Re: (TFT) Test of general MELEE knowledge, NUMBER III

[Peter von Kleinsmid <pvk@oz.net>]

At 10:41 PM 2/27/04 -0600, David Michael Grouchy II wrote:
>   Now Fingoul gets to move and this is where the problems start.  First 
> Fingoul tries to shift away from e2 claiming that since e2 can't action 
> this turn he doesn't really pose a threat, hence he can't really engage.

Fingoul hasn't read the rules, or is expecting a GM house ruling which 
would agree with him. For strict AM, he's wrong. He can disengage, but he 
can't shift.

>   The GM over rules this, saying e2 still engages Fingoul, and becoming 
> engaged his movement ends for the turn.  All he can do is change his action.

GM is correct.

>   [e] gets Dx +1 because he waited for an opening last turn.

Where is that rule from? I don't remember any "waiting for an opening" 
maneuver. It's been over a decade since I played TFT, but this sounds like 
a house rule to me.

>    At this point the enemy player tries to claim that Fingoul can't set 
> vs. charge.  Because e2 moved too far to action.  Thus he isn't really 
> charge attacking.  That being an action.

The enemy player also needs to re-read AM. He's wrong. The definition of a 
charge attack _is_ moving from further than one hex away, to being 
adjacent. e2 can be vs. charge pole-attacked by Fingoul.

>   As a GM how would you rule?

e2 gets to suffer a +2DX double damage pole attack from Fingoul. He 
should've read the rules before - it was a dumb move unless he can stomach 
the spear and/or he desperately wants to prevent Fingoul from shifting one hex.

PvK
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"