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 07-30-2019, 04:29 PM   #61
Lord Twig
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

I have been following this thread for a while and want to remind everyone what the text actually 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." The emphasis is mine, but that is the full sentence.

Skarg's house rule of omitting the attack portion of the sentence is a fine house rule, but it is still a house rule. And there's nothing wrong with that! House rules are the best part of RPGs. Embrace them!
Lord Twig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2019, 10:34 AM   #62
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Taking "an attack" literally there means you can impale someone charging you as they come in... but not if they just don't attack you, and instead just say they're moving, Defending, or singing "Can't Touch This!"
Skarg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2019, 11:43 AM   #63
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

That sentence is also defining what a charge attack is, so naturally a charge attack is an attack.

Unfortunately, when mentioning defending against charges, Steve efficiently says it applies against a charge attack. Someone might take that to literally mean it can only be applied against people who are running up and also actually attacking, if they think that's going to be a better way to play, but:

1) That doesn't seem to me to make any sense, and I don't think can really be the intention.

2) When a polearm is defending against a charge, the attack in question is the polearm-user's attack.

3) Shorter weapons are never attacking at the point in the turn where this determination is made. So such a condition would never apply to them.

4) Figures in TFT can change their option, and in practice rarely if ever even mention what their option/action is, until it's actually their turn to act. So not only would a shorter weapon not have declared an attack during the polearm phase, but they also could say they were intending to do any other legal option (to make a legal argument that they can't be attacked by a polearm during the polearm phase), but then change to Attack when their adjDX comes up.

5) If figures could avoid polearm effects by taking some other option, charging polearms and using a non-attack-option to deny their effects would be the standard (effective and weird) practice to do so, and would've been mentioned in the rules and earlier discussions about polearm situations, but there is no such mention except recently in these forums.
Skarg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2019, 02:44 PM   #64
xane
 
xane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: London, UK
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
That sentence is also defining what a charge attack is, so naturally a charge attack is an attack.

Unfortunately, when mentioning defending against charges, Steve efficiently says it applies against a charge attack. Someone might take that to literally mean it can only be applied against people who are running up and also actually attacking, if they think that's going to be a better way to play, but:

1) That doesn't seem to me to make any sense, and I don't think can really be the intention.

2) When a polearm is defending against a charge, the attack in question is the polearm-user's attack.

3) Shorter weapons are never attacking at the point in the turn where this determination is made. So such a condition would never apply to them.

4) Figures in TFT can change their option, and in practice rarely if ever even mention what their option/action is, until it's actually their turn to act. So not only would a shorter weapon not have declared an attack during the polearm phase, but they also could say they were intending to do any other legal option (to make a legal argument that they can't be attacked by a polearm during the polearm phase), but then change to Attack when their adjDX comes up.

5) If figures could avoid polearm effects by taking some other option, charging polearms and using a non-attack-option to deny their effects would be the standard (effective and weird) practice to do so, and would've been mentioned in the rules and earlier discussions about polearm situations, but there is no such mention except recently in these forums.
1) it makes sense to me that the polearm needs to be "set" to defend against a charge attack to gain the advantages, therefore if an attacker does not actually attack they will instead carefully maneuver beyond the reach of the "set" polearm, which can be done if they do not need to close in order to strike with their own weapon, and so they will not be skewered.

4) it was explained in the other thread about this, the Defend and Dodge options already require a figure to declare their action before their "turn to act" in the adjDX order, so this is no different.

5) moving up to a polearm user and not attacking still gives the polearm user a minor advantage, they will have a "first attack" without retaliation.

I am absolutely in agreement that this could have been made clearer, but a charge attack is defined specifically on ITL p11 as "... and strike at your foe" and again under the polearm rules ITL p111 as "defined as an attack". There is just no getting away that the polearm rules were most certainly intended as an advantage against an attacking foe and not one that just moved up, because to attack means the attacker has to move within reach, and to not attack means to stay beyond reach.

There is no need to refuse this argument as long as you accept that (a) just moving up to your a figure without attacking them means something different to actually getting within your own weapon range and striking, and (b) that declaring an action is legitimately done either on your turn or when you are forced to by a higher adjDX figure acting before (as with Defend and Dodge), otherwise you just end up addressing those issues instead.
xane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2019, 04:43 PM   #65
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by xane View Post
1) it makes sense to me that the polearm needs to be "set" to defend against a charge attack to gain the advantages, therefore if an attacker does not actually attack they will instead carefully maneuver beyond the reach of the "set" polearm, which can be done if they do not need to close in order to strike with their own weapon, and so they will not be skewered.
I don't see the logic of that at all.

I don't get what you mean by "set"?

I don't see how the defender needing to do something "therefore" means that an attacker doing something different means the defender would not get their own weapon's advantages?

I don't get how you see the "attack" option having anything to do with a different in "maneuver" that is not any difference on the map?

I don't have a mental image for what "instead carefully maneuver beyond the reach of the "set" polearm" means, and I don't see how that can be the case if they are moving into an adjacent hex well within the reach of a non-pole weapon, and certainly withing the reach of a polearm.

Similarly "they do not need to close in order to strike with their own weapon, and so they will not be skewered" doesn't make sense to me if they are moving into an adjacent hex to the polearm.


Quote:
Originally Posted by xane View Post
4) it was explained in the other thread about this, the Defend and Dodge options already require a figure to declare their action before their "turn to act" in the adjDX order, so this is no different.
As discussed in various threads about Defend and Dodge, I and many others do NOT require Defend or Dodge to be declared before their turn to act comes unless and until they actually dodge or defend against an actual attack. As used to be abundantly clear before Legacy Edition trimmed the more detailed rule about Changing Options, Defend and Dodge can be switched to in reaction to changing circumstances (e.g. attacks) with the only limit being the amount of movement used, and the amount needed for both those options being 1/2 MA.

Even if you denied that for Defend and Dodge for some reason, it would still apply to the Pole Weapons question for all other maneuvers if you think the polearm defense bonuses requires an Attack option by the target, which I do not think is the case anyway.

In any case, the point is that what happens in play is figures move, then the pole weapon phase comes up, and pretty much no one ever has to say "I am planning to attack in my action phase" and therefore be eligible to be attacked with defensive polearm bonuses. Nor is there any mention of polearm targets declaring "I'm trading my right to chose an attack option on my turn for immunity to defensive polearm bonuses". People can add something like that as a house rule, but if it were intended by the printed rules, it'd want to be explained, and it's never mentioned except in these recent threads.


Quote:
Originally Posted by xane View Post
5) moving up to a polearm user and not attacking still gives the polearm user a minor advantage, they will have a "first attack" without retaliation.
No, in the printed rules, the advantage of extra damage is never separated from the advantage of attacking first, and in defenses it also always comes with the +2 DX.


Quote:
Originally Posted by xane View Post
I am absolutely in agreement that this could have been made clearer, but a charge attack is defined specifically on ITL p11 as "... and strike at your foe" and again under the polearm rules ITL p111 as "defined as an attack". There is just no getting away that the polearm rules were most certainly intended as an advantage against an attacking foe and not one that just moved up, because to attack means the attacker has to move within reach, and to not attack means to stay beyond reach.
Yes, there is a way around that, as I've explained in great detail several times above, and given all sorts of arguments and even quotes from the Interplay article discussing the subject, in which it was even more clear than in the rules that the condition for pole weapon bonuses is all about moving from non-adjacent to adjacent, and has nothing to do with options (except in original basic Melee).

Beyond reach of a polearm is 3 hexes away. Beyond reach of a charge situation is 2 hexes away. 1 hex away, close enough to attack with a shorter weapon (regardless of whether you promise to do so or not) is not out of reach of a pole weapon.


Quote:
Originally Posted by xane View Post
There is no need to refuse this argument as long as you accept that (a) just moving up to your a figure without attacking them means something different to actually getting within your own weapon range and striking, and (b) that declaring an action is legitimately done either on your turn or when you are forced to by a higher adjDX figure acting before (as with Defend and Dodge), otherwise you just end up addressing those issues instead.
I don't accept a) because 1 hex away is close enough to attack even with bare hands.

I don't accept b) because figures don't declare their actions in the pole weapons phase unless they are attacking with a pole weapon.
Skarg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2019, 01:09 AM   #66
xane
 
xane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: London, UK
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
As discussed in various threads about Defend and Dodge, I and many others do NOT require Defend or Dodge to be declared before their turn to act comes unless and until they actually dodge or defend against an actual attack.
Consider Figures A, B, C and D who have adjDX in that order, Figure A has the highest, therefore their turn order is A, B, C, D. Figure B moves up to Figure D (who did not move). Look at these two situations and tell me how they are different:

(1) Figure B declares an attack, Figure D then declares they will Defend and thus Figure B needs 4/DX, Figure D has been forced to declare an action out of turn and now effectively acts before Figure C.

(2) Figure D has a polearm, they ask Figure B if they are attacking (charge attack) and if so, Figure D gets a polearm defensive bonus, or Figure B could declare they are not attacking and Figure D gets no bonus, but either way Figure B has effectively been forced to declare an action out of turn and now effectively acts before Figure A.

In both situations, an action by one figure has forced another to declare an action out of sequence.

Last edited by xane; 08-01-2019 at 04:05 AM.
xane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2019, 11:05 AM   #67
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by xane View Post
Consider Figures A, B, C and D who have adjDX in that order, Figure A has the highest, therefore their turn order is A, B, C, D. Figure B moves up to Figure D (who did not move). Look at these two situations and tell me how they are different:

(1) Figure B declares an attack, Figure D then declares they will Defend and thus Figure B needs 4/DX, Figure D has been forced to declare an action out of turn and now effectively acts before Figure C.

(2) Figure D has a polearm, they ask Figure B if they are attacking (charge attack) and if so, Figure D gets a polearm defensive bonus, or Figure B could declare they are not attacking and Figure D gets no bonus, but either way Figure B has effectively been forced to declare an action out of turn and now effectively acts before Figure A.

In both situations, an action by one figure has forced another to declare an action out of sequence.
The difference is that in (2), B can say they are not attacking yet, as they are out of range during the polearm phase and so cannot attack yet and also cannot be compelled to promise what they will or will not do as their action when that comes up.

In situation (1), D actually needs to defend when B's attack happens.

Now, in situation (2), B could also choose to Defend when D does a polearm defense against B, and would need to declare that then because the defense would actually happen then. However D would still get their polearm defensive bonuses because those are available because B went from non-adjacent to adjacent that turn.

There is no option to "promise not to attack during my action, to avoid defensive polearm bonuses". If there were, it would/should be mentioned in the options list and elsewhere, and the pole weapon and pike rules, because it would be such a great way to avoid the polearm effects.

Also, again, the definition of what a charge attack is may mention an attack because a charge attack is an attack. Defending against a charge isn't defined as the target needing to attack - the attack involved in defending against a charge is the defender's attack.
Skarg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2019, 11:50 PM   #68
Steve Plambeck
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

I don't believe Defend should be construed as an instant of single action. It is an announcement of a form of tactical behavior the defender will engage in for the course of the full turn. It'll be looking out for attacking swings from any direction and attempting to duck or dodge as many as possible (and to the exclusion of making an attack on anyone itself).

Recall that if a figure chooses Defend, each and every figure that attacks it that turn, each in their order of adjDX, will have to roll 4d6 to hit. That could be six attackers if fully encircled (plus more people jabbing, throwing, and shooting from further away). The defender isn't choosing Defend each time another attacker takes their swing (as if it had multiple actions in one turn). Defend is a once-and-done choice that establishes a condition for the remainder of the combat turn.

Once you pick Defend, you can't go back on that choice for the rest of the turn. You just don't have to say you're picking it until you have to. It doesn't mean you are acting out of turn.

Think of things like this as equivalent to "waiting". You can't say to someone "Now hold on, you can't say you're waiting yet, it isn't you're turn to wait! You'll have to wait before you can wait!"
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." - Monty Python

Last edited by Steve Plambeck; 08-01-2019 at 11:59 PM.
Steve Plambeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2019, 07:42 AM   #69
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck View Post
I don't believe Defend should be construed as an instant of single action. It is an announcement of a form of tactical behavior the defender will engage in for the course of the full turn. It'll be looking out for attacking swings from any direction and attempting to duck or dodge as many as possible (and to the exclusion of making an attack on anyone itself).

Recall that if a figure chooses Defend, each and every figure that attacks it that turn, each in their order of adjDX, will have to roll 4d6 to hit. That could be six attackers if fully encircled (plus more people jabbing, throwing, and shooting from further away). The defender isn't choosing Defend each time another attacker takes their swing (as if it had multiple actions in one turn). Defend is a once-and-done choice that establishes a condition for the remainder of the combat turn.

Once you pick Defend, you can't go back on that choice for the rest of the turn. You just don't have to say you're picking it until you have to. It doesn't mean you are acting out of turn.
Yes. Is anyone suggesting otherwise?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck View Post
Think of things like this as equivalent to "waiting". You can't say to someone "Now hold on, you can't say you're waiting yet, it isn't you're turn to wait! You'll have to wait before you can wait!"
Is someone saying this?
Skarg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2019, 06:01 PM   #70
Steve Plambeck
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
Yes. Is anyone suggesting otherwise?
I was so sleepy when I wrote that, I didn't even remember writing it 'til I came in here today :)

Looking back I'm not sure what triggered my post, unless possibly it's where xane said "Figure D has been forced to declare an action out of turn."

I guess I felt bad for Figure D caught cheating -- LOL!

:)
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." - Monty Python
Steve Plambeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 03:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.