07-23-2019, 05:34 PM | #41 | |
Join Date: Aug 2005
|
Re: New Pole Weapon Rules
Quote:
Except - an attacker who is within 1 hex is already within the reach of the Pole Weapon (except for Javelin) and may be past the pointy end unless the defender re-directs his pole weapon. Such a move should not trigger the pre-emptive Early Pole Weapon Attack Sequence. I agree that this is about geometry - I just disagree with your interpretation.
__________________
Helborn |
|
07-24-2019, 12:25 AM | #42 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: New Pole Weapon Rules
Quote:
I keep referring to ITL 111 - the pole weapon effects apply when someone who wasn't adjacent at the start of the turn (i.e. outside polearm reach) is in the adjacent Front hex of a hostile polearm (i.e. inside polearm reach) at the start of the Action phase. |
|
07-24-2019, 03:17 AM | #43 |
Join Date: May 2019
|
Re: New Pole Weapon Rules
From the original Advanced Melee combat options (p3):
1. Stand still, or move one hex and To me it's pretty clear that in the original rules, which I played for years, you can move one hex up to someone and hit them and NOT be charging. You chose option 1a. If however, you feel like throwing yourself at someone hard (maybe you are a spear user) then you chose option 2a. I don't see how that is anything but completely clear. I also don't see anything on p12 which contradicts that. Remember, if the person is one hex away, then the pole user has already had an opportunity to attack them - that's the pole weapon advantage - either they have to loiter about at 2 hex range, and you can jab them 'for free', or they move more than one hex up to you and therefore they are charging and you get bonuses. This original set of rules can make it very hard to deal with a poleuser. You can move right up to them in one round, but then you have to deal with them receiving charge with +2 dx and double damage. Or you can stop short at one hex range. In this situation the pole user holds a lot of cards. They could charge you if they like for double damage and first hit. They could retreat one hex in a fabulously annoying manner putting you no closer to dealing with them. Or third, they could jab you and then, if they win initiative, they can still move back one hex giving them a free hit and leaving you doubly frustrated! In short, the original rules mean you cannot get past the point of a spear without extreme difficulty. They always get at least one chance to hit you first. Last edited by MikMod; 07-24-2019 at 04:51 AM. |
07-24-2019, 11:18 AM | #44 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: New Pole Weapon Rules
I can see allowing a 1-hex-movement "Non-Charge-Attack" as a house rule, and it working out ok as you describe (but needing several messy side-effect details cleared up). I get how you are reading the rules to have it seem that way, but I don't think that's the intent.
Ok, but to me, AM p12 / ITL p111 does contradict that, by saying that a Charge Attack is defined as going from not being adjacent, to being adjacent. The rationale about 2-hex jabs makes sense to me as a justification for a house rule some people want to give another way to avoid pole arm bonuses, but I don't think it's intentional because 2-hex jabs didn't exist in original Melee, which had the same sort of rules for pole weapon charge attack bonuses. And I think if there were a handy tactic for avoiding charge attack bonuses, there would be some mention somewhere about it (e.g. the pole weapon rules, or the pike rules), and/or it would have been mentioned in the Interplay article(s?) about pole weapons. Also I think there is a flaw in the idea that there is a "Non-Charge-Attack" option that avoids defensive charge bonuses, in that it would want some explanation somewhere, because it's an exception to the usual sequence of play, and also might imply agreement with people who think that all other options other than deliberately pre-declaring Charge Attack let someone be immune to pole-weapon bonuses, which I think is not balanced at all. i.e. If the reason you think pole weapon defense bonuses don't apply is because the target chose to pre-declare an option not named Charge Attack, that's rather like the idea someone else posted elsewhere about how every other non-Charge-Attack option would avoid it too: 1/2 MA and Defend, Move full MA, Disbelieve, etc. And it's irregular in terms of cause and effect, since the declared option is usually not relevant until it actually gets used. So if there is a "Non-Charge-Attack" option that avoids defensive charge bonuses, apparently it's being pre-declared before it happens? Can the Non-Charge-Attacker switch to another option when his adjDX comes up, and if so, which ones? |
07-24-2019, 04:38 PM | #45 | ||||||
Join Date: May 2019
|
Re: New Pole Weapon Rules
Quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by messy side effects. It all seems to be perfectly rational as I've outlined. What seems messy to you? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, I wouldn't characterize our understanding as 'a handy tactic for avoiding bonuses'. That makes it sound like you can trivially get round pole weapons somehow using our interpretation, but as I hope I've shown, that isn't the case. Quote:
I agree with you about the weird options discussion - that makes no sense to me. If you move 1 hex to close for an attack, you can choose 1a or 2a, to step up or hurl yourself in - either a normal attack, or a charge attack. Otherwise you're moving fast enough to put yourself in a charge situation, that is, move more than 1 hex up to someone and they can then receive charge. Quote:
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. Thinking about your interpretation, if I'm right in my understanding, there really isn't any way to cautiously approach a pole weapon, is there? So in your games, people always just run right up to halberds with no hesitation, because they might as well? Last edited by MikMod; 07-24-2019 at 04:49 PM. |
||||||
07-24-2019, 08:30 PM | #46 |
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Mount Bethel, Pennsylvania
|
Re: New Pole Weapon Rules
This discussion got me thinking about a new option.
There's dodge vs missile and defend against melee weapons, both being defensive in nature. Why not have deflect? As I cross the 2 hex range of a pole weapon, I chose to "bat" it to the side. The pole weapon has to be in my front hexes. Consider it an attack against the weapon. Maybe 4 vs Dx and the Fencing or 2 weapons talents 3 vs Dx. and costs 1 additional MA? (the time it takes to make a cautious approach) if successful, the pole weapon user can still make an attack by swinging it for normal damage, not as a charge. Adx 12, roll 13...Bob the Unlucky (sole survivor of Death Tests 1 and 2). |
07-25-2019, 01:10 AM | #47 | ||||||||||
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: New Pole Weapon Rules
Quote:
Things like someone saying they Move, Defend, or Disbelieve and so aren't Charge Attacking so the defensive pole weapon bonus won't apply. Sounds like your group would never think of or agree with that, but someone in another thread was arguing for it. A technical point missing that you also probably would just disallow without thinking it needs written rules is the idea of declaring a non-charge Attack option, then on your adjDX claiming the right to change options and say now you want to have it be a Charge Attack and do double damage. It sounds like you think that's obviously not the deal, but the fact the rules are pretty mechanical about how things work but never mention this is a special case where it matters what you said your option was at the start of the action phase, and that you can change it on your adjDX but not to Charge Attack, is just another part of why I'm convinced your interpretation is not the intended one. Quote:
AFAIK, all the original Melee and Advanced Melee rules, and the ITL 111 definition of Charge Attack say, is that it's about not having been adjacent, and then being in an adjacent front hex. I know of nothing other than the new 3-hex thing that says anything about the direction or amount of movement. You could (before the 3-hex rule) charge attack or (even in Legacy) defend against charge if the movement is curved, the only condition being not-adjacent to adjacent. Similarly. a pike gets bonus damage and attacks during movement when someone moves into its hexes of effect. A pike is essentially just a very long spear. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A non-charge Attack option is the name of the option when someone is already engaged, not the name of the option when you only move one hex. The engagement is what limits the movement to one hex. I can see how you might get that though from the wording of Advanced Melee options list. Normally I much prefer the Advanced Melee way of expressing the options list, because these forums have been full of misunderstandings caused by the new version of the basic Melee options list replacing it in the new ITL. However this way of interpreting the AM options list is new to me. Again, I think the way you play is ok but don't think it can be the intention. If the reason for no defensive pole weapon bonuses is because the option is not called Charge Attack, then that reason would hold for all other options. If it's about having only moved one hex, then why would the pole weapons rule not say that anywhere, and instead define it as moving from non-adjacent to adjacent? And why wouldn't the pike rules say pike bonuses don't happen if the target only moved one hex? Why wouldn't anyplace anywhere mention that the defensive bonuses are about the target having moved more than one hex, if that's supposed to be the reason? Quote:
No. Moving up to half your MA is not a requirement of the Charge Attack option. Moving up to half MA is something the Charge Attack option allows. Before Howard Thompson and Legacy Edition, there was never any option that required a certain amount of movement. The closest thing would be the bonus damage for a rider attacking while moving over 8 hexes in one turn. Quote:
Quote:
Really I think the options lists need to be understood as learning aids for typical situations, but hopeless and misleading if used as authoritative sources for what is and isn't possible, because the options list is trying to combine movement, engagement, and actions is one table, but TFT turns can have various developments that invalidate the assumptions built into the options tables. Also, the later more detailed rules contradict the options list in various places. As the combat examples show, and (especially the old version of) the rules on changing options make clear, the actual sequence of play is really more like: 1) Roll initiative. 2) Movement. Currently engaged figures only shift. Remember how far each figure moved. 3) Action. This is really where players say what actions they do, based on how far they moved, and the current situation as it develops. Quote:
Well no, they tend to try to avoid that if they can, by careful movement, using their own polearms and ranged attacks, ganging up, and/or by using the Defend option (which despite what the options list implies, allows up to 1/2 MA per the original Changing Options rule) when closing with a pole weapon. Last edited by Skarg; 07-25-2019 at 01:18 AM. |
||||||||||
07-25-2019, 01:13 AM | #48 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: New Pole Weapon Rules
Quote:
The Defend option somewhat covers this, in its limited way. Also, in original TFT days, there was an article proposing an option for attacking pole weapons using long cutting/chopping weapons as was done with two-handed swords versus pikes historically, though as written, it was a bit of a feat, IIRC, involving a DX penalty to hit, then having to do a bunch of damage, but the result could be a destroyed polearm. |
|
07-25-2019, 06:19 AM | #49 | ||||||||||||||
Join Date: May 2019
|
Re: New Pole Weapon Rules
Quote:
Quote:
You move first, then decide your actions, usually in DX order. If you are charging and there are pole weapons involved, then you better say quickly or it will be too late! Most pole users are highly aware of whether anyone charged them (closed at a speed more than 1). Quote:
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. 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. 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. The main list of options clearly sets out two ways to approach a target, either a one hex move and attack OR move up to half MA and charge attack. 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 by your interpretation, players are denied access to option 1a. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It is a tricky tactical situation when you face a pole weapon. Quote:
I remember someone else being very cautious about what the 'intent' of the rules was, as this would require reading SJ's mind, and he apparently never clarifies anything, so clearly we all have a bit of leeway :) I'm just saying I'm following the RAW from AM - and I am not convinced that I am not (yet). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Is there some external source you can point me to that verifies your interpretation as the 'official' one? Quote:
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. :) |
||||||||||||||
07-25-2019, 06:30 AM | #50 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
|
Re: New Pole Weapon Rules
I must admit, we never considered a move of 1 hex as a "charge" back in the day and I think I'll stick to that, no matter what the rules say. This allows for a more cautious approach to a polearm user.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|