Polearm charge against a bowman

[Helborn]

Platimus, I agree that it's all about timing. As Skarg mentioned, geometry and reach makes the bow the longest reach of all. However, complicating the AdjDX order further with another special rule for bow last shots I think is unnecessary. That's why I think that moving the last bow shot into the polearm charge sequence makes sense.

I also agree that the simplest solution is to eliminate the polearm charge sequence entirely and everyone goes in AdjDX order (perhaps with the added die damage for a polearm charge).

However, the rule is there and I propose that, since there are two adjDX sequences, the last bowshot should be included in the first rather than the last.

In my experience, a good bowman can nock and fire in roughly 1 sec. when she doesn't have to aim at a distant target. Perhaps only the Expert or Master Bowman gets the advantage of last shot during the polearm sequence because it does require a certain amount of training and familiarity. She won't be able to do a head shot but a torso shot within 3 m is eminently achievable.

Frankly, any bowman who sticks around for a last shot at under 3 m against a charging polearm should be given a medal - posthumously. But it does work in TFT.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Skarg

(It seems to me that) it's not about time, it's about length.

The reason (it has always seemed to me) that it makes sense for polearms to go before shorter melee weapons is about simple geometry: the polearm is considerably longer, and so there is a chance that the polearm can reach the closest target it is moving towards, before that target can reach the polearm user, because the weapon reach is longer.

Moreover, the baseline sequence in TFT is done by adjDX. For archers who are not in charge attacks, their arrows fly and hit in adjDX sequence like other actions do. The polearm-charges-go-first rule is an exception to that based on superior reach, and it doesn't apply to polearms receiving a charge because the receiving polearm also has long reach

I agree that it is mostly about reach but time is a factor as well. If it were solely about reach, we'd already have a rule instructing us to resolve all missile attacks first. But we don't.

Well, a missile weapon has even more reach than a polearm, so the reach of the polearm would barely help change the time consideration in that case.

Here. Until we get to here, we've previously been talking about non-missile weapons. Reach is the key difference between a polearm charge and a sword charge or sword swing. It is why polearms charges preempt sword charges or swings. We both agree on this. Now, we're bringing in missile weapons - which obviously and undoubtedly have a higher "reach" than polearms.

But if the "polearm charge rule" were based entirely upon reach, why wouldn't the author precede the "polearm charge rule" with a "missile weapons first" rule? Because it's not just about reach. It's also about the time it takes to use the weapon.

If anything, I'd tend to think last shot arrows would go fist, for the same reason polearms do - due to reach. And yet, I was just suggesting that the polearm exception probably logically shouldn't apply to last-shot arrows against them.

I understand your logic here and I sort of agree with it but changing the rules so that a "last shot" occurs before the polearm charge is complicated and tricky. The only danger in making the "last shot" come after the charge (as it currently does) is that the charge might do 8+ damage and (by the rules) render you unable to perform your "last shot". This is acceptable to me. Maybe he got to you before you could fire off that last arrow. If you reverse it, the "last shot" comes first and you run the risk of doing 8+ damage and the charge is thwarted. I disagree with that as the momentum of someone charging at you will not be stopped by an arrow - even if that arrow kills them.

If you group bow-fire and polearm charges together and resolving in order of adjDX, you are allowing all bowman to preempt all other attacks (except polearm chargers). All bowmen attack before sword-swingers, dagger-thrusters, etc. That seems wrong from a realism perspective and from the "intent of the rules" perspective.

But, hey, we're all going to do what we want to do. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just trying to convince you all to want to do what is right! LOL

Unless someone quotes me, I will not make any further attempts at persuasion. :)

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Helborn

Platimus, I agree that it's all about timing. As Skarg mentioned, geometry and reach makes the bow the longest reach of all. However, complicating the AdjDX order further with another special rule for bow last shots I think is unnecessary. That's why I think that moving the last bow shot into the polearm charge sequence makes sense.

I also agree that the simplest solution is to eliminate the polearm charge sequence entirely and everyone goes in AdjDX order (perhaps with the added die damage for a polearm charge).

However, the rule is there and I propose that, since there are two adjDX sequences, the last bowshot should be included in the first rather than the last.

In my experience, a good bowman can nock and fire in roughly 1 sec. when she doesn't have to aim at a distant target. Perhaps only the Expert or Master Bowman gets the advantage of last shot during the polearm sequence because it does require a certain amount of training and familiarity. She won't be able to do a head shot but a torso shot within 3 m is eminently achievable.

Frankly, any bowman who sticks around for a last shot at under 3 m against a charging polearm should be given a medal - posthumously. But it does work in TFT.

I'm only replying because you said my name. Please see my previous post about making the "last shot" come first. I think I was adding that part as you posted.

[Helborn]

Platimus, you believe that a charge is unstoppable. I disagree. Enough damage will end a charge. Even a rock, causing a stumble will end a charge. The weapon does not have inertia that causes it to continue to travel in a straight line to the target. A stumble - whether caused by a rock or sufficient damage - will alter the trajectory except by accident. Death, definitely, ends a charge.

The question is whether or not a charging polearm wielder should be immune to all adverse effects from anyone with a higher AdjDX other than another polearm wielder. The rules as written give him that immunity.

The issue is whether to remove the last bowshot from that immunity. We can agree to disagree but I would like to see Steve's thoughts on the matter.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by platimus

I agree that it is mostly about reach but time is a factor as well. If it were solely about reach, we'd already have a rule instructing us to resolve all missile attacks first. But we don't.

Here. Until we get to here, we've previously been talking about non-missile weapons. Reach is the key difference between a polearm charge and a sword charge or sword swing. It is why polearms charges preempt sword charges or swings. We both agree on this. Now, we're bringing in missile weapons - which obviously and undoubtedly have a higher "reach" than polearms.

But if the "polearm charge rule" were based entirely upon reach, why wouldn't the author precede the "polearm charge rule" with a "missile weapons first" rule? Because it's not just about reach. It's also about the time it takes to use the weapon.

I understand your logic here and I sort of agree with it but changing the rules so that a "last shot" occurs before the polearm charge is complicated and tricky. The only danger in making the "last shot" come after the charge (as it currently does) is that the charge might do 8+ damage and (by the rules) render you unable to perform your "last shot". This is acceptable to me. Maybe he got to you before you could fire off that last arrow. If you reverse it, the "last shot" comes first and you run the risk of doing 8+ damage and the charge is thwarted. I disagree with that as the momentum of someone charging at you will not be stopped by an arrow - even if that arrow kills them.

If you group bow-fire and polearm charges together and resolving in order of adjDX, you are allowing all bowman to preempt all other attacks (except polearm chargers). All bowmen attack before sword-swingers, dagger-thrusters, etc. That seems wrong from a realism perspective and from the "intent of the rules" perspective. ...

I follow what you're saying and I think we largely agree. The only part I particularly disagree with what you wrote are that a slain polearm user would continue their attack effectively after a lethal shot.

I also quibble with that the only issue is doing 8+ damage, since some people are already wounded or could be attacked by a friendly pole-weapon user or whatever. (And we play so that the -2DX for taking 5 hits applies immediately as well as next turn, though the current rules say not to do that. I really like the possibility of stopping people before they hurt you, and dislike having there be no way to avoid getting injured.)

I also agree that missile weapon users do not need a balance boost.

I think there's a real logic problem with archers being able to generally shoot in adjDX order along with people with swords/axes/etc who may be attacking them, but NOT polearms. From a realism/consistency perspective I think that if someone charging an archer with a spear can attack the archer first, then someone attacking an archer with a slightly shorter hand weapon should also be able to. All melee weapons going before first shots would make more sense to me than only polearms always going before last shots.

But the rule specifically explains that archers have time to get a last shot off. If that is the case, then I really don't see it being untrue against people who have a slightly different hand weapon.

If it's a balance issue, maybe last shots should have a DX penalty.

[platimus]

I follow what you're saying and I think we largely agree. The only part I particularly disagree with what you wrote are that a slain polearm user would continue their attack effectively after a lethal shot.

I did not say that I would allow a polearm charger to finish his attack if he were slain. I would not do that. There's nothing in the rules to allow that. I was simply pointing out the realism. In reality, even if your arrow killed him, he would still move forward a bit from momentum. In reality, this would result in little to no damage as momentum is lost and you'd probably get out of the way.

But the rule specifically explains that archers have time to get a last shot off. If that is the case, then I really don't see it being untrue against people who have a slightly different hand weapon.

Huh? It's not untrue. Who said it was untrue? Not me. Archers get the "last shot" against anyone they are engaged with. If the archer was facing the polearm user when he received the polearm charge, the archer is enganged with the polearm user when his time for aciton arrives. If the archer is engaged with any figure when his time for action arrives, he gets his "last shot". Doesn't matter what weapon the opponent is using. The opponent could be unarmed.

I think the best ruling (if there were to be a change or a house-rule) would be similar to the one posted earlier. Everyone attacks in order of highest adjDX down to lowest adjDX - even polearm chargers. But polearm chargers receive a +3 bonus to DX ONLY for the ordering of the attacks, not the attacks themselves. You could give the archers the same +3 bonus.

[platimus]

Platimus, you believe that a charge is unstoppable. I disagree.

I'm glad you disagree. Because I disagree as well! LOL
That is not what I believe. It is not what I said (and I was/am speaking from a "reality" perspective). Do I believe a charge is stoppable by a normal arrow? Under most/normal circumstances, no. Is it stoppable by something larger than an arrow? Under most/normal circumstances, yes.

The question is whether or not a charging polearm wielder should be immune to all adverse effects from anyone with a higher AdjDX other than another polearm wielder. The rules as written give him that immunity.

The issue is whether to remove the last bowshot from that immunity. We can agree to disagree but I would like to see Steve's thoughts on the matter.

The polearm charger is immune to nothing in the rules as written. He can still get attacked by a "last shot" or any other attack after his turn.

I agree to disagree. I, too, would love to hear/see Steve's thoughts on the matter. IMO, we already have his thoughts on the matter though - the rules-as-written.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by platimus

Huh? It's not untrue. Who said it was untrue? Not me. Archers get the "last shot" against anyone they are engaged with. If the archer was facing the polearm user when he received the polearm charge, the archer is enganged with the polearm user when his time for aciton arrives. If the archer is engaged with any figure when his time for action arrives, he gets his "last shot". Doesn't matter what weapon the opponent is using. The opponent could be unarmed.

The rules-as-written say it's untrue, in the case where the archer would have got a shot off against a lower-DX foe with a sword, but didn't against a lower-DX foe with a polearm, because the rules say the polearm went first and the archer got prevented by the polearm taking her out first.

And since you brought it up, an unarmed person who gets the archer in HTH during movement (as is now the rule in the new basic Melee, not just Advanced Melee) would also not get shot by a last shot (RAW), although at least in that case there is a 1d roll that randomly determines whether than happens or not.

Originally Posted by platimus

I think the best ruling (if there were to be a change or a house-rule) would be similar to the one posted earlier. Everyone attacks in order of highest adjDX down to lowest adjDX - even polearm chargers. But polearm chargers receive a +3 bonus to DX ONLY for the ordering of the attacks, not the attacks themselves. You could give the archers the same +3 bonus.

That'd be another way...
What I personally don't favor about that is that it loses the geometrical argument for pole weapons going first, which I personally quite like. i.e. I think the chance for a pole weapon to hit someone with a shorter weapon in a charge really should be determined before the person with the shorter weapon gets a chance to hit the person with the longer weapon, again because of simple geometry.

However, I also favor giving a DX/skill-based chance for the shorter weapon user to avoid being hit, and would tend to house-rule that. Lacking that, I can understand how some people (I'm thinking of other-forum arguments in years past) prefer to let adjDX rule attack sequence even in pole weapon charges. If thinking that way, then yes, I could see changing it to a DX modifier, as you suggest.

[platimus]

The rules-as-written say it's untrue, in the case where the archer would have got a shot off against a lower-DX foe with a sword, but didn't against a lower-DX foe with a polearm

That's absolutely untrue. The rules-as-written give every archer a "last shot":

Melee p.7
(l) ONE-LAST-SHOT MISSILE ATTACK. If the figure had a
missile weapon ready before it was engaged, it may get off one last
shot. (This option reflects the fact that you can almost always release
an arrow at a charging enemy.)

What I personally don't favor about that is that it loses the geometrical argument for pole weapons going first, which I personally quite like. i.e. I think the chance for a pole weapon to hit someone with a shorter weapon in a charge really should be determined before the person with the shorter weapon gets a chance to hit the person with the longer weapon, again because of simple geometry.

I like that too. Which is why I prefer no changes. The archer already gets a last shot. It just comes after the polearm charge does it's damage. In all likelyhood, (in reality) if you took the time to fire at the polearm charger before he hit you, you've increased the chance that he is going to hit you. I think the RAW beautifully and simply already model all of this.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by platimus

That's absolutely untrue. The rules-as-written give every archer a "last shot":

What I meant was in practice some archers will not get their last shot off against lower-DX polearm users, because they'll be taken out before their action.

Now, the logic of imagining the situation DOES (to me and some others here) imply that the shot would happen before the polearm attack, because it probably occurs as the charger is still closing the distance, before the weapon length should matter.

To be congruent with other melee weapons, and simplest, it'd occur in adjDX order like everything else, but to counter the odd effect that a last shot might occur before some other higher-DX figure, it would make sense to me to apply a DX penalty to last shots.