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 11-06-2020, 11:23 PM   #21
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: Charging against a polearm

I did defend it multiple times, and pretty solidly I think, in the threads you say you read.

One major point is that unless you ignore the ability to change your declared option during a turn, to any other legal options, then your interpretation of RAW would seem to me to mean that no one ever gets to defend against a charge attack, if the foe simply declares he is not attacking during movement, and then changes his action when it becomes his turn to act.

Hopefully no one thinks that's the RAW intent?

The wording about the "attacker" is just describing the typical expected case. Running up and pretending not to attack doesn't make any sense as a way to deny a foe the ability to skewer you as run up to their spear. The wording in the original rules was the same, and there were several articles about how deadly the (originally double damage, not just +1 die) polearms were, and what could be done about them. Never in all those articles, or in the years of discussions on the TFT email list, was it mentioned "hey, just don't take the Attack option during movement, and then they can't skewer you".
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2020, 11:35 PM   #22
phiwum
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: Charging against a polearm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
I did defend it multiple times, and pretty solidly I think, in the threads you say you read.

One major point is that unless you ignore the ability to change your declared option during a turn, to any other legal options, then your interpretation of RAW would seem to me to mean that no one ever gets to defend against a charge attack, if the foe simply declares he is not attacking during movement, and then changes his action when it becomes his turn to act.

Hopefully no one thinks that's the RAW intent?

The wording about the "attacker" is just describing the typical expected case. Running up and pretending not to attack doesn't make any sense as a way to deny a foe the ability to skewer you as run up to their spear. The wording in the original rules was the same, and there were several articles about how deadly the (originally double damage, not just +1 die) polearms were, and what could be done about them. Never in all those articles, or in the years of discussions on the TFT email list, was it mentioned "hey, just don't take the Attack option during movement, and then they can't skewer you".
Yes, I saw that defense regarding changing options. I really didn't find it that compelling. I agreed with xane's point that in this rare case could easily be dealt with by ruling that when one says he won't attack in this situation, then he cannot attack.

But in the end, I think that your rule makes more thematic sense.

I just don't think it's as plausible a reading of RAW as xane's, but I don't reckon that matters much.
phiwum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2020, 10:27 AM   #23
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: Charging against a polearm

I feel like a lot of these debates boil down to a proposed reading of a rule that is technically consistent with the rules of english grammar but that obviously leads to bizarre outcomes or wild imbalances in play. There is no way to end these sorts of debates because you can't 'prove' the solution that corresponds to likely intent (and how most people would prefer to play). And the legalistic side can't make its case stick either because not many people would want to sit at a table where the game worked that way. SJG staff are doing the right thing by staying out of it and letting players sort out for themselves what should be done!
larsdangly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2020, 12:59 PM   #24
phiwum
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: Charging against a polearm

I am loath to decide that the plain English words don't mean what they say explicitly. Hence my reason for this thread.

I don't know what SJ meant when he wrote that, so I tend to assume he meant what he wrote, barring clear evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, I've become convinced that the rule Lars and Skarg suggests is more sensible, so rather than argue over whether SJ meant what he wrote, I've decided to adopt that rule.

But I'll always give more weight prima facie to what is actually written.
phiwum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2020, 08:19 AM   #25
RobW
 
RobW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Default Re: Charging against a polearm

Quote:
Originally Posted by larsdangly View Post
I feel like a lot of these debates boil down to a proposed reading of a rule that is technically consistent with the rules of english grammar but that obviously leads to bizarre outcomes or wild imbalances in play. There is no way to end these sorts of debates because you can't 'prove' the solution that corresponds to likely intent (and how most people would prefer to play). And the legalistic side can't make its case stick either because not many people would want to sit at a table where the game worked that way.
Well put

Quote:
SJG staff are doing the right thing by staying out of it and letting players sort out for themselves what should be done!
If by "right thing" you mean the right business decision, I suppose. I get that as a business model there's no profit to be had in rewriting and tightening the TFT combat rules. SJG could spend a lot of resources to bring the combat rules to the high standards now being set in the boardgames world, and I could easily believe that leads to 0 extra sales. Resources can instead go to play mats, adventures and materials.

Still.... in my dream world, SJG has a Melee/Wizard tournament app. The combat rules are simplified but now definitive as the app defines what actions are allowed. (I hads initially hoped something like this was the aim of the computer app thread in these forums). In this amazing app of my daydreams, I summon heroes and create arena teams. My teams fight in campaign mode against a succession of maps and enemies. In PVP I fight against the AI-controlled arena defence teams of other players. The business model is Fire Emblem Heroes and similar mobile apps. Those games make $Millions. Take my money SJG, take it

OK, I'm awake now. :)
RobW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2020, 02:49 PM   #26
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: Charging against a polearm

Quote:
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Yes, I saw that defense regarding changing options. I really didn't find it that compelling. I agreed with xane's point that in this rare case could easily be dealt with by ruling that when one says he won't attack in this situation, then he cannot attack.
It really seems to me that:

If you're trying to build an argument that the literal meaning of "attack" is significant to the RAW, but then you want to ignore the entire RAW rule about how you can change your option and the only limit is how far you moved, that's not talking about the RAW any more. Denying the ability to change options makes it a house rule, at which point there's no point arguing about the RAW.
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2020, 05:25 PM   #27
phiwum
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: Charging against a polearm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
It really seems to me that:

If you're trying to build an argument that the literal meaning of "attack" is significant to the RAW, but then you want to ignore the entire RAW rule about how you can change your option and the only limit is how far you moved, that's not talking about the RAW any more. Denying the ability to change options makes it a house rule, at which point there's no point arguing about the RAW.
I don't think that there's much point for us to argue over whether your rule on polearms is RAW or not. That I disagree that it's a reasonable literal reading doesn't matter much. I've become convinced that it's the better reading, whether we regard it as RAW or a house rule to make RAW more sensible.

You're right that I entered the thread trying to focus on what RAW says, but I've agreed with you and Lars that the better concern is sensible gameplay. So at this point, I'd just as soon drop our disagreement over what RAW says and doesn't.
phiwum is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
charge attack, pole weapons

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 03:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.