Avert timing question

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

ITL on Avert says, "A figure which cannot move 2 hexes due to being engaged
must move as far away as it can, even if it has to disengage."

I don't dispute that this is what Avert does on all turns after the one it was cast. If you insist that it works on that turn, as well, then I'd appreciate your explaining what Avert does during that turn to disengaged figures --ones for whom the disengage and no step option is not available. I'll restate the several examples I gave earlier, this time without my interpretation. Please tell us yours for each case. Remember: movement is over, it is the action phase, the wizard cast Avert on Figure B, and now it is Figure B's turn to act.

1. Figure B is disengaged, has moved no more than 1 hex, and has a ready bow weapon. Disengage is not an option. Since Figure B can't move again, he can ???
   
2. Figure B is disengaged, has moved half-MA, and is carrying a spear. Disengage is not an option. Since Figure B can't move again, he can ???
   
3. Figure B is disengaged and has moved up to half-MA. Disengage is not an option. Since Figure B can't move again, he can ???
   
4. Figure B is disengaged and has moved no more than 1 hex. Disengage is not an option. Since they cannot move again, he can ???
   
5. Figure B is disengaged and has moved no more than 2 hexes. Disengage is not an option. Since they cannot move again, he can ???
   
6. Figure B was unengaged at the start of Turn 1, moved first and moved more than half-MA but less than full-MA, and then became engaged by enemy movement. Having moved too far, no action is allowed. Since they can't disengage, they ???

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Remember: movement is over

...
[*] Figure B was unengaged at the start of Turn 1, moved first and moved more than half-MA but less than full-MA, and then became engaged by enemy movement. Having moved too far, no action is allowed. Since they can't disengage, they ???[/LIST]

As you pointed out, movement is over. No movement phase affects can happen in turn 1, since that has passed.

As to your last question, since they cannot disengage they cannot. They have no action that turn since they went full movement. As in other turns, if they can disengage they must unless they have already moved 2 hexes away.

[Axly Suregrip]

Here is another way to look at Avert. Think of it as how animals react to fire.

If you cast a Fire spell on a wolf that is engaged, but has yet to act that turn, will it will use its action to disengage. It will not wait for the movement phase of next turn.

It cannot go back and change its movement option. Even if it was disengaged. So all the situations that you listed for disengaged character do not apply.

It is the same thing.

[Shostak]

I’ll just point out that, at my table, in every hypothetical instance given, figures under Avert react the same way on the turn the spell was cast, whereas at yours, their reaction is different depending on their engagement status.

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by Shostak

I’ll just point out that, at my table, in every hypothetical instance given, figures under Avert react the same way on the turn the spell was cast, whereas at yours, their reaction is different depending on their engagement status.

I disagree. In mine they are the same every turn including turn 1. I your model, the first turn's action phase is treated as an exception.

Even in yours the engagement status must apply and affect how the figure reacts. You just choose to ignore it on turn 1. See the example with the wolf in the fire.

In all the situations you list, mine is consistent.

We can go back to agreeing to disagree.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

In all the situations you list, mine is consistent.

Sure, if by "consistent" you mean "variable". Consider the consistency of the actions, as determine by your interpretation, of the figures in this situation:

On Turn 1, Figures A and B cast Avert on figures C and D, who have not yet acted. C and D both have ready bows, moved no more than one hex, are 3 hexes from A and B, respectively, and did not end their movement at least two hexes further from them. C is engaged to E, but D is unengaged. Your interpretation compels C to disengage from E instead of taking a last-shot, while D is able to try to plug someone with an arrow.

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Sure, if by "consistent" you mean "variable". Consider the consistency of the actions, as determine by your interpretation, of the figures in this situation:

On Turn 1, Figures A and B cast Avert on figures C and D, who have not yet acted. C and D both have ready bows, moved no more than one hex, are 3 hexes from A and B, respectively, and did not end their movement at least two hexes further from them. C is engaged to E, but D is unengaged. Your interpretation compels C to disengage from E instead of taking a last-shot, while D is able to try to plug someone with an arrow.

It is consistent in all situations with the same engaged status.

Yes, you understand my interpretation.

Same scenario as you posted but now it is Turn 2. The archer was unengaged during turn 1 but Team E moved first in turn 2 and engaged figure F. Basically same engagement status in turn 2 instead of turn 1 of your scenario:

On Turn 1, Figures F cast Avert on figure G.
On Turn 2 team F moves first and engages figure G. G has a ready bows, during movement G shifts 1 hex or does not move. G is engaged. My interpretation compels G to disengage instead of taking a last-shot.

See how G's turn 2 is completely consistent with C's turn 1 (C is from your example)?

Comparing C & D in your example is being inconsistent because their situations are different. One is engage and the other is not.

Comparing C & G is the same since they are both engaged. The only difference is turn 1 vs turn 2.

[timm meyers]

Many things come down to interpretation and bias of perception in most games. Remember this is a simulation, things must happen in phases in order to give agency to the players ie decission points, damage targets, etc.

This is a prime example of what "you" the gamer think is good/fair in regards to what you think the result of the simulation model should render. Both interpretations you guys have given are fundamentally correct by the rules. Thus this now becomes a question of game balance.

A- do want the spell and or wizards in general to be slower in deploying the avert spell (ie summons do nothing on the first turn)

B- do you want spells/wizards to be more effective and or quicker to deploy the effects of spells like avert (ie drop weapon effects in the same turn)

Personally I think for game balance regarding warriors vs wizards and their ability to affect combat outcomes any spell that takes more than one turn to have effects is a large disadvantage.
The turn "phases" of move/combat cause a break in the avert spell only because of its unique effect of primarily focusing on figure placement during movement. It is still a "Thrown" spell and just like drop weapon or confusion or sleep etc it has effect on the turn it is cast.

Whether you want that effect for engaged figures to = a forced disengage is very much your choice of balance overall. Should the spell be debuffed?