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 07-23-2019, 05:34 PM   #41
Helborn
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
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.)

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
Helborn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2019, 12:25 AM   #42
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helborn View Post
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.
I agree with that, so in what do we disagree?

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.
Skarg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2019, 03:17 AM   #43
MikMod
 
Join Date: May 2019
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

From the original Advanced Melee combat options (p3):
1. Stand still, or move one hex and
a. Attack with your ready weapon

...

2. Move up to half your MA and
a. Charge attack


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.
MikMod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2019, 11:18 AM   #44
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikMod View Post
I also don't see anything on p12 which contradicts that.
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?
Skarg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2019, 04:38 PM   #45
MikMod
 
Join Date: May 2019
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
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.
I don't really consider it a house rule, it's just option 1a, attacking after a slow-as-possible approach.

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:
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.
Yes, it says you have to close to your target. In other words, you can't run around someone or shift around them, and also claim a charge attack - you have to run at them. It doesn't say that a move of one is automatically a charge attack. And the following example is of someone moving two hexes. There's no example of someone trying to close slowly and failing.

Quote:
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
Again, not a house rule imo, and there was never any intent to 'avoid' pole bonuses, we just read the rules and (we have always thought) followed them. It seemed sensible to us that if you want charge attack bonuses then there should be some kind of 'charging' going on. And as shown, pole weapons under our interpretation are extremely awkward to get close to, and can always get double damage and auto-first-strike, if the pole user wants that. They just can't get the +2 DX if the attackers approaches cautiously.

Quote:
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.
This is interesting, because we didn't come from a Melee and Wizard background, we went straight in with AM, AW and ITL. And we didn't read Interplay. (If there is a link to a pole weapon article, I would love to read it).

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:
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.
It's not a secret option, nor an exception, it is just option 1a. It's not the option itself so much as the movement of only one hex being clearly part of a normal (non charge) attack. To me it's seems odd to require this to need explaining when it's already so clear. If you want to charge attack you need to move up to half your MA. The 'twist' with that (option 2a) is of course that a move of one hex is also 'up to half your MA' which is where the person moving gets their choice about whether they're charging or not if they only move one hex. We've visualized this as either cautiously closing to attack, or throwing yourself into the attack, albeit both are over a distance of just one hex. If they move more than one hex though, their choices are clearly much more limited, and in terms of attacks, they are charging.

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.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?
Yeah, I don't agree with this either, I think it's a rather 'gamey' deliberate misinterpreting of the options. Although again, original Advanced Melee makes it a whole lot clearer I think, by listing options explicitly under the amount of movement you make, rather than whether you are engaged or not.

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.
MikMod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2019, 08:30 PM   #46
Senturian
 
Senturian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Mount Bethel, Pennsylvania
Default 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).
Senturian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2019, 01:10 AM   #47
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikMod View Post
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?
Mostly the things I mentioned in that same post, and aspects of it you don't seem to have run into probably because of other ways your group has played have figured out some way to handle or just avoid the potential weirdness.

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:
Originally Posted by MikMod View Post
Yes, it says you have to close to your target. In other words, you can't run around someone or shift around them, and also claim a charge attack - you have to run at them.
Where do you see that in the rules (other than the new 3-hex straight line requirement)?

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:
Originally Posted by MikMod View Post
It doesn't say that a move of one is automatically a charge attack.
Well, a move of one isn't a charge attack if it starts adjacent to the foe, or if it fails to get adjacent to a foe.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MikMod View Post
And the following example is of someone moving two hexes. There's no example of someone trying to close slowly and failing.
That's because that example is explaining that if you do start adjacent but not engaged, you can use movement to back away (so you stop being adjacent) and then move back (so you have moved to not-adjacent and then back to adjacent) and that does count (because of the part about moving from not-adjacent to adjacent - the first hex of movement just makes it possible to get not-adjacent). In fact, that is an example of how moving one hex is enough for a charge attack, as long as you start not adjacent to the foe and move adjacent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MikMod View Post
Again, not a house rule imo, and there was never any intent to 'avoid' pole bonuses, we just read the rules and (we have always thought) followed them. It seemed sensible to us that if you want charge attack bonuses then there should be some kind of 'charging' going on. And as shown, pole weapons under our interpretation are extremely awkward to get close to, and can always get double damage and auto-first-strike, if the pole user wants that. They just can't get the +2 DX if the attackers approaches cautiously.
It sounds like (the way you play) if a non-pole user is two hexes away and moves first and moves one hex and calls it a non-charge Attack, then the pole weapon user gets no pole weapon benefits (except in theory they likely had a 2-hex jab opportunity the turn before), no?


Quote:
Originally Posted by MikMod View Post
It's not a secret option, nor an exception, it is just option 1a. It's not the option itself so much as the movement of only one hex being clearly part of a normal (non charge) attack. To me it's seems odd to require this to need explaining when it's already so clear.
We could do a poll in the house rules subforum, and/or the TFT email list, but I know the people I originally played TFT with would be very surprised to hear someone expecting to not get their pole weapon bonuses just because someone only moved one hex when they engaged them.

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:
Originally Posted by MikMod View Post
If you want to charge attack you need to move up to half your MA.
This is why the options list is so misleading. It's trying to efficiently explain several phases at once.

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:
Originally Posted by MikMod View Post
The 'twist' with that (option 2a) is of course that a move of one hex is also 'up to half your MA' which is where the person moving gets their choice about whether they're charging or not if they only move one hex. We've visualized this as either cautiously closing to attack, or throwing yourself into the attack, albeit both are over a distance of just one hex. If they move more than one hex though, their choices are clearly much more limited, and in terms of attacks, they are charging.
Ok but is there anywhere other than your group that says that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by MikMod View Post
Yeah, I don't agree with this either, I think it's a rather 'gamey' deliberate misinterpreting of the options. Although again, original Advanced Melee makes it a whole lot clearer I think, by listing options explicitly under the amount of movement you make, rather than whether you are engaged or not.
Yes, I prefer the Advanced Melee options list too, but it too has some misleading bits that are shown not to be accurate in the more detailed rules.

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:
Originally Posted by MikMod View Post
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.
Yeah, it has been pretty interesting seeing how different some people played the rules, often without realizing they were doing anything other than playing by the book.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MikMod View Post
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?
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.
Skarg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2019, 01:13 AM   #48
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senturian View Post
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.
Sounds good for the House Rules sub-forum, where much of this thread really belongs at this point.

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.
Skarg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2019, 06:19 AM   #49
MikMod
 
Join Date: May 2019
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
Mostly the things I mentioned in that same post, and aspects of it you don't seem to have run into probably because of other ways your group has played have figured out some way to handle or just avoid the potential weirdness.
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'.

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.
I've already agreed that trying to game the options is not ok. But I think this is because we have followed the clear model you outlined of initiative-move-act, so the only real decider is how far you have moved.

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:
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.
I think maybe this is the nub of it.

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:
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.
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.

Quote:
Well, a move of one isn't a charge attack if it starts adjacent to the foe, or if it fails to get adjacent to a foe.
Absolutely, as made clear by the line under pole weapons.

Quote:
That's because that example is explaining that if you do start adjacent but not engaged, you can use movement to back away (so you stop being adjacent) and then move back (so you have moved to not-adjacent and then back to adjacent) and that does count (because of the part about moving from not-adjacent to adjacent - the first hex of movement just makes it possible to get not-adjacent). In fact, that is an example of how moving one hex is enough for a charge attack, as long as you start not adjacent to the foe and move adjacent.
I am not saying you cant charge over one hex, if you want to, just that - as per the options table - you don't HAVE to charge if you move one hex.

Quote:
It sounds like (the way you play) if a non-pole user is two hexes away and moves first and moves one hex and calls it a non-charge Attack, then the pole weapon user gets no pole weapon benefits (except in theory they likely had a 2-hex jab opportunity the turn before), no?
That is sometimes correct. However, as laid out, it is a risky option to take as the pole user has other options that they can take as well as the jab. They could charge you and get first attack and double damage, or they could step back, leaving you too far away to do anything useful this round and unable to use option 1a next round, all while under fire from any of their friends with missiles. Not only do you need the pole user to jab, but you also need to win initiative AND persuade your party that you all need to move first.

It is a tricky tactical situation when you face a pole weapon.

Quote:
We could do a poll in the house rules subforum, and/or the TFT email list, but I know the people I originally played TFT with would be very surprised to hear someone expecting to not get their pole weapon bonuses just because someone only moved one hex when they engaged them.
Sure, go for it. I'm not saying I am 'right' here - if there is such a thing.

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:
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.
Not in AM it isn't. It's the movement of one hex that enables you to close cautiously and attack. Engagement is not mentioned.

Quote:
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?
I think it is about movement, but I don't think the line under pole weapons wipes out the options table information, particularly as charging is only relevant to pole weapons, and if you are right, then option 1a would be completely redundant.

Quote:
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?
Respectfully, because its clearly laid out in the main options table?

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.
I think you are putting cart before horse here. 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.

Quote:
Ok but is there anywhere other than your group that says that?
Not afaik - but as I said, we did more playing than reading! :)

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

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.
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. 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.

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. :)
MikMod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2019, 06:30 AM   #50
Chris Rice
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
Default 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.
Chris Rice 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 11:23 PM.


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