Jab attacks and facing

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by hcobb

The occult zap is never "A physical attack made from an enemy’s side [or rear] hex" so never gets any facing bonus.

Doing a physical jab with your staff spear from two hexes away also wouldn't get the bonus. Also the jab wouldn't get any charge bonus either.

Since I've already said that, like Shostak, I apply facing bonuses for jabs (which are also not made from a side or rear hex), I'm not too interested in that bit.

But you're right it's not a physical attack. That might persuade me not to use facing bonuses for it. Certainly, I wouldn't allow a Defend action to work -- nor a Dodge, since it's not a missile spell.

Good point, Henry.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

Throwing weapons do matters, especially since they can be thrown at the range of 1, and they are explicitly stated to work like any other attack. Defend and Dodge actions also works differently for Throwing Weapons and Missile Weapons.

While you can throw a weapon from one hex away and the rules for defend mention only missile weapons (not thrown) and also thrown weapons are said to be "treated like a regular attack", I think conventional wisdom around here is that one Dodges a thrown weapon, not Defends. That's how I play it anyway.

This has a side effect that there's no available defensive move for a one-hex throw, which may not be ideal. On the other hand, a figure engaged by A shouldn't be able to defend a thrown dagger by B who is two hexes away. I don't think you can reasonably parry a thrown weapon.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

This leaves the original question unanswered. Who decides from where the attack comes when it comes in between two hex sides? Front or Side, or Side or Rear.

I think I could easily be persuaded to go with this compromise:

If the jab comes along the line between Front and Side hexes, the bonus is +1, that being the average of the two bonuses of +0 and +2.

If the jab comes along the line between Side and Rear hexes, the bonus is +3, that being the average of the two bonuses of +2 and +4.

This then represents a graduated rotation around the target, with the bonuses going from +0 to +1 to +2 to +3 and finally +4 as your attack angle circles towards target's rear hex.

Heck, maybe that's why SJ made the two facing bonuses +2 and +4 to begin with -- it did leave room for adding conditional bonuses later. Well, he is a genius after all.

[Nils_Lindeberg]

Originally Posted by phiwum

While you can throw a weapon from one hex away and the rules for defend mention only missile weapons (not thrown) and also thrown weapons are said to be "treated like a regular attack", I think conventional wisdom around here is that one Dodges a thrown weapon, not Defends. That's how I play it anyway.

This has a side effect that there's no available defensive move for a one-hex throw, which may not be ideal. On the other hand, a figure engaged by A shouldn't be able to defend a thrown dagger by B who is two hexes away. I don't think you can reasonably parry a thrown weapon.

You don't parry a thrown weapon you duck it, deflect it, take it on the shield, see it and side step it, etc. I see Defend as an active response to specific attacks, while Dodge just means that you move unpredictably in order to be a harder target. And if you don't think that can work, then remember snowball fights, baseball or dodge ball. If you would have a small shield or a weapon you would definitely be able to do something between ducking, deflecting or just feinting a move. So much easier to hit someone in the back than from the front where he can see you.

And there is a rule that Defend works for Thrown weapons if you are engaged, or some such. At least that is how we interpret it. Otherwise there is no defense from 1 hex away which is kind of stupid since it is very easy to mess with a thrower from 1 hex away. He is basically taking a single swing at you but then lets go of his weapon. Which should be harder, not easier to connect with. No combo attack, no forcing you out of balance and then attack you, just a big haymaker motion of throwing, and that is it. Should be easier to avoid, not impossible.

So we always say, if you are running around unengaged Dodge will cover both missile and thrown. If you are engaged you will have to Defend, but it covers thrown weapons as well. If you charge an archer and he gets a last shot, you can still dodge, since you are not engaged, even though you engage him.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

I think I could easily be persuaded to go with this compromise: If the jab comes along the line between Front and Side hexes, the bonus is +1, that being the average of the two bonuses of +0 and +2.

Does your compromise include having a shield stop one fewer hits when protecting against missile attacks along the spine?

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Does your compromise include having a shield stop one fewer hits when protecting against missile attacks along the spine?

It seems that when one compromise is introduced, it can spawn more compromises. Coming into the line on a hex boundary where shield protection is determined to apply or not does compel one to ask your question.

Following the average of the coverage would only work well where one has a shield that stops 2 or more hits. How would you track 1/2 of a hit?

This may require going back to the other compromises that make a more definitive call all one way or the other.

[Shostak]

To be clear, I'm not advocating that compromise. As far as I'm concerned, one enjoy's a shield's full protection from attacks originating in hexes "generally 'in front' of you" as discussed and shown on ITL 106.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Shostak

To be clear, I'm not advocating that compromise. As far as I'm concerned, one enjoy's a shield's full protection from attacks originating in hexes "generally 'in front' of you" as discussed and shown on ITL 106.

I concur. I didn't take your post as agreeing with it. You pointed out an unresolved problem with it.

And as you pointed out, If you are to average the DX adjustment as proposed, what does that also do to shield protection?

The granularity of that compromise can break down when you consider the effect of shield protection.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Does your compromise include having a shield stop one fewer hits when protecting against missile attacks along the spine?

Dang it, I thought I was onto something. Solving some of these questions is kind of like playing whack-a-mole, isn't it!

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

Dang it, I thought I was onto something. Solving some of these questions is kind of like playing whack-a-mole, isn't it!

That's probably the best way to describe it. LOL!