[MikMod]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Mostly the things I mentioned in that same post, and aspects of it you don't seem to have run into probably because of other ways your group has played have figured out some way to handle or just avoid the potential weirdness.

I'm really sorry, I am not clear what weirdness you mean. I agree with a lot of what you talk about there, but we haven't had any 'weirdness'.

Things like someone saying they Move, Defend, or Disbelieve and so aren't Charge Attacking so the defensive pole weapon bonus won't apply.

I've already agreed that trying to game the options is not ok. But I think this is because we have followed the clear model you outlined of initiative-move-act, so the only real decider is how far you have moved.

You move first, then decide your actions, usually in DX order. If you are charging and there are pole weapons involved, then you better say quickly or it will be too late! Most pole users are highly aware of whether anyone charged them (closed at a speed more than 1).

AFAIK, all the original Melee and Advanced Melee rules, and the ITL 111 definition of Charge Attack say, is that it's about not having been adjacent, and then being in an adjacent front hex. I know of nothing other than the new 3-hex thing that says anything about the direction or amount of movement. You could (before the 3-hex rule) charge attack or (even in Legacy) defend against charge if the movement is curved, the only condition being not-adjacent to adjacent.

I think maybe this is the nub of it.

You are basing your interpretation soley on one line about not being, and then being, adjacent. This line does not say anything about a move of one hex being sufficient to oblige anyone to charge without choice. The example is given of a person wanting to charge and they in fact move two hexes in that round, not one.

However, I am also using the main options, where charge attacks are set out, and they are clearly linked to movement. Lets bear in mind that charge attacks - whether or not someone is termed 'charging' - is ONLY relevant to pole weapons, so the inclusion of the term 'charge attack' here must be relevant to pole weapons.

For instance, if your interpretation is correct, what is the need for option 1a? Option 2a is all you would need. This is a very important point I feel.

The main list of options clearly sets out two ways to approach a target, either a one hex move and attack OR move up to half MA and charge attack.

I see the rule under pole weapons as simply making it clear that you have to be closing to attack someone, running at them, to get or cause any charge bonuses. I read it as a kind of short version of the new 3-hex run rule, nothing more, and certainly not in contradiction of the main options. I feel this is the simplest reading and it is completely consistent.

But by your interpretation, players are denied access to option 1a.

Similarly. a pike gets bonus damage and attacks during movement when someone moves into its hexes of effect. A pike is essentially just a very long spear.

Pikes are listed and discussed under Mounted Combat - not the situation here, and it is repeatedly stated that the scenario is a pike being charged by a horse, with the additional damage specifically justified by the high momentum of the horse. Again I don't see anything there that over-rides the main options table. They are discussing charges, because otherwise, the pike is just a pointy stick.

Well, a move of one isn't a charge attack if it starts adjacent to the foe, or if it fails to get adjacent to a foe.

Absolutely, as made clear by the line under pole weapons.

That's because that example is explaining that if you do start adjacent but not engaged, you can use movement to back away (so you stop being adjacent) and then move back (so you have moved to not-adjacent and then back to adjacent) and that does count (because of the part about moving from not-adjacent to adjacent - the first hex of movement just makes it possible to get not-adjacent). In fact, that is an example of how moving one hex is enough for a charge attack, as long as you start not adjacent to the foe and move adjacent.

I am not saying you cant charge over one hex, if you want to, just that - as per the options table - you don't HAVE to charge if you move one hex.

It sounds like (the way you play) if a non-pole user is two hexes away and moves first and moves one hex and calls it a non-charge Attack, then the pole weapon user gets no pole weapon benefits (except in theory they likely had a 2-hex jab opportunity the turn before), no?

That is sometimes correct. However, as laid out, it is a risky option to take as the pole user has other options that they can take as well as the jab. They could charge you and get first attack and double damage, or they could step back, leaving you too far away to do anything useful this round and unable to use option 1a next round, all while under fire from any of their friends with missiles. Not only do you need the pole user to jab, but you also need to win initiative AND persuade your party that you all need to move first.

It is a tricky tactical situation when you face a pole weapon.

We could do a poll in the house rules subforum, and/or the TFT email list, but I know the people I originally played TFT with would be very surprised to hear someone expecting to not get their pole weapon bonuses just because someone only moved one hex when they engaged them.

Sure, go for it. I'm not saying I am 'right' here - if there is such a thing.

I remember someone else being very cautious about what the 'intent' of the rules was, as this would require reading SJ's mind, and he apparently never clarifies anything, so clearly we all have a bit of leeway :) I'm just saying I'm following the RAW from AM - and I am not convinced that I am not (yet).

A non-charge Attack option is the name of the option when someone is already engaged, not the name of the option when you only move one hex. The engagement is what limits the movement to one hex.

Not in AM it isn't. It's the movement of one hex that enables you to close cautiously and attack. Engagement is not mentioned.

Again, I think the way you play is ok but don't think it can be the intention. If the reason for no defensive pole weapon bonuses is because the option is not called Charge Attack, then that reason would hold for all other options. If it's about having only moved one hex, then why would the pole weapons rule not say that anywhere, and instead define it as moving from non-adjacent to adjacent?

I think it is about movement, but I don't think the line under pole weapons wipes out the options table information, particularly as charging is only relevant to pole weapons, and if you are right, then option 1a would be completely redundant.

Why wouldn't anyplace anywhere mention that the defensive bonuses are about the target having moved more than one hex, if that's supposed to be the reason?

Respectfully, because its clearly laid out in the main options table?

No. Moving up to half your MA is not a requirement of the Charge Attack option. Moving up to half MA is something the Charge Attack option allows.

I think you are putting cart before horse here. The options table in AM clearly lays out your options - by movement - and you have to move more to be able to charge attack. By your statement above, you could somehow move half your MA and also choose NOT to be charging! I don't see it.

Ok but is there anywhere other than your group that says that?

Not afaik - but as I said, we did more playing than reading! :)

Is there some external source you can point me to that verifies your interpretation as the 'official' one?

Well no, they tend to try to avoid that if they can, by careful movement, using their own polearms and ranged attacks, ganging up, and/or by using the Defend option (which despite what the options list implies, allows up to 1/2 MA per the original Changing Options rule) when closing with a pole weapon.

Most of these don't really address the issue of how a swordsman can cautiously approach a pole weapon user. In your interpretation, a lone sword user is always best off charging straight at a pole weapon and this just seems counter to how it would play out in real life. it seems to me that you would run up to just out of range and then try to weave past the point of the spear - just like my interpretation implies. Remember the bonus of +2 DX is when you are able to 'plant the spear in the ground' and just angle it at a charging attacker - which to me is not at all the case for someone approaching you at minimum speed and probably defending.

Of course there are tactics you can use if you are a mob, but that's not the issue I raised. Having said that. I would love to know what you mean by 'careful movement' from a lone sword. :)