ITL Errata

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Turn 1, figure A and B and in HTH. A has a higher DX, but chooses to attack second. B attacks, then A disengages to an adjacent hex. At the end of the turn, A stands up.

Turn 2, A is not engaged to B, who is still on the ground, and steps away. Or just kicks him in the face.

That's how I've always seen it, and I don't think the rules are at all ambiguous about this.

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

You are having to employ an optional rule to make your rule change work. I am agreeing with Henry. This is not a good change.

But proposing option (g) be renamed is a solidly good idea -- sure the text says "or you can crawl" but that's sometimes forgotten. Better to name it after everything it lets you do.

My big problem is with (106) where it reads:

"A figure engaged with more than one enemy may disengage from some while remaining engaged with others, but may never attack on the turn it disengages (except HTH) [emphasis mine]".

What's the "except HTH" supposed to mean in this context? Attacking or disengaging are mutually exclusive in the same turn, be it regular or HTH combat. So there cannot be an exception, and the text here cannot be correct.

Another problem, this time on (103):

"(p) STAND UP. Same as (g) above."

But (p) can't be exactly the same as (g), because (g) let's you crawl or stand. Or are we ready to allow an engaged, prone figure to just crawl away from an attack? Well, maybe we are when it's after the attack, and it usually would be because the attacker is at +4. I don't think disengaging by crawling was ever intended, but I suppose I might be wrong about that. My guess is that the crawling part of (g) just wasn't considered when the text for (p) was written.

[Axly Suregrip]

Great post Steve. Many good points.

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

But proposing option (g) be renamed is a solidly good idea -- sure the text says "or you can crawl" but that's sometimes forgotten. Better to name it after everything it lets you do.

I agree with the above. I missed that the first time.

I am also reconsidering my initial reaction. Can a prone figure crawl into HTH onto another prone figure? If not, then Shostak's right on all points. Well except needing to wait to attempt HTH disengaging. Faster DX should try to get out before getting hit.

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

My big problem is with (106) where it reads:

"A figure engaged with more than one enemy may disengage from some while remaining engaged with others, but may never attack on the turn it disengages (except HTH) [emphasis mine]".

What's the "except HTH" supposed to mean in this context? Attacking or disengaging are mutually exclusive in the same turn, be it regular or HTH combat. So there cannot be an exception, and the text here cannot be correct.

Good catch. I think what they were trying to say is that when you disengage from a multi-person HTH you don't have the option to stay engaged in HTH with some of your foes. But even so, it is poorly worded and unnecessary.

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

Another problem, this time on (103):

"(p) STAND UP. Same as (g) above."

But (p) can't be exactly the same as (g), because (g) let's you crawl or stand. Or are we ready to allow an engaged, prone figure to just crawl away from an attack? Well, maybe we are when it's after the attack, and it usually would be because the attacker is at +4. I don't think disengaging by crawling was ever intended, but I suppose I might be wrong about that. My guess is that the crawling part of (g) just wasn't considered when the text for (p) was written.

I agree with you that being able to crawl away from being engaged violates the definition of being engaged. Option (p) should strictly be "Stand up" instead of "Same as (g) above."

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

You are having to employ an optional rule to make your rule change work.

I've never played with a group that did not allow deferring action so as to let a lower-DX figure act first. Similarly, I've never played with a group that didn't allow aimed shots or waiting for an opening--also described as optional in the rules.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

Or are we ready to allow an engaged, prone figure to just crawl away from an attack? Well, maybe we are when it's after the attack, and it usually would be because the attacker is at +4. I don't think disengaging by crawling was ever intended, but I suppose I might be wrong about that.

ITL 106 forbids crawling figures disengaging unless their opponent cannot move at all.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

Good catch. I think what they were trying to say is that when you disengage from a multi-person HTH you don't have the option to stay engaged in HTH with some of your foes. But even so, it is poorly worded and unnecessary."

Originally Posted by Shostak

ITL 106 forbids crawling figures disengaging unless their opponent cannot move at all.

The info in Shostak's post makes sense to me. I haven't experienced a multliple HTH (pile up) situation since my Classic TFT days. That was so long ago that I can't remember how characters disengaged from the mess. I was not the GM. It was 2 on 2 in a barroom brawl. I think that it continued until two foes were knocked out.

I recently had a crossbowman successfully jump a foe for HTH. He dropped his crossbow in the next hex while doing so. After knocking the foe out, he rolled into the next hex with his crossbow and readied it in a prone position. He couldn't fire until the next turn but it was a cool move. Rolling was effectively the same as crawling so far as game play is concerned.