Tactical Question: Disengage

[Tom H.]

Originally Posted by RobW

. . .
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.

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.