11-06-2020, 08:08 AM | #11 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Charging against a polearm
The +2 damage on ITL 131 applies only to damage from a rider. It does not say that a polearm defending against a charge gets +2 damage.
Certainly reasonable to think that it should apply to a polearm defending against a mounted charge. Less clear that it would apply to a polearm defending against a running person, since momentum depends on mass. But clearly, the passage on ITL 131 does not say that a defending polearm gets 1d+2 bonus damage against a figure moving eight hexes or more. Any discussion about what the rules should be is really about house rules. (Admittedly, the line is somewhat fuzzy in a game where some rules are fuzzy and even literally contradictory.) |
11-06-2020, 09:22 AM | #12 | ||
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Charging against a polearm
I found another old thread discussing these same issues.
Seems like a large portion of people, perhaps a majority, interpret the rules thus: (1) Any half-move from a non-adjacent hex to the front hex is a charge attack. Roughly the same number of people go farther than that. (2) Any move (even if more than half) from a non-adjacent hex to the front hex is a charge attack. Some people argue for a narrower interpretation. (3) Any (and only a) move of more than three hexes to an adjacent hex is a charge. I think that RAW clearly is inconsistent with (2) or (3). An argument can be made in favor of (1), but then it's hard to see thematically why (2) wouldn't be the better rule. There's a lot to be said in favor of (2) in terms of realism. Perhaps (3) is also reasonable. I tend to agree with xane's interpretation as the most plausible literal reading of the rules. I'm not sure what I'll implement in play. (Probably either the literal reading that a charge attack is an attack or (2).) Both Lars and Lord Twig hit on the nub of the issue, especially reading their quotes side-by-side (as they appeared): Quote:
Quote:
The literal reading nerfs polearms to some extent. Is this good or bad, from either the standpoint of realism or game balance? That's a hard judgment call, hence my interest in the views of others. Last edited by phiwum; 11-06-2020 at 09:29 AM. |
||
11-06-2020, 11:15 AM | #14 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Charging against a polearm
Quote:
(If one wanted to be really technical, ITL 102 intentionally allows a move of zero hexes to count as a charge attack, since the oddity of the phrasing of the options allows no other means for a person to attack if he stood still and someone else advanced to his front hex. But these details about the descriptions of the options aren't particularly relevant here.) |
|
11-06-2020, 12:37 PM | #15 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Charging against a polearm
This is one of many issues where the rules seem obvious on first inspection but a closer reading reveals they require a table ruling about exactly how to implement them when two or more 'operators' interact. Personally, I feel like this is a case where the preferred ruling should be easy because the intent is obvious: If you move into the front hex of a ready pole arm user, then you have given them an opportunity for an attack vs. a charging combatant, with all that implies. This is a good thing for pole arm users, but of course they 'pay' for that benefit by accepting a low base damage for their ST score.
|
11-06-2020, 01:12 PM | #16 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Charging against a polearm
I know quite a few people get confused by the RAW on these points.
I don't think the RAW is all that hard to figure out, especially if you are used to the original versions of the rules. It only gets difficult when someone in the discussion wants to build a case that "attack" is meant as a literal prerequisite, as if people could only skewer you with a spear if you mean to attack them after you move up their spear, but they can't do that if your declared option is to move up their spear and then do something else. I've given more time of my life than I wish I had already, to building a case against those ideas, in the various earlier threads on the topic. In sum: * Figures with polearms get charge bonuses (at the very least, they attack before non-pole melee attacks) against targets who became adjacent to them this turn. * If they didn't change hex, they get a +2 DX against such targets. * If they stood still, or if they moved "3" hexes or more in a "straight line", they also do +1 die damage. |
11-06-2020, 01:23 PM | #17 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Charging against a polearm
I understand your reading, Skarg, but it seems to me that the wording includes the term "attack". It doesn't seem over-literal to me to guess that therefore an attack is necessary.
Especially since the phrase defined and used is "charge attack", which in every other usage precludes moving beyond 1/2 MA. Far as I'm concerned, you have the intuitive picture on your side. However, you must ignore the use of the terms "attack" and "charge attack" in order to conclude that every move into the front hexes (from a non-adjacent hex) gives the pole weapon use the bonus. "Charge attack" and "Move into front hex" are very different conditions, not easily confused. The fact that SJ used the word "charge attack" and took the time to define it (using the word "attack") seems pretty good indication that he meant an attack as a prerequisite. Perhaps he was being sloppy and used the word "attack" twice when he meant no such thing, but I find that somewhat implausible. If I take your suggestion as the "right" one, I'd think that it's more a house rule then a reasonable interpretation of what's written. When I first got TFT legacy and read the Melee rules for the first time in decades, I certainly thought that moving adjacent and not attacking gave the pole weapon user no advantage (other than an attack without response -- or Defend benefits, since I was taking the engagement rules quite literally at the time). It would be brilliant, of course, if we had some sort of official clarification. |
11-06-2020, 01:57 PM | #18 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Charging against a polearm
It seems to be established case precedent that SJG doesn't 'do' clarifications of this sort, with the rare exception where they will treat something very controversial in a Hexagram article. In this case I'd prefer they save their breath and the Hexagram space for something more worth while. It would be pretty irritating if they spent all their energy and page count on adjudicating stuff that seems pretty easy to sort out if what you really want is a simple and self-consistent ruling.
|
11-06-2020, 07:34 PM | #19 | |
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Durham, NC
|
Re: Charging against a polearm
Quote:
The above is how I play it too. Nicely concise summary. I do not try to determine intent of the foe moving adjacent to the standing pole arm holder. If the foe has engaged/moved next to, then it counts as a charge. |
|
11-06-2020, 08:06 PM | #20 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Charging against a polearm
Quote:
Besides, most of the posters here seem to agree with that rule and y'all got more experience than I do. Also, I'm terribly vulnerable to peer pressure. Now, you guys ARE the cool kids, right? |
|
Tags |
charge attack, pole weapons |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|