Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > The Fantasy Trip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-13-2019, 01:50 PM   #1
kjamma4
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicagoland Area, Illinois
Default Pole arm jab results in forcing retreat? Move to hex vacated?

So if you choose to force your enemy to retreat one hex (and let's assume you move them straight backwards), and you choose to move, do you get to move one hex forward or do you move two forward to occupy the hex the enemy vacated?

[On a related note, was the jab ability in the original version of the game?]

[Being silly, despite the word "retreat", it looks like you could technically move them closer to you.]
kjamma4 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2019, 02:03 PM   #2
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: Pole arm jab results in forcing retreat? Move to hex vacated?

2-hex jabs were introduced in Advanced Melee rather than original basic Melee.

I think all versions of the Forced Retreats rules say the victim must be moved farther away from the attacker - not sideways nor towards the attacker.

Forced Retreats were in original Melee, and it seems to me were never rewritten with 2-hex jabs in mind. So I think it may be unintended, but RAW it does say you can move into the victim's vacated hex, so that'd be a 2-hex move for the jabber.

I don't think that's intended though, and would either not allow an advance by a 2-hex jabber, or would only let them advance one hex. I would certainly never let them advance through intervening figures (which the RAW might result in, in some cases...).
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2019, 02:51 PM   #3
kjamma4
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicagoland Area, Illinois
Default Re: Pole arm jab results in forcing retreat? Move to hex vacated?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
2-hex jabs were introduced in Advanced Melee rather than original basic Melee.
Yes, I did not see them in my "old" Melee rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
I think all versions of the Forced Retreats rules say the victim must be moved farther away from the attacker - not sideways nor towards the attacker.
It looks like the old Advance Melee says "The victor moves the enemy to any adjacent unoccupied hex" but looking at current Wizard rules, it says "The victorious player moves the enemy figure one hex farther from the attacker..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
Forced Retreats were in original Melee, and it seems to me were never rewritten with 2-hex jabs in mind. So I think it may be unintended, but RAW it does say you can move into the victim's vacated hex, so that'd be a 2-hex move for the jabber.
I concur that it probably was an oversight when 2-hex jabs were introduced. Bolt on rules lead to that sometimes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
I don't think that's intended though, and would either not allow an advance by a 2-hex jabber, or would only let them advance one hex. I would certainly never let them advance through intervening figures (which the RAW might result in, in some cases...).
Yeah, I think a one hex advance to an unoccupied hex is probably all that should be allowed.

Thanks again.
kjamma4 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2019, 09:38 PM   #4
Axly Suregrip
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Default Re: Pole arm jab results in forcing retreat? Move to hex vacated?

I know this is not the question but, keep in mind someone armed with a pole arm really does not want to advance into an hex adjacent to his foe. Having a pole arm means you want to use forced-retreat to get disengaged so you may charge again. Usually.

BTW, I agree a 2 hex advance is wrong.
Axly Suregrip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2019, 01:08 AM   #5
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: Pole arm jab results in forcing retreat? Move to hex vacated?

The RAW logical operators clearly imply a 2 hex move to occupy the hex vacated by the jabber's target. But I lump this with a lot of other things that you can argue for from the wording of the rules but that you know should not work that way. The rules were not written by a hyper intelligent robot; they contain gaps and peculiar logical implications that were probably not intended. in these cases we have to exercise our judgement. If you think it should have been written to imply a 1 hex follow up, then that is what you should play.
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:47 AM.


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