For SJ, where's the Move and Defend and option?

[RobW]

The forums here have many, many threads with questions about Defend (let's leave Dodge out of it for now). These questions come from new and experienced players alike.

I will give some examples of problems with the Defend RAW below. But I could also point to the literally 100s of forum posts on the topic that some clarification is evidently needed.

[RobW]

The Rules As Written

The only option that includes Defend is option (k) Shift and Defend. This option is only available to a figure engaged with an enemy when its turn comes to move (Skarg, please hang on....!).

Therefore RAW, to be able to select option (k), the only Defend option, you have to be engaged with an enemy when your turn comes to move (emphasis in original in multiple places pp 102-103).

[RobW]

This leads to many problems and very weird situations.

RAW: You CAN'T defend against a jab
That's because the jabber won't normally be engaged with you when it's your turn to move, and so the Shift and Defend option is not available to you.

RAW: You CAN defend against a jab, if a different enemy is also engaging you.
If an enemy has you engaged at the time of your movement, then you can select option (k) shift and defend. Now you can defend against the jab that is two hexes away (as well defending the against the enemy next to you).

RAW: You snuck up behind your opponent, but oh no, now you can't Defend!
That's because you were not engaged if you are in the enemy's rear hex, and so you can't select option (k).

You and your buddy have surrounded the troll, Buddy's is in the troll's front hex, you're in the troll's rear hex. Troll has initative and makes your side move first. You and Buddy stay put! You've got the troll surrounded! But now troll spins around to face you. Since you weren't engaged when it was your time to move, you couldn't select option (k).

RAW: Pole weapons are a good choice for a duel, but should they be THIS good?
In a duel, there is no way to defend against a pole weapon charge attack if the pole weapon does not want to allow it.

It's Halberd vs Sword, they start with 1 empty hex between them. Sword wants to Defend against Halberd's initial charge, but he can't -- he is disengaged when the moment of his turn to move, and so option (k) is not available. So he moves just out of charge attack range, 5 more hexes back. Halberd shrugs, charges to within jabbing distance and gets a free attack (no defense possible here either). Now we're back to where we started. In this duel there is no way for Sword to Defend against the initial charge if Halberd wants to prevent i t.

[RobW]

Possible solutions

1. Add option (b2) for disengaged figures, Move and Defend. You could allow move of 1/2 MA, 1 hex, or whatever, but that would help all the examples above.

2. Reinterpret the phrase about option choice. Instead of reading the moment "its turn to move comes", as meaning that possible options are determined in the movement phase, just say instead options are determined "at the moment its turn to act comes". Or elaborate the rule for "changing options" to somehow allow for selecting options that weren't available to you at the start of movement.

This might work, but TBH the current wording is all over the place. And because the only Defend option is still (k) Shift and Defend, and "shift" is elsewhere defined as remaining adjacent to enemies, this is still unclear. Much more unclear than it needs to be

[RobW]

Player cards "play aid"

As mentioned above, when the player cards come out, these problems will be more obvious than they are now.

I'm not sure how these cards are meant to work, but reasonable expectation might be: Player's turn to move comes. If engaged he takes cards representing options (j) through (s). If disengaged he takes cards representing options (a) through (i). If in HTH selects cards (t) through (v)

Now it will be crystal clear there's no way for disengaged figure to Defend.

But I can't believe this is the intention of the rules, given how they worked in previous editions, and given all the weird bugs that emerge with the current RAW.

[Chris Rice]

I don't believe it is the intention of the rules, but Steve and co. have steadfastly avoided answering rules questions on the forums. I guess that's because it a bit of a rabbit hole and they realise once they start down that route it'll never end and they'll never get anything else done. Still a clarification would have been nice.

[kjamma4]

Originally Posted by RobW

RAW: You snuck up behind your opponent, but oh no, now you can't Defend!
That's because you were not engaged if you are in the enemy's rear hex, and so you can't select option (k).

You and your buddy have surrounded the troll, Buddy's is in the troll's front hex, you're in the troll's rear hex. Troll has initiative and makes your side move first. You and Buddy stay put! You've got the troll surrounded! But now troll spins around to face you. Since you weren't engaged when it was your time to move, you couldn't select option (k).

This one sort of makes sense as you were probably preparing to attack but the troll's move took you off guard so you cannot properly defend yourself.

However, something like HERO's "abort to dodge" would probably work best.

[Skarg]

Has anyone checked yet to see if the Decks of Destiny has a card for Defend and what it says? (I'm hoping it clarifies you can move 1/2 MA and Defend, but I have a bad feeling it just copies the Options table and is going to perpetuate this confusion...)

[RobW]

I wanted to check but I'm not on the first wave.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Has anyone checked yet to see if the Decks of Destiny has a card for Defend and what it says? (I'm hoping it clarifies you can move 1/2 MA and Defend, but I have a bad feeling it just copies the Options table and is going to perpetuate this confusion...)

I just checked and there is no Move and Defend card. In fact, the Defend and Dodge cards have errors that I need to report. I'll take the opportunity to suggest the Move and Defend option.

EDIT: Nope, I was wrong. The wording is correct, just not what I was expecting which made me misread.