New Pole Weapon Rules

[xane]

I think the original concern was getting a double damage attack (via a critical or the original pole weapon charge rules) and then doing zero damage.

Perhaps minimum damage of 1 (even after armour) on a critical hit?

[Skarg]

If you like.

Different players like and dislike different things. Some players don't mind, or even enjoy the reversal when one roll makes it look like something happens, but the next roll reverses that.

Min 1 base damage on a critical hit would be a (light) house rule which could help appease the people who get upset if their double/triple damage with a light weapon ends up being zero.

Personally I'd tend to suggest the interpretation where on double/triple damage you multiply the number of dice, as we found that fun and the bell curve makes it much less likely there will be extreme low or high results.

[Steve Plambeck]

I don't have my old (original) rules to hand, but reading the new Pole Weapon rules something else doesn't seem quite as I remember it. Anyone know if I'm crazy? :)

The new rules state that if a stationary defender has a Pole Weapon, and a non-adjacent attacker moves even only one hex in charge attacking them, the defender's Pole Weapon does +1d damage (formerly double damage).

I remember only ever playing it as the bonus damage (what was double, but is now +1d) cannot occur unless someone (either of the adversaries) moved at least 3 hexes in a straight line.

In fact I'm certain I recall attacking pole arm users by first using a turn to move to a distance 2 hexes from them and stopping, then on the next turn moving the last hex to become adjacent and attack, using up 2 turns to specifically avoid taking the double damage.

Either this has changed too or my memory's gone shoddy.

[Helborn]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

The new rules state that if a stationary defender has a Pole Weapon, and a non-adjacent attacker moves even only one hex in charge attacking them, the defender's Pole Weapon does +1d damage (formerly double damage).

I remember only ever playing it as the bonus damage (what was double, but is now +1d) cannot occur unless someone (either of the adversaries) moved at least 3 hexes in a straight line.

I think if you re-read ITL 111 you'll see that the attacker still needs to move 3 hexes before the defender gets +1d. He gets +2DX and the Pole Arm sequence after even 1 hex but not the +1d. The attacker still needs to move 3 vexed just not in a straight line.

[xane]

Originally Posted by Helborn

I think if you re-read ITL 111 you'll see that the attacker still needs to move 3 hexes before the defender gets +1d. He gets +2DX and the Pole Arm sequence after even 1 hex but not the +1d. The attacker still needs to move 3 vexed just not in a straight line.

Originally Posted by ITL p111

If a pole weapon is used against a charge attack, it also gets the extra die of damage, whether or not the enemy moved in a straight line.

A defending polearm gets the first strike advantage and +1d damage.
A stationary defending polearm gets first strike, +1d damage and +2 DX.
An attacking polearm gets first strike advantage.
An attacking polearm who moved 3 hexes straight gets first strike and +1d damage.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Helborn

I think if you re-read ITL 111 you'll see that the attacker still needs to move 3 hexes before the defender gets +1d. He gets +2DX and the Pole Arm sequence after even 1 hex but not the +1d. The attacker still needs to move 3 vexed just not in a straight line.

Thanks Helborn. I was looking at Melee 12. ITL 111 goes into slightly more detail, but the part that was tripping me up is the same in both: "If a pole weapon is used against a charge attack, it also gets the extra die of damage, whether or not the enemy moved in a straight line [emphasis mine]." I guess I was taking the "not in a straight line" part of that to also mean not necessarily 3 hexes. Then again, doesn't this wording of the rules actually decouple the +1d damage effect from the 3 hex minimum movement rule? The only requirement for the bonus damage dealt out by the defender in this case is explicitly a charge attack. By definition a charge attack can be only one hex. So if the last portion of the attacker's movement does not have to be 3 hexes in a straight line, then does it have to be 3 hexes at all?

One would never actually move (the last) 3 hexes in a non-straight line to charge attack, because they'd become adjacent on the 2nd hex of that motion. Then they would either (1) be forced to stop there, short of 3 hexes motion, because they'd stepped into one of the defender's front hexes and thereby become engaged, or (2) have no reason to take another step if they weren't already in a front hex; if you're already in your opponent's side or rear hexes, it's better to attack from where you are without taking that 3rd step if it puts you in one of the defender's front hexes.

What I'm getting at is that there is an implication here that the 3-hex charge by the attacker is not required for the defender to dole out the +1d damage bonus, which would make that bonus applicable even if the attacker moved only 1 or 2 hexes.

Not that I suspect that's the intention of the rule's wording at all. [I change my mind in my next post!] I'd take the rule to mean "whether or not the enemy moved in a straight line, as long as the enemy moved at least 3 hexes". If I was playing the defending character, I could complain if I wasn't allowed the +1d bonus damage against my attacker when that attacker only moved 1 hex, because technically that satisfies the charge attack that is explicitly the only requirement for the pole weapon defender to get that bonus.

As GM I had to manage plenty of instances of players getting just that picky :)

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by xane

A defending polearm gets the first strike advantage and +1d damage.
A stationary defending polearm gets first strike, +1d damage and +2 DX.
An attacking polearm gets first strike advantage.
An attacking polearm who moved 3 hexes straight gets first strike and +1d damage.

Now this is a better way to look at it. xane reminds us, the rules for attacking with a polearm and defending with a polearm don't have to be, and aren't, the same.

I'm reversing the conclusion I just espoused in my previous post.

The defending polearm user gets the +1d damage bonus against the attacker regardless of how much or little the attacker moved, as long as that move qualified as a charge attack. And that can be as little as 1 hex. The intention must have been to make the polearm-as-defense really, really strong. And history supports that.

Well good, now I can sleep tonight! :)

[Skarg]

I think xane has it right in that summary.

Though it would add a new method for getting around bonus polearm damage that's sort of interesting and makes some sense from a certain way of imagining things, I don't think that's the intent.

(But I may be biased, as I'm not a fan of the 3-hex straight line requirement for the attacker, either. Probably partly because we always played with the original rules that didn't have that and didn't find it a problem, and have played decades of GURPS since, my imagination of what polearm charge bonuses are about does not include running in a straight line to do more damage. To me, 1-hex polearm charge bonuses make sense because I think there should be a major advantage in having a long polearm as two figures move inside the polearm's reach, due to there being a long impaling weapon between them.)

Also because the 3-hex requirement is often easy to bypass if need be by backing up and going forward 3 in so many cases, which seems a little gamey to me.

[xane]

Originally Posted by Skarg

IAlso because the 3-hex requirement is often easy to bypass if need be by backing up and going forward 3 in so many cases, which seems a little gamey to me.

To be clear you can only really do this if you are disengaged, i.e. in a rear/side hex, and have a MA of 12.

I actually didn't think there was anything wrong with the original rules that allowed a disengaged attacker to back up one hex and charge again getting the full advantage, top tip; don't let a polearm user get behind you.

Remember that polearm weapons are not as damaging so they have to have some advantage, the heavier ones have already been nerfed having the double damage reduced to +1d.

My only stipulation as a house rule is the polearm charge attack rules (for attacking or defending) can only be done if the polearm is in two hands (or for a javelin to have nothing in the other hand).

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by xane

To be clear you can only really do this if you are disengaged, i.e. in a rear/side hex, and have a MA of 12.

MA 10 if you are starting the turn 2 hexes away.