Movement Rule Tweak

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by 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

I agree, I would like to know if SJ did this on purpose, or what it rushed because of other factors?

To me, risking the 50% chance of major damage/death just to then have half a chance of even blows or having to attack a defending character (and for about half the results the pole weapon user gets) is *not* enough of a balance.

For me, simply allowing an attacker to attack the point of the pole first, and if successful, void the pole user's attack. It works well and doesn't change fundamentals of the game, and yet still the advantage goes to the pole user, it just reduces the imbalance.

One way to think about it is to list the advantages a sword at ST 11 has *over* a spear. Hmmm....I hear crickets, but not much else! Only the slight increase in damage is to be had, 2-1 vs. 1+2 in regular attacks, let's not even discuss 1+2 axes, that list is even shorter, except perhaps for chopping down wooden doors and such.