Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

I thought about that exact addition, and the current draft omits it for (a) simplicity (b) to make those facing pole weapons show a little respect when running up on them.

Does that work?

Hi everyone, Steve.
What ever rules you write are official - in that respect the rules work.

Short rules are inarguably good - unless they cause confusion. In which case, their brevity does no one any favours. Some people (reasonably) assume that if you have to charge 3+ hexes to get the bonus, then others charging you also have to do so.

I read the rules as written, and said, "Hey! This is remarkable. Defending against a 1 hex charge still lets me do the 3+ hex charge bonus!!!" I actually, said as much in my post to my group, and people told me I was clearly wrong because the first part of the rules defined a (any) charge attack as requiring 3+ hexes in a straight line.

This is such a strange rule, I would be tempted to spell it out, (or give an example demonstrating how it works), for clarity. Otherwise, I am sure, the rule will generate endless debates on the Brainiac TFT forums.

I am NOT arguing for the rules to work one way or the other. I would just like the rule to be clear, so everyone knows what it is.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

I am NOT arguing for the rules to work one way or the other. I would just like the rule to be clear, so everyone knows what it is.

Warm regards, Rick.

Bingo! Well said Rick.

[David Bofinger]

Rick's preference has an attractive symmetry, in that both players get the bonus or neither. But it's the moving player who determines whether the 3-hex rule applies, so Rick's rule effectively allows the moving player to turn the set-vs-charge on or off by approaching in a slow/evasive pattern.

The question then becomes whether Rick-jinking in this fashion is a desirable element of the game. Rick likes it because it's a tactical decision and a way to use initiative. But it's pretty much entirely anhistorical: soldiers weren't trained to slowly dodge around in the kill zone of a spear while outside their own range, they were told to get inside as fast as they could. To me, at least, it feels weird and artificial.

On balance, I think I prefer Steve's solution. But there are arguments each way.

I've never liked the set-vs-charge +2 bonus. Whenever I hear stories of battles in ancient Greece or what have you the armies had spears out for the initial contact and met each other at the charge, both moving forward. There was never a temptation to sit back and wait for the enemy to spit themselves. I would delete the +2 bonus.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

Rick's preference has an attractive symmetry, in that both players get the bonus or neither. But it's the moving player who determines whether the 3-hex rule applies, so Rick's rule effectively allows the moving player to turn the set-vs-charge on or off by approaching in a slow/evasive pattern.

The question then becomes whether Rick-jinking in this fashion is a desirable element of the game. Rick likes it because it's a tactical decision and a way to use initiative. But it's pretty much entirely anhistorical: soldiers weren't trained to slowly dodge around in the kill zone of a spear while outside their own range, they were told to get inside as fast as they could. To me, at least, it feels weird and artificial.

On balance, I think I prefer Steve's solution. But there are arguments each way.

I've never liked the set-vs-charge +2 bonus. Whenever I hear stories of battles in ancient Greece or what have you the armies had spears out for the initial contact and met each other at the charge, both moving forward. There was never a temptation to sit back and wait for the enemy to spit themselves. I would delete the +2 bonus.

Hi everyone, David.
I feel that there is some logic to the moving figure deciding if the charge happens. Assuming the bonus is generated because of high closing speed, a slow closing speed will turn if off for both people. But the 3+ hex charge was in canon TFT. I was just tweaking rules, trying to make it logical.

I am not wedded to the dodge carefully forward to avoid charge damage. It was needed because there were cases where a 3+ hex charge didn't happen. I'm also not a huge fan of the +2 DX vs. charges. (I think to get this bonus, if you want to keep this rule, I would say that you can't change facing.)

While there are a lot of TFT rules which I feel strongly about, these rules are not one of them. If a 1 hex charge will generate the +1 die (for defence only), then that is fine with me. After all, usually the attacker can back up a hex, and MAKE it a 3 hex charge if he or she wants.

But if there is a rule which is non-intuative, then care should be taken to make it clear.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Skarg]

We never saw the 3-hex requirement as it showed up in a later printing of basic Melee. We did see the suggestion of a 2-hex requirement in Interplay no.7, but we dismissed it for reasons I still sympathize with:

1) We played with no such requirement and double damage charges and while pole weapons were dangerous, it didn't actually seem like that severe an issue. We were willing to nerf pole weapons a bit in ways that seemed to make sense, but we didn't find many rules that we thought made enough sense to be an improvement before we migrated to GURPS. (We did use the "cutting through polearms" option from Interplay no.7 p.26 though it didn't get used much at all, and I do kind of like the DX penalty for an obstructed hex on the opposite side of the target.)

2) We played for years without a 2- or 3-hex movement requirement for pole weapon charge effects, and were very used to playing where any technical Charge Attack got the bonus, so we did not visualize it as necessarily being about running fast at someone (and 2-3 hexes of movement didn't seem to represent that anyway). Instead, we thought it was about getting past a long/large pointy weapon from outside its reach and so possibly getting skewered as the two bodies move together, one of them gripping the long pointy thing, and having more leverage than when starting engaged, due to the enemy coming from outside the reach through the point of the polearm held between the figures. By contrast, starting inside the reach, the pole weapon would need to be brought back and poked with arm strength. But from outside the reach, the weapon could be braced and held between the bodies as they came together. It (and the +2DX on defense, and the "polearms strike first" from Advanced Melee) also seemed to convincingly match what seems to me like a pretty clear "reality check" of even kids horsing around with broomhandles and such - it definitely feels like an advantage having a long pole between you and an opponent with a notably shorter hand weapon, as opposed to them being inside its reach, and that has nothing to do with running at each other.

3) Because TFT movement involves an entire side moving all its figures while the enemies stay put, a 2-3-hex straight line rule would often result in people stepping back first in order to step forward to get the bonus, possibly even after having run forward all the previous turn, which felt odd, artificial and gamey to us.

4) If defending polearms were going to require the attacker to move 2-3 hexes towards them to get the bonus, that seemed to create even more artificial and gamey weird implications that didn't seem to correspond to something in the game world. For a "straight line" requirement, the attackers could jink/wiggle as they approach, which seemed like an artificial thing to do in the Movement phase, and would have weird issues such as a lack of rules for how many figures on one side can do that wiggle through the same hexes during their movement phase to avoid suffering charge damage, which seemed unbelievable to visualize. Then there's the issue of where this would mean that the Initiative roll would be either allowing or denying an entire side's ability to get the charge attack bonus or not.

Now, I do think that it makes sense to have available clear space have an impact on the use of pole weapons. Another great "reality check" exercise is just to bring a 5-foot pole indoors and try carrying it around and notice how much attention it takes to get around corners and furniture without bumping it into things.

And I also think ideally it would be nice if there were a way to try to "get safely past" a pole weapon without being skewered, though I don't think it should be that your side won initiative so you move up and have enough MA to say you "wiggle" on the way in. Seems like it should be more like a "contest of DX".

And I also think ideally it would be nice if there were a way to keep someone at bay with a polearm - for example if when someone trying to get past a polearm fails, they have the option to stay away rather than closing in and getting skewered. Of course, that would all take some clever rulesmithing to make a version that's as simple as most TFT rules.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Now, I do think that it makes sense to have available clear space have an impact on the use of pole weapons. Another great "reality check" exercise is just to bring a 5-foot pole indoors and try carrying it around and notice how much attention it takes to get around corners and furniture without bumping it into things.

https://gamingballistic.com/2012/12/...ging-polearms/

Hey. One of the first blog posts I ever wrote. :-)

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

https://gamingballistic.com/2012/12/...ging-polearms/

Hey. One of the first blog posts I ever wrote. :-)

Good, fun read! Your point about the Highlander pole that appears out of nowhere is well-made in two-ways; with the 2nd point being that in a Cinematic style campaign, one does not have such harsh realities interfering or limiting the action.

Hence, the never-ending quest to find the best balance between the two.

JK

[David Bofinger]

I agree that rules for terrain effects on weapon length are a desirable thing. There ought to be environments where daggers come into their own. GMs shouldn't have to make things like this up on the spot.

Having a length for each weapon and a tolerable length for each terrain, and imposing a penalty when the weapon is longer than the terrain permits, seems natural. It means assigning a new characteristic to each weapon but it's probably worth it because circumstances like this are really common in RPGs.

For example:

Weapons: dagger W=1, mace 3, bastard sword 4, halberd 5
Environment: tight squeeze E=1, Bag End 2, tavern 3, alley 4, forest 4, Versailles 4, street 5
Penalty: none if W<=E, -1 DX if W=E+1, -3 DX if W=E+2, -6 DX if W=E+3, etc.

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Having played with pole weapons in the SCA, I can say that it takes a whole lot less than five seconds to reready one if you have the strength to handle it in the first place. (A big IF there. I used a spear, not a halberd. Those were for the BIG guys.)

If course, SCA weapons don't get stuck in the bodies of your foes unless you are doing something terribly wrong :)

Here is what the current draft looks like - basically, the most popular house rule for nerfing BIG polearms - you will have to imagine the diagram but I expect everyone here can "see" it in their head.

---

POLE WEAPONS
The javelin, spear, halberd, and pike axe are “pole weapons.”
A figure which charge-attacks (option b) with a pole weapon does an extra 1 die of damage if it hits, provided the last three hexes of its movement were in a straight line. This line may be either “with the grain” or “against the grain” of the hex map. See diagram


Straight line diagram goes here.






Straight line Straight line
“with the grain” “against the grain”
(either direction)

A figure which uses a pole weapon against any charge-attacking foe also does an extra die of damage if it hits.
If a figure with a pole weapon stays in the same hex on the turn an enemy charges it (whether it changes facing or not), then it gets +2 DX with the pole weapon against that enemy.

Some points for discussion, investigation, interpretation...

1) Should the javelin be treated as a pole weapon for this 1 die charge bonus? It's more than the javelin does on it own! I also agree with some of the other posts that this maximizes the smaller pole weapons, perhaps intentionally, and makes the javenlin/spear weapons still pretty powerful, more than doubling the javelin and pretty near doubling the spear.

2) Also concerned about wording and intention of, for example, a one-hex "charge attack" by a foe, his opponent effectively stepping forward only *one meter*, qualifying the static pole user for 1 die extra damage. Wouldn't making the momentum from covering at least 3 hexes by the charge attacker vs. the pole weapon user in the movement phase more appropriate to gain the extra die damage?

3) Our group's current rule interpretation/reading/understanding about the charge attack option vs. the defending option is that an unengaged character *cannot*
*defend*, only dodge.

So a disengaged character which just steps up one hex to a foe armed with a pole weapon with no intention to close *cannot*
mitigate the 1 extra die damage attack by forcing a 4 die roll with a defend option. He could choose to move up to half and do "nothing", preventing the extra pole weapon damage, but allowing effectively a free regular DX pole weapon attack as the price to avoid the extra die damage and to engage the pole user to make subsequent pole bonus attacks more difficult.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Kirk

... And rules question/tactic per above, can a figure declare move only to close and engage moving half or less, then when its turn to act come change his option to defend, since he now qualifies (adjacent and moved half or less)? I would say yes, which then would allow a higher DX character to engage a pole user by only moving half or less, then declaring defend before the pole user attacks, making him roll 4 dice to hit *and* preventing the bonus since he never chose a charge attack option?

Yes. Both Wizard and Advanced Melee make it clear a figure can switch to another valid option to react to changing conditions. Also, it's just unfortunate wording that makes it seem like Defend is only available to engaged figures - it's really just that there's usually no attack to Defend against unless you're engaged. Also, otherwise for example you could only Defend against a 2-hex jab if you were engaged by some other foe.