcobb

Unloaded missile weapons are "unready" so don't engage.

It's a free action to drop a missile weapon (and it's not clear a figure even needs to drop a missile weapon to do an unarmed attack unless they're using an Unarmed Combat talent).

Originally Posted by Terquem

I didn't understand that it was "weapons" that created the "engaged" condition. I understood it was intelligent creatures/people/monsters with intent to do you harm, that created the engaged condition.

Intent and ability, I think. But my crossbowman does 1d damage unarmed, and dropping things is a free action.

However, hcobb seems to actually have (and finally be actually explaining) a point that:

Originally Posted by hcobb

Note difference between

ITL 102: "The concept of “engaged” is used to identify figures who are actually involved in combat, and standing next to an enemy who endangers them physically"

and

ITL 106 "one-hex figure is engaged if it is in one of the front hexes of an armed
enemy."

Yeah, if that second line is taken literally, it does seem to say that an actual weapon is needed to engage, though that makes brawls and kung fu battles (or are their hands deadly weapons in the eyes of the law?) rather more chaotic and much more prone to run-arounds by the side that moves second!

I tend to think that's going to be really messy playing by the letter of that law in some cases, unless using a house rule that allows reactions to having your engagement ignored by a foe.