Steve Jackson Games Forums

Steve Jackson Games Forums (http://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)
-   The Fantasy Trip (http://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=100)
-   -   3 hex charge pole weapon rule (http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=166065)

Axly Suregrip 10-26-2019 08:11 PM

3 hex charge pole weapon rule
 
I would like to discuss and get your opinions on how to use the new 3 hex charge rule. That is, in order to gain the extra die of damage upon charging, what do you see as being a valid charge. As you will see there are aspects to this rule that are obvious and then some that are questionable. See ITL page 111.

A) How many hexes is a charge? I know it says 3, but does that include the hex you are starting in? "the attacker moved three hexes... in a straight line".

Examples:

Started turn in hex 1, move to hex 2, move to hex 3. Is this a 3 hex charge? The attacker moved only 2 hexes but he went through 3 different hexes that turn.

vs

Start in hex 1, move to hex 2, move to hex 3, move to hex 4. Is this a 3 hex charge? This is definitely a charge as the attacker moved 3 hexes or is this setting the bar too high, as the diagram showed 3 hexes and this essentially requires 4 hexes.

I had a game master rule that it had to be 4 hexes MOVED through (second example), even if the first move was backwards.

For A, I believe the first example to be the best answer but want to hear others.


B) Does facing matter? When you are moving 3 hexes in a straight line, it implies you are charging a hex you are headed towards, but this is not stated. If so, it would be yet another condition to meet.

This has not come up in a game but it will:

Say your character, Bob, runs three hexes in a row and then changes facing. There is nothing in the charging rules to prevent changing facing. Say during the same turn his foe was pursuing him and runs up and engages Bob. If Bob had not changed facing and the foe moved in a front hex, that would be a charge everyone would agree with. But Bob changed 3 hexsides (facing the direction he ran from) and the foe moved into one of these three hexes. Is it still a charge even through Bob is charging (moving) away? He met all the requirements on pg 111 (moved 3 hexes in a straight line).

The thing about this question is if you disallow it, then you have a lot more shades of gray to rule on: Was it changing facing that broke the charge? Should it only be directly ahead? or any front 3 hexes without changing facing? Or only 1 hex side change? What about when doing a "straight line against the grain" now which are the hex to be charged? It starts to get messy.

Skarg 10-27-2019 12:15 AM

Re: 3 hex charge pole weapon rule
 
These are all really excellent questions!

My own solution is to ignore the entire straight-line requirement, since it wasn't in original TFT and we didn't need it, it especially seems to me not to need it now that the pole weapon charge bonus damage is only +1 die, it doesn't feel right to me, isn't congruent with defensive charge damage, and as you point out, is not really well defined anyway, nor do I think it is easy to fix the definition holes.

I think the intention is probably that 3 hexes of movement means B, since that would be the usual meaning of moving three hexes.

However, Steve went to the trouble to include diagrams of the "3-hex" charge... but he left out counters, and normally I would say those diagrams actually show TWO hexes of movement. Even if it means three hexes of movement, what hex in that diagram does the figure need to START in? Any adjacent to the tail of an arrow, I'd guess.

If I were trying to play strictly rules-as-written, I'd say B, but the start hex can be any adjacent to the tail of an arrow. I'd say yes the charger can change facing, because it doesn't say they can't and it would require more complex rules to explain what the limits are. (But I agree with you it's unclear and doesn't seem to make sense.)

However I'd prefer A), but mainly because I don't like the straight-line requirement anyway. I do think it's possible though that the diagram is right and the rule should read it's really a two-hex straight line requirement, but in that case the figure needs to start IN the hex where the tail of the arrow is.

hcobb 10-27-2019 04:55 AM

Re: 3 hex charge pole weapon rule
 
Turn 1: Human spearman Bob "The unbright" pokes Draco "The disastrous" in the tail while avoiding the tail swipe.

Turn 2: Draco spins in place and pushes Bob back a hex. Draco's head has therefore moved three hexes while Bob has been forced back one hex, but again makes the save on DX 13.

Bob declares a standing pole arm defense against the three hex charge of the dragon he has remained adjacent to.

larsdangly 10-27-2019 08:51 AM

Re: 3 hex charge pole weapon rule
 
I think it is unnecessarily restrictive to insist that a charge be in a straight line with constant facing, simply because movement and facing on hex map force geometric relationships that would artificially prohibit a lot of polearm charge targets. I.e., you could avoid a polearm charge from a foe by just stepping a hex to a location that would require them to zig-zag on their approach. It is imaginable that someone could 'game' the lack of constraints into something that seems counter-intuititive, but that bothers me less than the alternative.

And I concur that '3 hexes' should mean 3 newly entered hexes, not 2 new hexes plus the one in which you started

Steve Plambeck 10-29-2019 02:53 AM

Re: 3 hex charge pole weapon rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by larsdangly (Post 2292437)
..that would artificially prohibit a lot of polearm charge targets. I.e., you could avoid a polearm charge from a foe by just stepping a hex to a location that would require them to zig-zag on their approach.

Agreed, but if stepping to a hex was to get behind an object (a tree trunk or column) that forced the charger to zig-zag, I'd call that a natural rather than artificial strategy, and would want to allow it.

I'm with Skarg on this though, better to drop the entire 3 hexes in a straight line rule, which then avoids all this ambiguity. The original rules were good enough for me.

I'm also sorely tempted to revert to the original double damage effect. I liked that wide range of possible results, and always found that damage roll to be exciting. +1d6 seems a little too tame for my taste.

xane 10-29-2019 04:13 AM

Re: 3 hex charge pole weapon rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hcobb (Post 2292419)
Bob declares a standing pole arm defense against the three hex charge of the dragon he has remained adjacent to.

The 3 hex requirement is only for the attacker, Bob would get the pole arm defense bonus regardless of how far the enemy moved.

hcobb 10-30-2019 06:59 AM

Re: 3 hex charge pole weapon rule
 
Gargyole: Literacy, Humanish, Pole Weapons, Staff, Magic Fist.

Stand with silver halberd staff. If the enemy moves next to you spin in place to face them declare standing response at DX 11+2, roll three dice of damage which knocks the intruder down.

Next turn take one step back as they stand up.

Rinse and repeat.

larsdangly 10-30-2019 08:53 AM

Re: 3 hex charge pole weapon rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by xane (Post 2292716)
The 3 hex requirement is only for the attacker, Bob would get the pole arm defense bonus regardless of how far the enemy moved.

My reading is that the pole-arm defender against a short (1-2 hex) charge gets the +2 bonus to adjDX but not the 1d damage bonus. Do people agree with this or not?

Skarg 10-30-2019 09:19 AM

Re: 3 hex charge pole weapon rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by larsdangly (Post 2292895)
My reading is that the pole-arm defender against a short (1-2 hex) charge gets the +2 bonus to adjDX but not the 1d damage bonus. Do people agree with this or not?

Disagree. The 3-hex straight line condition only applies to attackers getting a damange bonus. The defensive damage bonus is listed as applying to charge attacks, which the same section defines as someone moving from non-adjacent to adjacent.

Hcobb's "gargoyle" above is correct, as it did in original TFT, and applies to any halberdier with DX 11.

If it were otherwise, I doubt anyone would intentionally choose to move 3 hexes in a straight line towards a polearm unless they had some special reason they needed to do that.

hcobb 10-30-2019 04:13 PM

Re: 3 hex charge pole weapon rule
 
Octopus with a Reverse Missiles ring and three Pike Axes against a party that doesn't have any magic will force retreats and knock the humans down to force the humans to always have to make "charge attacks" every turn until they're all dead.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.