New Pole Weapon Rules

[xane]

The only real option attacking a pole weapon user is to:

(a) use a polearm, have a higher adjDX, charge and hope you kill them
(b) move adjacent but don't attack (even better to defend)

With option (b) the polearm user wont get any advantages but they will get in an attack on that turn without any retaliation, and if they hit and do damage they will push back without following up and it will be rinse and repeat.

The big problem is getting your head around the fact that even just moving 4' (one hex) is going to get you shafted by a pole weapon, you only need to look up videos of "polearm vs sword" to see that even that close distance is going to give a defending polearm plenty of opportunity to skewer you unless you do something to actively avoid being hit, i.e. don't attack but push the polearm out the way, etc.

[Skarg]

I awake and... Oh no! This thread is still here... and now it has more posts! ;-)

Just kidding, sort of. ;-)

1) I'm going to flag this thread for a mod to move to the House Rules sub-forum, because it's become a very dense discussion by TFT veterans about rules interpretation and (I believe) house rules, and may discourage people new-to-TFT who browse the forum and think this is what TFT is like.

2) I want to clearly repeat that I actually think the way MikMod (and Chris Rice!) plays (having the 1-hex Attack option come with a "it doesn't trigger defensive charge attack bonuses" effect) is a nice house rule. I'm just going to continue replying to the discussion because I don't think it's the intention or rules as written.

Originally Posted by MikMod

I'm really sorry, I am not clear what weirdness you mean. I agree with a lot of what you talk about there, but we haven't had any 'weirdness'.

I expect that's because your group agrees on a concept about charge attacks and plays consistently.

The weirdness I meant is about how I think the rules would want several adjustments to completely describe the fullness of how you play, or else other players might end up drawing various weird conclusions.

We've already covered one: If you added a line that just said something like "The Charge Attack option allows a foe to get defensive pole weapon bonuses. Using the Attack option does not." then (as Xane just showed up to demonstrate) some people may think that every other option also doesn't allow defensive pole weapon bonuses.

Ok, so we can patch that weirdness by saying what you really mean is "The defensive pole weapon bonuses apply against any foe who moved more than one hex."

Better, but other "weirdness" wants patching too, such as it also needing to not just be movement that's all adjacent to the pole weapon user. And the pike rules, to be consistent, should probably also say the bonuses only apply to someone moving more than one hex, and only "towards" the pike (which might want a diagram to be clear to everyone and safe from misinterpretation).

Moreover, I think this very important tactical point would be mentioned somewhere in the rules if it were part of the game design.

Again, I'm not saying that these are problems with the way you play, but that they are not what the rules as written intend or say, and that if someone does intend that and wants the rules to be consistent and not subject to many different interpretations, they'd want several lines of new clarification on such points.

Originally Posted by MikMod

You are basing your interpretation soley on one line about not being, and then being, adjacent. This line does not say anything about a move of one hex being sufficient to oblige anyone to charge without choice. The example is given of a person wanting to charge and they in fact move two hexes in that round, not one.

Yes, I am, because that is the only line that says what the requirement is, and it's in the Pole Weapons rule. I believe that the words "is defined as [from adjacent to non-adjacent" means that is the requirement. If the intention were your interpretation (requiring distance), I think it would/should say it requires 2 hexes of movement, e.g. something like "is defined as moving two or more hexes from a non-adjacent hex to an adjacent hex".

The new 3-hex requirement for an attacking pole weapon charge bonus is a new thing, and notice it gets an entire new paragraph and diagrams to try to explain these requirements.

Compared to no mention anywhere of a two-hex requirement (except your interpretation of the Advanced Melee options list), I'm sure there is no intended two-hex requirement.

Originally Posted by MikMod

However, I am also using the main options, where charge attacks are set out, and they are clearly linked to movement. Lets bear in mind that charge attacks - whether or not someone is termed 'charging' - is ONLY relevant to pole weapons, so the inclusion of the term 'charge attack' here must be relevant to pole weapons.

Yes, in Advanced Melee, the options list is organized by movement. But there is a fundamental problem with options lists, in that they combine movement and actions and engaged status all in one table, but other rules show that those lists are not accurate.

In basic Melee/Wizard (original and new) and the new ITL, the options list is organized by engagement status (which IMO causes far more confusions and contradictions, because engagement status can change throughout a turn and it implies that determines what options are available rather than movement amount).

And in fact if you look at original Melee, the pole weapon rules there are very short & simple and ARE explicitly based on the Option taken, but since in original Melee the options list is based on engagement, we have:

OPTIONS FOR DISENGAGED FIGURES
...
(b) CHARGE ATTACK. Move up to 1/2 its MA and attack ...
...
OPTIONS FOR ENGAGED FIGURES
(h) SHIFT AND ATTACK. Shift one hex (or stand still) and attack ...

The conditions for pole weapon bonuses in original basic Melee are explicitly what option was taken.

BUT in original Melee (and in new ITL), a disengaged figure's options don't include an attack option other than CHARGE ATTACK.

i.e. In original basic Melee, it's a mechanical trick to avoid having to even explain what the requirements are, and it does have weird side-effects such as RAW any other option seeming not to trigger the defensive bonuses. In original basic Melee, it seems you can do a full MA move up to a pole weapon and the defender wouldn't technically get a bonus because you aren't taking option (b). Which you and I (but not, it seems, xane) would think makes no sense.

New basic Melee only says "A charge attack is defined as an attack in which the attacker moves from a non-adjacent hex to a hex adjacent to his target." (i.e. the same as AM and new ITL).

Originally Posted by MikMod

For instance, if your interpretation is correct, what is the need for option 1a? Option 2a is all you would need. This is a very important point I feel.

1) For historical reasons, as above - original Melee used the option as the condition for whether pole weapons got their bonus or not. In that context (and technically according to the options list (...) in new TFT too), the only attack option for disengaged figures was CHARGE ATTACK. (That seems to have been recognized as a mistake by Advanced Melee, which re-defined charge attack to the current definition of being any attack involving moving from non-adjacent to adjacent, but unfortunately the options list is still causing confusion).

2) Because the options list is mostly a learning tool trying to efficiently combine the common combinations of movement and action options available to figures in the most typical/simple/unchanging/expected situations, so it has an attack option associated with zero or one hex of movement for engaged figures, and an attack option associated with up to 1/2 MA (so, zero through 1/2 MA) for disengaged figures. It being still called CHARGE ATTACK is a holdover from original Melee, but it is the option listed as available for someone, say, not moving at all, or even moving backwards away from a target, and doing a two-hex jab or throwing a weapon, or using another weapon with multi-hex range (e.g whip, lasso...). (In AM throwing jabbing etc would be option II.b, but there is no such option listed in new ITL.) It is confusing that it is called CHARGE ATTACK because the option's name is no longer what determines pole weapon effects - it's the move from non-adjacent to adjacent, as defined inside the pole weapons rule.

Originally Posted by MikMod

I see the rule under pole weapons as simply making it clear that you have to be closing to attack someone, running at them, to get or cause any charge bonuses. I read it as a kind of short version of the new 3-hex run rule, nothing more, and certainly not in contradiction of the main options. I feel this is the simplest reading and it is completely consistent.

But the Advanced Melee version (and everything but the new 3-hex part of the new ITL rules) doesn't say anything about about running.

Originally Posted by MikMod

But by your interpretation, players are denied access to option 1a.

No, my interpretation is you can move 0 or 1 hex and attack, and it doesn't protect you against pole weapon effects. It's listed there because people who are engaged may want to see a full list of what options they can do, and people who are considering moving more than 1 hex also want to see what they can do, compared to what else they could do if they only moved 1. It would just be confusing to list the options for 1 hex or less movement, and not list attack.



This post is so long I have to split it into two parts...

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by MikMod

Pikes are listed and discussed under Mounted Combat - not the situation here, and it is repeatedly stated that the scenario is a pike being charged by a horse, with the additional damage specifically justified by the high momentum of the horse. Again I don't see anything there that over-rides the main options table. They are discussing charges, because otherwise, the pike is just a pointy stick.

Pikes may be mentioned in the Mounted Combat section (because they are seen as a military counter to cavalry charges, and do more damage against them), but their rules do not only apply to mounted combat. The requirement for a pike to attack during movement do not require a mounted situation, and are described/explained as:

Thus, the foe will almost always be charge-attacking – either against the pikeman or someone else

Note no mention of requiring the target to be moving more than one hex (nor taking the Charge Attack option).

If it were possible to avoid a pike by only moving one hex, I'd think it would be mentioned. Certainly as a cavalryman, I'd recommend every horseman having to move into pikes to take any option that avoids being skewered, whether it's moving only one hex, Defending, or both. And it is possible to Defend on your way in, or reduce speed to reduce damage, but not to deny the pike's chance to hit you as you enter its reach altogether.

If you say a movement of 1 hex means no pole weapon effects, you're doing the equivalent - not only are you reducing the bonus damage, but removing the reach advantage as well.

Originally Posted by MikMod

The options table in AM clearly lays out your options - by movement - and you have to move more to be able to charge attack. By your statement above, you could somehow move half your MA and also choose NOT to be charging! I don't see it.

To me, it's clear on the AM options list that if I am disengaged (*), I can move 1/2 my MA or less (to include moving one hex, or technically, even not moving at all) and still do option "a. charge attack".

I do see that the AM options list does not that option as "(This is a running attack, giving a pole-weapon user an advantage.)" but I don't see anywhere defining what "running" is other than the Pole Weapons rule adjacency thing, and I don't see "half your MA or less" as requiring more than 1 hex of movement. I also see it as another indication that in general, a disengaged figure moving to engage a pole weapon will create a charge attack situation.

Originally Posted by MikMod

Is there some external source you can point me to that verifies your interpretation as the 'official' one?

Aside from all the things I have mentioned, let's see...

Interplay no.7 has an article from then-TFT-editor William D. Gustafson about Pole Weapons advantages, disadvantages, and various new optional rules that might be used. In that article's part about the rules as written, he mentions (my emphasis in bold):

Originally Posted by Interplay no.7

"Pole weapon users who do not move (facing OK) get a +2 DX to hit. This only works if the target comes adjacent to the pole weapon user. This advantage, in my opinion, is reasonable and should be left alone."

"If the pole weapon user and the target were not adjacent anytime from the beginning of the turn through the pole weapon user's attack, then the pole weapon does double damage."

"The last advantage of a pole weapon is its ability to strike first because of its long length. There are situations where the current rules do not work correctly. The purpose of the rule is to let a pole weapon user go before an ordinary weapon can strike. This is perfectly reasonable if the weapon really is a regular type (sword for example) but works incorrectly if the weapon is thrown or missile or if the attack is a spell.

The rule would be better is it was:

If a pole weapon was non-adjacent to its target during movement and an adjacent-only attack is made on either the pole weapon user or the pole weapon's target by someone who was also not adjacent during movement, then the pole weapon attack is resolved first. In difficult situations it should be remembered that the time that the various figures became adjacent will determine whether or not the pole weapon goes out of sequence."

i.e. The conditions for pole weapon bonuses are all about adjacency, and nowhere about the option chosen or the number of hexes moved (except in the late-Melee Howard Thompson straight line requirement, or the new Legacy version of it, neither of which apply to defense situations).

[Skarg]

This last part is about realism and interpretation rather than rules, but:

Originally Posted by MikMod

Most of these don't really address the issue of how a swordsman can cautiously approach a pole weapon user. In your interpretation, a lone sword user is always best off charging straight at a pole weapon and this just seems counter to how it would play out in real life. it seems to me that you would run up to just out of range and then try to weave past the point of the spear - just like my interpretation implies.

Always best off charging straight?

In my interpretation, the best way short of using a long or ranged weapon, is to get initiative, have them move but not charge you, then be able to move to their side or rear to engage them even if you can't attack that turn. Or if that's not possible, to Defend up to them (that's my version of what you're talking about), or make it so the people they can charge will involve them facing multiple foes, etc.

Originally Posted by MikMod

Remember the bonus of +2 DX is when you are able to 'plant the spear in the ground' and just angle it at a charging attacker - which to me is not at all the case for someone approaching you at minimum speed and probably defending.

"Plant the spear" is just a bit of color mentioned in the pike rules, no?

I don't visualize it that way. I view the +2 as just part of the advantage of having a longer weapon you can hold in front of someone trying to close within its reach. It seems to me that if you "reality check" (i.e. horse around) holding a pole and practice denying someone with a shorter stick trying to get inside your reach, there are very noticeable advantages and they are not about the shorter-weapon person coming in fast or slow (it's more about you can threaten him and he can't threaten you due to reach advantage).

Originally Posted by MikMod

Of course there are tactics you can use if you are a mob, but that's not the issue I raised. Having said that. I would love to know what you mean by 'careful movement' from a lone sword. :)

What I mentioned above. You avoid moving so that they can charge you without that being a problem for them, and try to arrange for situations where you can engage them from the side after they've moved, or they have to face many people, get shot, get jumped in HTH during movement from behind, etc. Or you just Defend during the turn they get their bonus.

[MikMod]

I love how under 'realism' you're talking about winning initiative, forcing the pole user to move first, then somehow running around them while they're frozen to the spot, into a side or rear hex so you can attack them next round and totally avoid the pole weapon bonuses. So realistic! :D

I submit to your greater knowledge of the overall development of the game, Melee especially, which we never played. (I will make the point that even now, Melee and ITL are not always in agreement though! :) In that light it seems obvious to read the RAW in the way you have.

I will also be taking on board points from you all about 'getting past' the point of the spear, though that probably means I will house rule some kind of hybrid.

Overall, I guess I'm a little sad that the new edition hasn't made things clearer, and in some places the opposite. I guess maybe that's inevitable - you try to fix one area and something else goes out of whack.

Thank you Skarg for humouring me and my 'weird' interpretation!

:)

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by MikMod

I love how under 'realism' you're talking about winning initiative, forcing the pole user to move first, then somehow running around them while they're frozen to the spot, into a side or rear hex so you can attack them next round and totally avoid the pole weapon bonuses. So realistic! :D

Heh! I didn't mean to file that under 'realism', but one of the methods available in the rules. I also wouldn't entirely call it "unrealistic", but some sort of abstraction in the initiative system - what it would actually represent, I don't know - faking out the opponent somehow, I suppose.

Originally Posted by MikMod

(I will make the point that even now, Melee and ITL are not always in agreement though! :)
...
Overall, I guess I'm a little sad that the new edition hasn't made things clearer, and in some places the opposite. I guess maybe that's inevitable - you try to fix one area and something else goes out of whack.

Thank you Skarg for humouring me and my 'weird' interpretation!

:)

Yeah, it's too bad the current version still has several points of confusion and disagreement. I think the options list is the main problem, because it tries to explain movement, engagement and actions all at once, and they aren't that linked.

At least contradictions and unclear wording leave room for people to think their various interpretations are all right. ;-)

It was an interesting discussion. Thanks for your part, too. :-)

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by MikMod

I don't really consider it a house rule, it's just option 1a, attacking after a slow-as-possible approach. [big snip]

I have to say, I really had no idea that our interpretation of pole weapon charges in AM would be controversial or non-standard in any way. We never even debated how it should work. We just read the rules, followed them and it all seemed very sensible.

Ditto, ditto, and exactly to all that.

I find this thread infuriating because I've read it start to finish 4 times, and I can't choose a side! Hahaha. Everyone is right about something.

Me and all 6+ members of my old group would have to agree most with this last bit quoted above. We were dang picky about the rules, and NO ONE in almost 20 years of play questioned how we interpreted the pole weapon rules! I doubt we even noticed there might be a discrepancy between Melee (what we started with) and AM.

Actually unpacked my first editions for the first time in 20+ years and laid them all out with the new Legacy ITL and Melee side by side by side because of this thread, and instead of closure I've given myself a massive headache! LOL!

I thought there'd ony be one "strict"interpretation possible, but there isn't. I agree the crux seems to be that original Melee listed options by Disengaged/Engaged, AM went with degrees of movement, and the Legacy editions have switched back to Engaged/Disengaged. I prefer the original and current, but even throwing out AM things are confusing.

I know I loved the drama of the situation when the moving figure had to pick between stopping one hex short of engaging the polearm user immediately (and risking bonus damage) or going all the way to adjacent and attacking on the same turn.

I also can't abide the idea that someone moving one hex from one adjacent enemy to become adjacent with another enemy with a polearm should risk different consequences all dependent on which way the first opponent was facing! If I start in the first opponent's front hex, that 1 hex move is a Shift, but if it was their side or rear hex then that 1 hex move was a Charge Attack so I take extra damage, and at +2 DX to be hit? It's the same move! The same distance and the same direction towards the same polearm user either way.

Whatever house rule I settle on (and unfortunately one seems to be called for) my guiding principle will be symmetry. If two figures close for adjacent combat, they both get the damage bonus if they both have polearms, or neither gets the bonus. If A, a swordsman, attacks B, a polearm wielder, I won't let B have the damage bonus against A unless I would have given it to A if A also had a pole weapon. The combined closing movement will have to exceed 1 hex, and if one was stationary for the whole thing they get the +2 DX to hit. I may throw the entire 3-hex movement rule out, and I may even revert to double damage as opposed to only +1d6. Just to be stubborn about the whole thing! :)

[Skarg]

The non-adjacent to adjacent system is clear and consistent and makes sense in terms of the advantage of reach, which IMO is the most important thing.

That is, if you just consider the advantage of being allowed to strike first, then the adjacency-based system makes complete sense (to me, anyway): the polearm goes first whenever it attacks someone with a shorter weapon coming in from outside its reach, because it's longer and the polearm will be in reach before the shorter weapon is in reach.

That's the clinching argument for me. I don't want moving one hex to be a way to avoid the reach advantage of a polearm.

However if we're not just talking about what the best interpretation of the RAW is, I can see all sorts of house-rule options making sense to me. But that's an even more complex discussion.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Skarg

The non-adjacent to adjacent system is clear and consistent and makes sense in terms of the advantage of reach, which IMO is the most important thing.

That is, if you just consider the advantage of being allowed to strike first, then the adjacency-based system makes complete sense (to me, anyway): the polearm goes first whenever it attacks someone with a shorter weapon coming in from outside its reach, because it's longer and the polearm will be in reach before the shorter weapon is in reach.

That's the clinching argument for me. I don't want moving one hex to be a way to avoid the reach advantage of a polearm.

However if we're not just talking about what the best interpretation of the RAW is, I can see all sorts of house-rule options making sense to me. But that's an even more complex discussion.

Other parts of the polearrn RAW may be open to some interpretation, but I agree with you Skarg, the polearm strikes first rule is as unambiguous and incontrovertible as it gets. I don't see the 2-hex jab as any different, nor the +2 DX bonus situation. I can't imagine any need for house rules about those parts; they don't need any clarification.

When it comes down to it, the only polearm related ruling that is open to interpretation is whether or not a 1 hex move by an attacker on a polearm user always triggers the bonus damage. And this opinion has pivoted on different definitions of "a charge" and the intent of the Charge Attack option.

And I just smacked myself in the head and thought maybe I haven't looked at that issue correctly. I've argued it bothers me that a figure who did not choose the Charge Attack option still takes the bonus damage for becoming adjacent to a polearm defender by other means.

Well the only other means, normally and voluntarily, is option (j); shift one hex (if not standing still) and attack. By definition that's not a Charge Attack, but....

What is the real intent of option (j)? I don't recall ever thinking about this before, but looking at it now wouldn't the spirit of (j) be violated if you attacked any figure other than the one you shifted around? Does not the wording of (j) infer that you are taking the option in the process of attacking the figure you are shifting around, the one you started engaged with, and not some other figure you incidentally became adjacent to after shifting?

Does anyone play option (j) that strictly? Because if you do, then the figure that shifts on a first opponent to become adjacent to a second opponent, one that might have a polearm, cannot attack the second opponent anyway. In the spirit of (j), the attack must be made on the first opponent, or not at all. And then the question of what bonuses an attack on opponent #2 might trigger just goes away, because the attack on the newly-adjacent polearm user wouldn't be allowed in the first place.

(Note the polearm user would still get to attack the figure that shifted to adjacent, but now logically without the bonuses for receiving a charge, because he isn't even being attacked; it would be regular damage only.)

I'm not sure I want to interpret (j) that strictly! Haha! It's fun if you're dancing between two enemies, and they don't know which of them you are going to strike at! But this exacting interpretation of (j) does eliminate what I see as the one real ambiguity in pole weapons.

Every solution comes with a problem. If you were engaged with enemy #1, and used shift and attack on #1, but #1 teleported away before your turn to act, would you still be forbidden from striking at an alternative enemy #2 who was now the only remaining figure in one of your front hexes? Oh I'm not tackling that, it would be off-topic in this thread ;)

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

Other parts of the polearrn RAW may be open to some interpretation, but I agree with you Skarg, the polearm strikes first rule is as unambiguous and incontrovertible as it gets. I don't see the 2-hex jab as any different, nor the +2 DX bonus situation. I can't imagine any need for house rules about those parts; they don't need any clarification.

When it comes down to it, the only polearm related ruling that is open to interpretation is whether or not a 1 hex move by an attacker on a polearm user always triggers the bonus damage. And this opinion has pivoted on different definitions of "a charge" and the intent of the Charge Attack option.

Yeah, RAW they are all linked (except the +2 DX defensive part), but a house rule might break them up.

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

Well the only other means, normally and voluntarily, is option (j); shift one hex (if not standing still) and attack. By definition that's not a Charge Attack, but....

Well, the only rule that actually literally says what the definition of Charge Attack is, is the Pole Weapon section. The options list might name one option Charge Attack, and that was what it means in the very first basic Melee, but now I read it (like many things about the options list) as a "serving suggestion" not a definition.

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

What is the real intent of option (j)? I don't recall ever thinking about this before, but looking at it now wouldn't the spirit of (j) be violated if you attacked any figure other than the one you shifted around? Does not the wording of (j) infer that you are taking the option in the process of attacking the figure you are shifting around, the one you started engaged with, and not some other figure you incidentally became adjacent to after shifting?

To me, absolutely not. In fact, I think practically any such interpretation of any of the options leads to terrible confusion, and terribly restricted options during actual play, because situations can and do change during a turn, and can even be tactically planned to deny opponents options if you played like that. And, because of the rules that figures can not only pick whatever target they like, but also change options completely at any point up until they actually do an action. So no, RAW (and I would say, for good reasons) there is no obligation to pick whom you are attacking during the movement phase.

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

(Note the polearm user would still get to attack the figure that shifted to adjacent, but now logically without the bonuses for receiving a charge, because he isn't even being attacked; it would be regular damage only.)

And no, because being attacked isn't/shouldn't be a requirement, because that would be silly and gamey. Moving up to a foe with a long weapon and NOT attacking shouldn't prevent the foe from using the long weapon as well as if they were attacking, unless the advancing figure is Defending (in which case that has its usual effects, i.e. 4/DX to hit, but not preventing polearms from having their natural advantages).

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

Every solution comes with a problem. If you were engaged with enemy #1, and used shift and attack on #1, but #1 teleported away before your turn to act, would you still be forbidden from striking at an alternative enemy #2 who was now the only remaining figure in one of your front hexes? Oh I'm not tackling that, it would be off-topic in this thread ;)

I'd say it's just one of a very long list of reasons why all options are NOT locked into during Movement! It doesn't require something so exotic as teleportation - it can also be them dying, or Disengaging, or moving after you and shifting to your Side hex, or them getting tackled into HTH, or whatever.