[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Helborn

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we can be in agreement that, being engaged, a 1 hex shift, without engaging a new opponent does not mean you are doing a charge attack, per ITL 102/103

Right, you can't shift one hex, starting the turn adjacent and remaining adjacent to a foe, and be charging that foe. But that's not about ITL 102/103, it's about the definintion in ITL 111.

Originally Posted by Helborn

And yet, if my character is not engaged, a 1 hex move means a charge attack (RAW ITL 102).

No. ITL 102 showing a disengaged attack option called CHARGE ATTACK just means you could (and often do) do a charge attack when you started the turn disengaged. But engagement is not the same thing as adjacency. So for example, one exception would be figure (X) who starts their turn adjacent to a foe who is not engaging them, and X then can't or doesn't move away and then back - that would be someone adjacent who wasn't engaged at the start of the turn, but who is not in a charge attack situation (as actually defined on ITL 111). Even if X's foe remains facing away and X attacks them while still himself disengaged, that would be an attack but not a charge attack - i.e. one of many examples where the list of options should not be used as a literal list of what can be done or not based on Engagement.

Originally Posted by Helborn

And, if my character is engaged but shifts 1 hex and engages a new opponent, it can be considered a charge attack maybe. Option (b) ITL 102 and (j) ITL 103 seem to exclude this interpretation. but it is not explicitly specified.

Yes, if the "new" opponent was not adjacent at the start of the turn, it is a charge attack situation per ITL 111. ITL 102 & 103 listing the options a certain way can be misleading in many situations.

Originally Posted by Helborn

The importance of whether or not a given attack is a charge attack is defined in ITL 111. Because a charge attack with a Pole Weapon or against a Pole Weapon triggers the Early Pole Weapon Attack Sequence. And a defender with a Pole Weapon gets the +2DX against ANY charge attack.

That's why I prefer to make charge attacks move more than 1 hex - as you seem to agree - and make all 1 hex movement and attack non-charge attacks.

No, I think it's about the reach of the pole weapon and that the pole weapon bonuses (especially the one about them attacking first) should apply in any case where a pole weapon is attacking someone who was outside the pole weapon's reach at the start of the turn. i.e. It's about geometry - to get adjacent to a pole-weapon user, you need to get past the point first. (Also see my previous post above.)