Defend and changing options

noahscape · 06-13-2021, 01:02 PM

Rules lawyers and debaters, your opinions please:
Our hero, Halbarad, decides to attack the animal handler controlling a troop of baboons. The animal handler chooses to defend and Halbarad, having low dex from being weakened, changes options to attack an adjacent baboon on the ground instead. Can the animal handler then change options to making an attack? No one has yet attacked her.

Nils_Lindeberg · 06-13-2021, 03:59 PM

The rules states that you can change your action at any time. By this I presume they mean that you don't have to go by the initial options you chose during movement. So in essence you move, and then you choose your action option limited by how much you moved and your engagement status.
Taking the Charge action during movement doesn't mean you have to attack someone for example.

This also means that there is really no use picking an option during movement, just do your move and chose your action when your turn comes around. This is what is meant by changing your option at any time. And if you change your action to an action with a higher adjDX that has already been counted, you will execute the action immediately when you decide to do that action instead of another. One example would be to wait until DX 10 to hit someone, but then decide that you rather hit an enemy that is on the ground, where you get a +4 prone bonus, and then you should have acted on DX 14. Instead you act immediately on DX 10, or the current DX count. And you also have the optional rule with delayed actions.

Defend and Dodge actions would be pretty crappy if you have the lowest adjDX because they would be of no use if they happened on your DX order, since you are the last to act. So here the exception is that Dodge and Defend happens when they are declared, but they can't be taken back once declared.
A good use would be to surround an opponent, have the person in front of the enemy defend, while the flanking person attacks. This works well, especially if you moved first, and you didn't know which way the enemy would turn. But after move you know, and one of you are in his front and in danger, so he defends.
It doesn't mean that you can interrupt someone else's action and declare a defend once they target you specifically with an attack. And it definitely doesn't mean you can interrupt an enemy doing their action, when they say they target you. IF you could interrupt and defend when they target you, then they could "change their action at any time" and decide to attack someone else, and then you decide not to defend after all, and then they decide to attack you now that you are not defending again, and then you defend since they are attacking you, ad nauseam.

The only practical solution will be that you can activate a Defend or Dodge at the beginning of the DX count, or maybe you want to wait a little to see if your higher DX allies kills your potential attacker so you don't have to defend. But as soon as that attacker will get his turn, it is too late for you to defend. So you might as well declare a Defend as soon as you know that you will need it and well before your enemy's turn.

Once you declare to defend you will be defending until the end of the turn and that is your action. Your enemy, that sees that you are defending before he had time to attack you, may chose to attack you or do anything else his MA permits. But no matter what he does, you are still defending, happy to have scared him off from attacking you.

I can't see any other way of doing it that is logical, consistent and practical.

But I am heavily biased and sympathizing with Halbarad. :-D

Kieddicus · 06-13-2021, 08:53 PM

I agree with Nils about 'just doing your movement and then choosing your action when your turn comes around' but disagree on the dodging and defending rule. I allow someone who is dodging or defending to switch to an attack on their turn if they haven't gotten the benefits of the defensive action yet.

noahscape · 06-14-2021, 11:35 PM

If the person making the attack can change their target after someone declares they will defend from their attack, it becomes a 'free' feint if the defender cannot switch to an attack. Could be a cool stunt/showy move, but with some kind of IQ or DX check and maybe a penalty on the follow-up attack on another target.

Nils_Lindeberg · 06-15-2021, 12:14 AM

The same argument works the other way.

If the defender can "Feint" and change their mind, they basically scare off the attacker, and then after the attacker did something else, voila, he never defended after all, and now he can attack instead.

So in my opinion, you either defend or you do not, and the attacker either chose to attack the defender or he do not. Because if one guy can change his action so can the other, back and forth and there is no way to give priority. But if no one can change their action once they have declared it, then it makes sense. And yes, you don't have to declare an action until it is your turn to act, or in the case of the defend/dodge option until just before the opponent will act.

I don't know how to solve issues like one player saying; if he shrewd attacks me I will defend, but not otherwise, and the other player says; I will shrewd attack him but only if he doesn't defend if he defends I do a normal attack.

How would you guys decide on the priority?

JimmyPlenty · 06-15-2021, 06:07 AM

I feel if the attackers changes their mind, then defending/dodging has done it's job. Not only did the attack fail, it didn't even go off in the first place. Therefore, the action is used.

RobW · 06-15-2021, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

I don't know how to solve issues like one player saying; if he shrewd attacks me I will defend, but not otherwise, and the other player says; I will shrewd attack him but only if he doesn't defend if he defends I do a normal attack.

How would you guys decide on the priority?

This is how we have always played, that is, until the dice were rolled an action hadn't been taken. Back in the day we were a table with many (usually good natured) rules lawyers, so certainly there could be blind spots, but I think we gave this a pretty thorough testing over probably 100s of hours.

The answer to your question is simply that the defender will get the last word.

The attacker has to make the decision about who/how to attack. The decision to defend (or not) is in response to that. So while we say that nothing is committed until the dice are rolled, there is also a sequence there that means it is not an endless recursion.

Shostak · 06-15-2021, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

This also means that there is really no use picking an option during movement, just do your move and chose your action when your turn comes around.

This makes the most sense to me, too. First, everyone moves. Then, going in adjDX order, everyone takes an action available to them based on how far they moved and their current engagement status. Once you declare an action, you are committing to it and can't change, regardless of whether or not your attack causes someone to commit to defending or dodging as a reaction.

Skarg · 06-15-2021, 11:51 AM

Yep, that's the important point. When it's someone's turn to act and they act, if someone reacts to that action, there's no undoing the action someone declared as their action on the adjDX, because it happened enough to cause someone to react to it.

This prevents the theoretical back and forth changing of declared actions.

Nils_Lindeberg · 06-15-2021, 05:31 PM

--- Warning wall of text and rambling, it is late at night for me. :-D ---

So what most of you are saying is that defending is a reaction to the attack, but the attacker can't react to the defender defending? Aren't both reactions? Declaring an attack isn't an action if declaring a defend isn't really an action.

There is nothing that says that defending should be able to interrupt another action but that player can't interrupt the defender's action?

I can't see the difference. Every argument for priority can be used both ways.

Otherwise, it just means that everyone will declare that they are defending at the start of the DX count down. But it doesn't really mean anything because if you react to it, and attack someone else, they will just change their action anyway, and then you can't change back?

This also means that there will never be a defend action without an actual attack. Which is strange to me. There will never be a defend action that scares the attacker off, because then the defend action will never have happened in the first place.

It also means that you have to ask every time you make an attack roll if they defend. Or you will have people call out, "wait roll again I was defending". With the counter-argument of; I already rolled the attack dice vs. you never asked me if I was defending...

The only priority logic I can see is that the person that actually starts doing his action has priority. You can use the defend action before it is your turn to act, but not in response to anything. No interruptions whatsoever. When Karl says, "DX 12 that is me I am going to act" and the GM asks if there is anyone else at 12, that is where you as a DX 10 character have your last chance to say you defend and you will be first among the DX 12 people to do so, or the last to act among the DX 13 characters or at any time before that. And if you do choose to defend, that is your action for that turn. And when Karl gets his action he will know who is defending (because they took their actions before he did in the DX count) and who isn't and chose accordingly.

Clear cut. No do-overs. No infinite back and forth interrupts. No priority needs to be given and a person who knows they will be defending might as well declare it at the start of the DX count down, just to be sure he doesn't miss it, and that makes it easier for everyone.

And most important, fighting two people is not a death sentence. With defend priority, the lonely guy will always attack into a defender, no matter who he wants to attack, which to me, sounds unfair. Especially since two vs. one is dangerous enough in TFT.

This also means less defending, which probably is a good thing, since the fights will be shorter. It also means that low DX characters are viable, which they pretty much aren't if half of your attacks will be against defending enemies. Maybe more than half if you have a large weapon to go with that low DX.

What are the advantages of giving priority to defending actions? I can't really see any.

I think the change option rule came about in response to the classic "state your intent for the round and carry that order out in order of initiative"-rules that were common way back when. If you decide to attack a guy and that guy gets killed before your turn to act comes around, it is boring to have your action wasted. So they gave you the option of choosing something else instead, not a free license to interrupt others in the middle of their turn. If that were the case I am pretty sure they would have stated so more explicitly in the rules and wouldn't have it as a general rule.

And as a side note, if you give priority to the defender, can he decide to defend after your first attack when he got hit and realize that he can't take another hit from your left-hand dagger. And in so doing only go defensive for half of someone's turn? Maybe strange fringe cases but they will come up. So not even starting to roll the dice is a way of deciding when you can interrupt someone.

TL;DR Still not convinced, what are the advantages of giving one or the other a priority and what support are there in the rules for that interpretation?

06-13-2021, 01:02 PM	#1
noahscape Join Date: Jun 2021	Defend and changing options Rules lawyers and debaters, your opinions please: Our hero, Halbarad, decides to attack the animal handler controlling a troop of baboons. The animal handler chooses to defend and Halbarad, having low dex from being weakened, changes options to attack an adjacent baboon on the ground instead. Can the animal handler then change options to making an attack? No one has yet attacked her.

06-13-2021, 03:59 PM	#2
Nils_Lindeberg Join Date: Jul 2018	Re: Defend and changing options The rules states that you can change your action at any time. By this I presume they mean that you don't have to go by the initial options you chose during movement. So in essence you move, and then you choose your action option limited by how much you moved and your engagement status. Taking the Charge action during movement doesn't mean you have to attack someone for example. This also means that there is really no use picking an option during movement, just do your move and chose your action when your turn comes around. This is what is meant by changing your option at any time. And if you change your action to an action with a higher adjDX that has already been counted, you will execute the action immediately when you decide to do that action instead of another. One example would be to wait until DX 10 to hit someone, but then decide that you rather hit an enemy that is on the ground, where you get a +4 prone bonus, and then you should have acted on DX 14. Instead you act immediately on DX 10, or the current DX count. And you also have the optional rule with delayed actions. Defend and Dodge actions would be pretty crappy if you have the lowest adjDX because they would be of no use if they happened on your DX order, since you are the last to act. So here the exception is that Dodge and Defend happens when they are declared, but they can't be taken back once declared. A good use would be to surround an opponent, have the person in front of the enemy defend, while the flanking person attacks. This works well, especially if you moved first, and you didn't know which way the enemy would turn. But after move you know, and one of you are in his front and in danger, so he defends. It doesn't mean that you can interrupt someone else's action and declare a defend once they target you specifically with an attack. And it definitely doesn't mean you can interrupt an enemy doing their action, when they say they target you. IF you could interrupt and defend when they target you, then they could "change their action at any time" and decide to attack someone else, and then you decide not to defend after all, and then they decide to attack you now that you are not defending again, and then you defend since they are attacking you, ad nauseam. The only practical solution will be that you can activate a Defend or Dodge at the beginning of the DX count, or maybe you want to wait a little to see if your higher DX allies kills your potential attacker so you don't have to defend. But as soon as that attacker will get his turn, it is too late for you to defend. So you might as well declare a Defend as soon as you know that you will need it and well before your enemy's turn. Once you declare to defend you will be defending until the end of the turn and that is your action. Your enemy, that sees that you are defending before he had time to attack you, may chose to attack you or do anything else his MA permits. But no matter what he does, you are still defending, happy to have scared him off from attacking you. I can't see any other way of doing it that is logical, consistent and practical. But I am heavily biased and sympathizing with Halbarad. :-D

06-13-2021, 08:53 PM	#3
Kieddicus Join Date: Oct 2020	Re: Defend and changing options I agree with Nils about 'just doing your movement and then choosing your action when your turn comes around' but disagree on the dodging and defending rule. I allow someone who is dodging or defending to switch to an attack on their turn if they haven't gotten the benefits of the defensive action yet.

06-14-2021, 11:35 PM	#4
noahscape Join Date: Jun 2021	Re: Defend and changing options If the person making the attack can change their target after someone declares they will defend from their attack, it becomes a 'free' feint if the defender cannot switch to an attack. Could be a cool stunt/showy move, but with some kind of IQ or DX check and maybe a penalty on the follow-up attack on another target.

06-15-2021, 12:14 AM	#5
Nils_Lindeberg Join Date: Jul 2018	Re: Defend and changing options The same argument works the other way. If the defender can "Feint" and change their mind, they basically scare off the attacker, and then after the attacker did something else, voila, he never defended after all, and now he can attack instead. So in my opinion, you either defend or you do not, and the attacker either chose to attack the defender or he do not. Because if one guy can change his action so can the other, back and forth and there is no way to give priority. But if no one can change their action once they have declared it, then it makes sense. And yes, you don't have to declare an action until it is your turn to act, or in the case of the defend/dodge option until just before the opponent will act. I don't know how to solve issues like one player saying; if he shrewd attacks me I will defend, but not otherwise, and the other player says; I will shrewd attack him but only if he doesn't defend if he defends I do a normal attack. How would you guys decide on the priority?

06-15-2021, 06:07 AM	#6
JimmyPlenty Join Date: Dec 2017	Re: Defend and changing options I feel if the attackers changes their mind, then defending/dodging has done it's job. Not only did the attack fail, it didn't even go off in the first place. Therefore, the action is used.

06-15-2021, 11:51 AM	#9
Skarg Join Date: May 2015	Re: Defend and changing options Yep, that's the important point. When it's someone's turn to act and they act, if someone reacts to that action, there's no undoing the action someone declared as their action on the adjDX, because it happened enough to cause someone to react to it. This prevents the theoretical back and forth changing of declared actions.

06-15-2021, 05:31 PM	#10
Nils_Lindeberg Join Date: Jul 2018	Re: Defend and changing options --- Warning wall of text and rambling, it is late at night for me. :-D --- So what most of you are saying is that defending is a reaction to the attack, but the attacker can't react to the defender defending? Aren't both reactions? Declaring an attack isn't an action if declaring a defend isn't really an action. There is nothing that says that defending should be able to interrupt another action but that player can't interrupt the defender's action? I can't see the difference. Every argument for priority can be used both ways. Otherwise, it just means that everyone will declare that they are defending at the start of the DX count down. But it doesn't really mean anything because if you react to it, and attack someone else, they will just change their action anyway, and then you can't change back? This also means that there will never be a defend action without an actual attack. Which is strange to me. There will never be a defend action that scares the attacker off, because then the defend action will never have happened in the first place. It also means that you have to ask every time you make an attack roll if they defend. Or you will have people call out, "wait roll again I was defending". With the counter-argument of; I already rolled the attack dice vs. you never asked me if I was defending... The only priority logic I can see is that the person that actually starts doing his action has priority. You can use the defend action before it is your turn to act, but not in response to anything. No interruptions whatsoever. When Karl says, "DX 12 that is me I am going to act" and the GM asks if there is anyone else at 12, that is where you as a DX 10 character have your last chance to say you defend and you will be first among the DX 12 people to do so, or the last to act among the DX 13 characters or at any time before that. And if you do choose to defend, that is your action for that turn. And when Karl gets his action he will know who is defending (because they took their actions before he did in the DX count) and who isn't and chose accordingly. Clear cut. No do-overs. No infinite back and forth interrupts. No priority needs to be given and a person who knows they will be defending might as well declare it at the start of the DX count down, just to be sure he doesn't miss it, and that makes it easier for everyone. And most important, fighting two people is not a death sentence. With defend priority, the lonely guy will always attack into a defender, no matter who he wants to attack, which to me, sounds unfair. Especially since two vs. one is dangerous enough in TFT. This also means less defending, which probably is a good thing, since the fights will be shorter. It also means that low DX characters are viable, which they pretty much aren't if half of your attacks will be against defending enemies. Maybe more than half if you have a large weapon to go with that low DX. What are the advantages of giving priority to defending actions? I can't really see any. I think the change option rule came about in response to the classic "state your intent for the round and carry that order out in order of initiative"-rules that were common way back when. If you decide to attack a guy and that guy gets killed before your turn to act comes around, it is boring to have your action wasted. So they gave you the option of choosing something else instead, not a free license to interrupt others in the middle of their turn. If that were the case I am pretty sure they would have stated so more explicitly in the rules and wouldn't have it as a general rule. And as a side note, if you give priority to the defender, can he decide to defend after your first attack when he got hit and realize that he can't take another hit from your left-hand dagger. And in so doing only go defensive for half of someone's turn? Maybe strange fringe cases but they will come up. So not even starting to roll the dice is a way of deciding when you can interrupt someone. TL;DR Still not convinced, what are the advantages of giving one or the other a priority and what support are there in the rules for that interpretation?