Move, Charge Attack and polearms
 

If you move 3 or more hexes in a charge attack against someone with a spear in one hand they will get a +2DX to hit and roll 2D instead of 1D damage against you.

However, in the RAW, if you run up into the same hex but have gone more than half your MA you have not made a charge attack, you have simply moved. The spearman no longer gets the +2DX nor does he get the extra die of damage if he hits. Now admittedly it means you wont get an attack that turn but if you are using significant armor, say chainmail, and a tower shield, reducing the spearman to 1D damage is well worth it.

It strikes me this is not in the spirit of the rules and that movement of 3 or more hexes that ends in the spearman's front hexes should give the spearman his DX and damage bonuses. Even if the RAW only says he gets it facing a "charge attack". Does that seem to make sense?

Re: Move, Charge Attack and polearms
 

We are talking about two different rules here.
The other rule is:
For example: If the pole weapon user has an MA of 10 he can move unto 5 hexes in a straight line to attack, but he cannot attack if he moves 6.

Re: Move, Charge Attack and polearms
 

What if there was no attacker and somebody just ran up dodging (or defending) against a polearm wielder exercising stand your ground?

My suggestion is to call it set for charge when you stand there with your polearm and stab some target than moved next to you, even if the target took no attack option.

Re: Move, Charge Attack and polearms
 

That is my point. The RAW specifies the spearman only getting his bonuses when someone "Charge Attacks" him. Using some other option, such as running up from too far away to be able to do a "charge attack" fails to trigger the option specified in the RAW. It strikes me that isn't in the spirit of the rule, though it seems to be the letter of it.

Re: Move, Charge Attack and polearms
 

I think it works out fine. If you are doing a charging attack then you are closing all the way to get a melee hit in. If you just move up and don't attack, then you have the opportunity to approach more cautiously. You will still get attacked with the pole arm, but they won't get the bonus for you recklessly throwing yourself at them.

In game terms when the pole arm user goes to attack I would just ask the approaching player if the figure is charging or not. If he says yes the pole arm user gets the bonus. If not, he doesn't and the other figure cannot attack on his turn.

There is a tradeoff of course, you can lessen the incoming attack and lose your own attack, or you can risk a more damaging attack to try to get your own attack in.

Re: Move, Charge Attack and polearms
 

Interesting. I managed to play TFT for quite a few years without ever hearing anyone take that so literally.

But no.

Seems to me the defensive charge bonuses apply against any figure that was not adjacent at the start of the turn, who moves into a pole-weapon-user's front hex, regardless of what option the moving figure may take. (Notice that defensive polearm bonuses do not require the attacker to be moving in a straight line, just against a charge attack, which is defined as having moved from non-adjacent to adjacent.)

After all, even someone intending to Charge Attack isn't actually able to do their action until they survive that defensive pole weapon attack. So this creative pre-condition would never exist until after the pole weapon defense it would supposedly enable.

Re: Move, Charge Attack and polearms
 

Yes, this is what I think the spirit of the rules intend.

Re: Move, Charge Attack and polearms
 

Yea, I considered this too and it is a decent argument and way to handle it. I still think the intent of the rule is as Skarg argued but I think it is almost a toss up between the two. Maybe there are some example combats using polearms that clarify it someplace in the rules, that we haven't noticed as yet.

Re: Move, Charge Attack and polearms
 

Actually, I think that Twig's interpretation is probably more "technically" correct than the RAW; however, having said that, I have to agree that it seems pretty likely that was not the intent in the RAW.