Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > The Fantasy Trip > The Fantasy Trip: House Rules

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-05-2021, 09:24 AM   #1
RobW
 
RobW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Default "Against the grain" charge attacks

The "3-hex" requirement, in TFT LE, for pole-weapon charge-attack bonuses has some ambiguities, and I'm curious how people are playing (in Advanced Melee there was no such requirement).

The 3-hex charge rule on ITL p111:
Quote:
In any case where a pole weapon is being used in a charge attack, and the attacker moved three hexes or more in a straight line, the polearm does one extra die of damage if it hits.
There's an accompanying figure that shows an "against the grain" example.

I take "against the grain" to mean that if a figure is 3 hexes distant from a destination hex, then any 3-hex path to that destination is a "straight line" move, even if it zigs and zags on the hex grid. Is that what you are doing?

Below is an example.
RobW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2021, 09:25 AM   #2
RobW
 
RobW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Default Re: "Against the grain" charge attacks

Here's an example of what I mean. The image link below shows a possible charge attack situation.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/u9371gtudg...paths.png?dl=0

B has a spear and is looking for a high-priority high-damage charge against the crabman. The amber arrow connects the center of the hexes containing B and crabman. The blue and red lines represent the shortest possible paths from B to the hexes adjacent to the crabman.

This example therefore shows 3 different paths, to 2 different hexes, that might be a legit 3-hex charge: the blue path (a-b-c); the red path (a-d-e); and the amber path (a-d-c).

I think I would allow allow all of these as 3-hex charges, simply because they all close the 3-hex distance with a path 3-hexes long.
RobW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2021, 12:26 PM   #3
Shostak
 
Shostak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
Default Re: "Against the grain" charge attacks

Those paths look fine to me. I think what the rule is trying to prevent is someone moving a total of three hexes, but one of them being in reverse and only two moving forward to the target.
__________________
* * * *
Anthony Shostak
myriangia.wordpress.com
Shostak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2021, 06:02 PM   #4
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: "Against the grain" charge attacks

(The way I prefer to play is a house-rule to ignore the requirement altogether, but...)

I think that not only would both of those paths be legal, but so would if B stepped north first, and then went two hexes northeast. And so would moving some other direction and then moving three hexes straight-or-zig-zag toward the target.
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2021, 10:50 AM   #5
RobW
 
RobW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Default Re: "Against the grain" charge attacks

Thank you both, that was very helpful. Together your comments had me messing around with this a little more and I'm feeling very happy with the idea that if you close a 3-hex distance by any 3-hex path that is as straight as it gets on a hex grid.

Case resolved I think

(Still sticking with Advanced Melee for now though) (:
RobW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2021, 12:31 AM   #6
Steve Plambeck
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Default Re: "Against the grain" charge attacks

Yes, the way to do it is by the number of hexes moved, regardless of how it looks, because the shortest distance between two points is the very definition of a "straight" line. My rationale is it looks straight to the characters even when it doesn't look that way to the players, because we're peering into their dimension from above, from our own dimension, and our view is distorted. (There's no such thing as hex grain, that's just the curvature of space we're noticing! :)

More practically speaking, my guess is the intention of the 3 hex minimum is to prevent the cheap ploy of an attacker starting in the defender's side hex, taking one step away, then entering the defender's rear hex and calling that a charge attack for a free bonus. Sure the attacker can still do something similar, moving 3 hexes away and then charging the 3 hexes back, but now the cost is 6 MA total, so it's no longer cheap. In fact your effective MA has to start at 12 to pull that off while still only using 1/2 your MA, which is impossible for most characters.

You could get an identical effect with an entirely different rule that some might prefer, because "weaving" is taken out of the equation. The alternate rule is merely that the charge attacker cannot be adjacent to the defender in more than 1 of the last 3 hexes moved. That's virtually the same effect without having to specify a minimum distance for the total movement.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right."
Steve Plambeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2021, 04:00 AM   #7
RobW
 
RobW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Default Re: "Against the grain" charge attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck View Post
Yes, the way to do it is by the number of hexes moved, regardless of how it looks, because the shortest distance between two points is the very definition of a "straight" line. My rationale is it looks straight to the characters even when it doesn't look that way to the players, because we're peering into their dimension from above, from our own dimension, and our view is distorted. (There's no such thing as hex grain, that's just the curvature of space we're noticing! :)
Yes, exactly

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck View Post
More practically speaking, my guess is the intention of the 3 hex minimum is to prevent the cheap ploy of an attacker starting in the defender's side hex, taking one step away, then entering the defender's rear hex and calling that a charge attack for a free bonus.
Interesting enough this tactic is explicitly sanctioned in Advanced Melee:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Advanced Melee p 12
If you begin your move next to (but not engaged with) an enemy, you can move one hex away and then move back -- this is still a charge attack.
Clearly SJ changed his mind on that one
RobW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2021, 06:53 AM   #8
Terquem
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Idaho Falls
Default Re: "Against the grain" charge attacks

I don't know if we will ever know how much of AM and AW were Thompson's "meddling" and how much was Mr. Jackson's original concepts
Terquem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2021, 10:28 AM   #9
RobW
 
RobW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Default Re: "Against the grain" charge attacks

hah ha well there is an authoritative source who in fact owns this forum!
RobW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2021, 10:49 AM   #10
Terquem
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Idaho Falls
Default Re: "Against the grain" charge attacks

I can only speculate, but in my opinion it is not wise to speak about that issue (edits and changes that occured all those years ago).
Terquem is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.