Attacking from behind?
 

Forgive me for this question if it's obvious -- I am new to the game...but so far really liking it...but what are the adjustments for attacking from behind and is there a formal definition as to when that scenario exists?

Re: Attacking from behind?
 

You get a bonus to hit when using a melee weapon (or unarmed strike) and in the target's side or rear hex (i.e. no polearm jab or thrown or missile weapon attack).
This is listed in the Melee rulebook at page 9 Facing and In the Labyrinth page 106 Engaged and Disengaged.
In either case this can enable a low-DX figure a reasonable chance to hit and negates the target's ready shield or defend action.
Using the full ITL rules a high DX figure can use the bonus to help offset the penalties for fighting in the dark, a left handed dagger strike, aimed blow, or shrewd blow.
Note that figures always get the rear facing bonus in HTH.

Re: Attacking from behind?
 

Welcome to The Fantasy Trip (TFT). It's only obvious if you already know the answer to your question.

I concur with HCobb's post.

Do you have a PDF copy of In the Labyrinth (ITL), Melee, or Wizard? In the Adobe PDF reader, use the find function for various key words and most of your info should be there. If that doesn't give you the info that you seek, There are several regulars in this forum that would be glad to help.

Re: Attacking from behind?
 

Really? Where does it say that polearm jabs do not qualify for the side/rear facing bonus?

Re: Attacking from behind?
 

ITL 106: (Diagram showing that side and rear hexes only apply to adjacent hexes)

ITL 112: "A pole weapon can be used to strike at a figure two hexes away"

You ain't in their side or rear hex if you're two hexes away.

Re: Attacking from behind?
 

I think that this would be a GM call.

The diagram on ITL 106 does show the adjacent hex facing for more context with respect to determination of what meets the definition of being engaged in combat which really does require being in an adjacent hex. Those facings could still apply at a distance. If a polearm wielder is not in an adjacent front hex, they are not engaged. If the polearm wielder is two hexes away, in a side or rear hex, one could argue that the +2 or +4 DX modifiers still apply.

If you know of some textual evidence of your assertion, please point to it. There are all kinds of details buried in ITL that I'm still finding. Otherwise, this will be a wonderful topic for the House Rules Forum.

Based upon the information that you have posted, there is justification for not allowing the DX facing modifiers for polearm attacks from non-adjacent hexes. However, in the practical application previously mentioned, there is also justification for allowing those same DX modifications even at a distance. That is, unless, there is other text in ITL that settles this matter.

Re: Attacking from behind?
 

More from ITL 106

the “s” hexes are his side hexes; the “r” hex is his rear hex
...

A physical attack made from an enemy’s side hex adds +2 to the attacker’s DX. A physical attack made from an enemy’s rear hex adds +4.


So you must be standing in one of the two side hexes or the only one rear hex to get the bonus.


Note that hexes "in front of" a figure include but are not limited to his three front hexes.

Re: Attacking from behind?
 

While that may be the literal reading, I suspect it isn't an accurate one. RAW vs RAI... the target figure is equally vulnerable from behind whether their opponent is immediately adjacent or not.

Re: Attacking from behind?
 

That's a bit of a stretch. Nowhere under the description of pole weapons and jabs do the rules state that facing adjustments do not apply. And why would they, since ITL 112 states that "A jab is a regular attack"? Regular attacks obviously benefit from facing adjustments.

Further, ITL 106 states that "physical attacks" get the facing adjustment and also that you can only make a physical attack against a figure engaged with you. Being physical rather than metaphysical, polearm jabs should benefit from facing adjustments--the rules in their entirety certainly suggest so.

Re: Attacking from behind?
 

It ain't a hexside. It is one unique rear hex on the board.