11-05-2020, 07:37 PM | #1 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Charging against a polearm
I read the thread on New Pole Weapon Rules because I was interested in the polearm defense against charges. Here's what I found.
As Skarg pointed out, ITL 111 says: Quote:
Xane suggests that at the beginning of the turn, P has the option of asking X whether this is an attack or not. If he says no, P gets none of the benefits but X loses the option to attack for the turn. Skarg says that any time one has the option to attack, it counts as a charge attack and the bonuses apply. If I understand correctly, Skarg thinks that forcing X to answer at this point is inconsistent with the general rules regarding changing one's mind. I was wondering whether any consensus on this has been reached. How do folk play it? Skarg's other arguments have to do with realism, broadly understood. If the actions during movement are the same, why should ability to strike first with bonuses depend on the actions after movement? I tend to think that RAW supports xane's interpretation better, but I'm a newb and appreciate input from others. Regardless of whether you buy xane's position or Skarg's, it seems that RAW grants no bonuses if a figure moves more than a half move to close with a polearm, which is a little surprising. Obviously, xane and Skarg can correct any errors in my summary. |
|
11-05-2020, 08:33 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
|
Re: Charging against a polearm
The standing polearm user gets +2 DX and first attack against anyone who moves next to them.
If this was a move of three or more hexes add a die to their damage. If eight or more hexes add +2 damage also.
__________________
-HJC |
11-05-2020, 09:12 PM | #3 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Charging against a polearm
Quote:
Thanks nonetheless. |
|
11-05-2020, 09:34 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Oct 2020
|
Re: Charging against a polearm
Honestly my family is usually to lazy to do declared actions. Polearms that just engaged in melee combat go first then high adjDX not counting any situational modifiers.
|
11-06-2020, 02:43 AM | #5 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
|
Re: Charging against a polearm
The way I always did things:
First Strike: if an opponent moves into range of a polearm wielder, they can be attacked first regardless of DX scores. Bonuses: to get the charge bonus, the opponent has to have moved 3 or more hexes toward the polearm user. |
11-06-2020, 05:35 AM | #6 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: Charging against a polearm
|
11-06-2020, 06:35 AM | #7 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
|
Re: Charging against a polearm
Just read the Melee rulebook page 12.
Any movement to contact: Pole weapon strikes first. Standing response to moving to contact: +2 DX Movement of three or more hexes this turn then contact: +1 die (This has to be three hexes in a straight line for the pole weapon user.)
__________________
-HJC |
11-06-2020, 07:51 AM | #8 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Charging against a polearm
Quote:
Some house rules are clearly going further than that and contradict RAW or add something new. Popularity doesn't make the written rules different than what is written. For instance, I interpret attempting HTH to include making an attack that same turn if the attempt is successful. Some think that attempting to HTH does not allow an additional attack that turn, that the attempt used your action. I don't think either interpretation is a mere house rule, because there's (contradictory) evidence for each interpretation. But Henry's suggestion that movement of eight or more provides 1d+2 damage is not of this sort. It may be sensible. It may become overwhelmingly popular, the de facto rule that everyone on this forum uses. But it don't make it RAW. |
|
11-06-2020, 08:02 AM | #10 | |||
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Charging against a polearm
Quote:
From the Melee rules (p. 12): Quote:
Quote:
There is, I think, some wiggle room over whether it applies only if X actually attacks that turn (or declares an attack). I think Skarg's interpretation is arguably within a reading of RAW. I don't think the requirement of a three hex move is within that reading. In any case, I'm trying to focus on whether or not the bonus depends on declaring an attack at the start of the action phase, as xane suggests. My mind is made up that RAW doesn't require a three hex move when defending. You might convince me that RAW should require a three hex move, but you can't convince me that RAW does require a three hex move. We can see that it does not. Last edited by phiwum; 11-06-2020 at 09:11 AM. |
|||
Tags |
charge attack, pole weapons |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|