Movement Rule Tweak

[Jim Kane]

KIRK Thanks for your detailed answer; much to consider, so here is where my this leaves me now:

WHAT IF we were to expand Option IIc to include DEFEND?; for the purpose of allowing a figure to engage a pole-weapon user by taking the risk of giving up their attack phase, in order to defensively work their way inside to normal combat, hanging their hopes on the chance that the 4th d6 added to the attackers to-hit roll will make the risk/reward worthwhile for the defender to equalize the perceived imbalance in the Pole Weapon rules, which so many want to otherwise overhaul?

Could this little addition of allowing a figure to Defend as they move-in on a Pole-Weapon user, be a potential solution? Could a serviceable "fix" be that simple and unobtrusive?

I feel a great desire to play-test this, as my rules-imagination is sparked; but i also have to wonder WHY SJ purposely has Option IIc only providing for Dodging while disengaged?

I would like to know the reasoning there - his answer might save me hours of play-testing the option.

JK