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 07-20-2019, 10:54 AM   #31
MikMod
 
Join Date: May 2019
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Sorry, are you saying that after a couple of rounds of melee action, if Krabbit shifts round the guy he's fighting to be adjacent to Brint, who is wielding a pole arm, that Brint can decide not to move, declare he is 'receiving charge' and get a +2 DX attack with +1d damage against Krabbit before he can act?!

This doesn't feel right to me.
MikMod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2019, 12:32 PM   #32
xane
 
xane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: London, UK
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikMod View Post
Sorry, are you saying that after a couple of rounds of melee action, if Krabbit shifts round the guy he's fighting to be adjacent to Brint, who is wielding a pole arm, that Brint can decide not to move, declare he is 'receiving charge' and get a +2 DX attack with +1d damage against Krabbit before he can act?!

This doesn't feel right to me.
Shifting does not count, it is not a charge attack.
xane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2019, 02:10 PM   #33
Helborn
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

The problem is that, RAW, if you are disengaged, a 1 hex move and attack is a charge attack while if you are engaged a 1 hex shift and attack is not a charge attack (regardless of your weapon) even if you are attacking a new target.

I have played and house ruled since the beginning that a charge attack requires a minimum of 2 hexes of movement. That eliminates a lot of confusion and simplifies the rules.

Think "My name is Inigo Montoya..." Those were charge attacks.
__________________
Helborn
Helborn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2019, 03:59 PM   #34
Axly Suregrip
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

if unengaged, the option to move next to a foe is "Charge attack". That is regardless of weapon or even if armed.

if engaged, and you shift a hex and thus into a second foe, that is the "Shift" option. Thus it is not a Charge Attack when determining if the second foe is "Standing against a charge".
Axly Suregrip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2019, 04:52 PM   #35
MikMod
 
Join Date: May 2019
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Are you guys really happy that a halberd moving at minimum speed - 1 hex - to close with a spear, means that the spear gets a great pile of bonuses to 'receive charge' but the halberd gets nothing?

It doesn't seem to me like that can be correct. Either there is a charge going on or there isn't.
MikMod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2019, 09:25 PM   #36
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helborn View Post
The problem is that, RAW, if you are disengaged, a 1 hex move and attack is a charge attack while if you are engaged a 1 hex shift and attack is not a charge attack (regardless of your weapon) even if you are attacking a new target.
Why do you say that, and why do you say that would be the problem?

I see:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITL p.111
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.
Seems clear, and to have nothing to do with engagement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip View Post
if engaged, and you shift a hex and thus into a second foe, that is the "Shift" option. Thus it is not a Charge Attack when determining if the second foe is "Standing against a charge".
Those are just the names of options, intended to help explain play to beginners, but several things about the options list descriptions are inaccurate (since it is written as if movement and action are more linked than they are, not taking into account changing options or changing conditions), and are contradicted by the detailed rules, including the pole weapon charge bonus rules. Seems like once again the confusion may be caused by reading the options list and thinking its serving suggestions are rules.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MikMod View Post
Are you guys really happy that a halberd moving at minimum speed - 1 hex - to close with a spear, means that the spear gets a great pile of bonuses to 'receive charge' but the halberd gets nothing?

It doesn't seem to me like that can be correct. Either there is a charge going on or there isn't.
Not really. I think the 3-hex charge requirement is an unwise adoption of a Howard-Thompson-ism which has gamey effects and peculiarities including the one you just mentioned. I prefer the original edition rules where both offensive and defensive charges just means someone's coming from more than one hex away.

And I think if it were changed the other direction, so that defending requires your attacker to come in from 3 hexes of straight movement, that's going to be even more gamey and nerfing of pole weapons, which should be good weapons (q.v. their use in all pre-gunpowder armies), and without bonuses, won't be.

Last edited by Skarg; 07-22-2019 at 09:34 PM.
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2019, 12:59 AM   #37
MikMod
 
Join Date: May 2019
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
I prefer the original edition rules where both offensive and defensive charges just means someone's coming from more than one hex away.

And I think if it were changed the other direction, so that defending requires your attacker to come in from 3 hexes of straight movement, that's going to be even more gamey and nerfing of pole weapons, which should be good weapons (q.v. their use in all pre-gunpowder armies), and without bonuses, won't be.
Was that original rule essentially that if you move 2 hexes or more and end up next to a pole user, they can 'receive charge'? That sounds like how we used to play it. No straight line required, but some more-than-minimum speed.

(Edit) Just re-reading Advanced Melee (original) its pretty clear to me that the person moving decides if it is a charge attack with a move of 1 hex. They decide if they're throwing themselves into the attack, and then any pole weapons involved in the clash get bonuses. If they're moving more then it's automatically a charge as per the options. This is much cleaner and simpler and pretty much how I remember it.

Re popularity of pole weapons pre-gunpowder. I feel sure there were a host of reasons why spears might be popular which aren't linked to their ability to do huge damage. Like the efficient use of metal, ability to keep enemies at a distance, facility to be thrown in a pinch, maybe ease of learning how to use? The fact that a mass of spears can keep horses at bay if not discourage them completely etc.? :)

Last edited by MikMod; 07-23-2019 at 01:25 AM.
MikMod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2019, 01:55 PM   #38
Helborn
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
Why do you say that, and why do you say that would be the problem?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we can be in agreement that, being engaged, a 1 hex shift, without engaging a new opponent does not mean you are doing a charge attack, per ITL 102/103

And yet, if my character is not engaged, a 1 hex move means a charge attack (RAW ITL 102). And, if my character is engaged but shifts 1 hex and engages a new opponent, it can be considered a charge attack maybe. Option (b) ITL 102 and (j) ITL 103 seem to exclude this interpretation. but it is not explicitly specified.

The importance of whether or not a given attack is a charge attack is defined in ITL 111. Because a charge attack with a Pole Weapon or against a Pole Weapon triggers the Early Pole Weapon Attack Sequence. And a defender with a Pole Weapon gets the +2DX against ANY charge attack.

That's why I prefer to make charge attacks move more than 1 hex - as you seem to agree - and make all 1 hex movement and attack non-charge attacks.
__________________
Helborn
Helborn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2019, 02:49 PM   #39
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikMod View Post
Was that original rule essentially that if you move 2 hexes or more and end up next to a pole user, they can 'receive charge'? That sounds like how we used to play it. No straight line required, but some more-than-minimum speed.
No, the original rules' definition of a Charge Attack was the same (minus the 3-hex straight movement thing) - see the Pole Weapons section in Advanced Melee (p.12) - The second paragraph defining Charge Attacks is identical.

Only Legacy and the Howard Thompson late printing of basic Melee say anything about the number of hexes moved being a requirement for a Charge Attack.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MikMod View Post
(Edit) Just re-reading Advanced Melee (original) its pretty clear to me that the person moving decides if it is a charge attack with a move of 1 hex. They decide if they're throwing themselves into the attack, and then any pole weapons involved in the clash get bonuses. If they're moving more then it's automatically a charge as per the options. This is much cleaner and simpler and pretty much how I remember it.
I don't think it's choice. I think it is what it says: any figure not adjacent at the start of the turn who moves adjacent to a foe is a Charge Attack situation.

And it seems to me (especially from imagining it for years while playing the original rules where there was no question of moving any particular number of hexes) that the reason is:

A Charge Attack is when a pole weapon can attack someone who was outside its reach, but has now moved inside its reach.

In my view, that's why a pole weapon attacks first in a charge attack - because it has a reach advantage when someone moves in from outside its reach using a shorter weapon. It does not matter how much anyone moves - it's about the geometry of having a long pole you can hold between yourself and an attacker, resulting in him being skewered against your weight if your attack succeeds, before he could be physically capable of reaching you with his shorter weapon coming from outside your reach.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MikMod View Post
Re popularity of pole weapons pre-gunpowder. I feel sure there were a host of reasons why spears might be popular which aren't linked to their ability to do huge damage. Like the efficient use of metal, ability to keep enemies at a distance, facility to be thrown in a pinch, maybe ease of learning how to use? The fact that a mass of spears can keep horses at bay if not discourage them completely etc.? :)
Yes, and about the reach, and why is it hard to get horses or men to charge into spears? Because they have a reach advantage and trying to get inside their reach threatens you'll get skewered on a pole braced between your bodies, regardless of how slowly you come in.
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2019, 03:33 PM   #40
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helborn View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we can be in agreement that, being engaged, a 1 hex shift, without engaging a new opponent does not mean you are doing a charge attack, per ITL 102/103
Right, you can't shift one hex, starting the turn adjacent and remaining adjacent to a foe, and be charging that foe. But that's not about ITL 102/103, it's about the definintion in ITL 111.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Helborn View Post
And yet, if my character is not engaged, a 1 hex move means a charge attack (RAW ITL 102).
No. ITL 102 showing a disengaged attack option called CHARGE ATTACK just means you could (and often do) do a charge attack when you started the turn disengaged. But engagement is not the same thing as adjacency. So for example, one exception would be figure (X) who starts their turn adjacent to a foe who is not engaging them, and X then can't or doesn't move away and then back - that would be someone adjacent who wasn't engaged at the start of the turn, but who is not in a charge attack situation (as actually defined on ITL 111). Even if X's foe remains facing away and X attacks them while still himself disengaged, that would be an attack but not a charge attack - i.e. one of many examples where the list of options should not be used as a literal list of what can be done or not based on Engagement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Helborn View Post
And, if my character is engaged but shifts 1 hex and engages a new opponent, it can be considered a charge attack maybe. Option (b) ITL 102 and (j) ITL 103 seem to exclude this interpretation. but it is not explicitly specified.
Yes, if the "new" opponent was not adjacent at the start of the turn, it is a charge attack situation per ITL 111. ITL 102 & 103 listing the options a certain way can be misleading in many situations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Helborn View Post
The importance of whether or not a given attack is a charge attack is defined in ITL 111. Because a charge attack with a Pole Weapon or against a Pole Weapon triggers the Early Pole Weapon Attack Sequence. And a defender with a Pole Weapon gets the +2DX against ANY charge attack.

That's why I prefer to make charge attacks move more than 1 hex - as you seem to agree - and make all 1 hex movement and attack non-charge attacks.
No, I think it's about the reach of the pole weapon and that the pole weapon bonuses (especially the one about them attacking first) should apply in any case where a pole weapon is attacking someone who was outside the pole weapon's reach at the start of the turn. i.e. It's about geometry - to get adjacent to a pole-weapon user, you need to get past the point first. (Also see my previous post above.)
Skarg 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 04:26 AM.


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