On the QRS the wording suggested that Charging lancers dont get their bonus against mounted pole arms. If you compare with the wording for mounted short spears these clearly make a differential between foot and mounted PA.
random wording or deliberate?
Regards
Matt
I wonder how you come to that conclusion.
Mounted PA have a +1 vs any mounted except vs CL or Lsp
CL vs standing FOOT LSP,PA or PK or vs Nellies or BWG ...have a 0 impact but +2 vs others including mounted PA
So the mounted PA is at a disadvantage. Not the contrary .
Quote from: badhabum on April 12, 2019, 04:18:35 PM
I wonder how you come to that conclusion.
Mounted PA have a +1 vs any mounted except vs CL or Lsp
CL vs standing FOOT LSP,PA or PK or vs Nellies or BWG ...have a 0 impact but +2 vs others including mounted PA
So the mounted PA is at a disadvantage. Not the contrary .
you are missing my point
CL vs standing
FOOT LSP,PA or PK or vs Nellies or BWG
Short spear vs standing
FOOT LSP,
FOOT PA or PK
notice the small yet significant difference between those two entries? Short spears make the distinction that their +1 is not applicable against foot PA but the entry for CL just says PA.
Regards
Matt
Battle Chariot also says Foot PA as opposed to just PA.
it was deliberate to balance the nomadic/chinese cavalry types
Eh? The nomadic cavalry types aren't charging lancer though so I don't see how that interaction drives things ... :o
no - the nomads are typically SS or LS. The Chinese are MPA or CL
But that aside, the leaving out of "foot" is deliberate and so CL does not count against PA whether the latter are mounted or on foot?
Mounted polearm was a later addition... CL have never counted against foot Polerarm.
True but unhelpful in relation to the 2019 QRS where the question is whether the fact that the CL line just mentions PA is deliberate or an accidental omission as other lines specifically say Foot PA.
Shades of Phil Barker!! Surely we have not come to the point where we must construct sentence diagrams to decipher the rules? It seems clear to me that foot PA cancels CL, mounted PA does not.
OK back to the words
As CL are
0 vs EL,BWG or standing** Foot LSp,PA or PK, 0 vs other
As written it is pretty clear to me it is FOOT LSp,FOOT PA and FOOT PK
I never saw any cavalry with PK ... ;D
So the intend is clear to me
Now we might review all the lines but never forget, we need space for all the wording 8)
And I understand why the question was asked
As the QRS is written, CL vs standing mounted PA should be 0 vs 0.
If the intention (as I believe it is) is that it should be 2 vs 0, then the CL line should read "0 vs El, BWg or standing** Foot LSp, Foot PA or PK, +2 vs. others"
Richard
Bingo 8)
Quote from: lionheartrjc on April 12, 2019, 07:20:13 PM
As the QRS is written, CL vs standing mounted PA should be 0 vs 0.
If the intention (as I believe it is) is that it should be 2 vs 0, then the CL line should read "0 vs El, BWg or standing** Foot LSp, Foot PA or PK, +2 vs. others"
Richard
this is absolutely unclear, as badaboum said it reads like CL 0 vs foot LSp, foot P, foot PK.
wording for shortspear is more detailed : +1 vs foot LSP, foot PA, PK
so i asume that if foot is not mentioned for a weapon it means foot/mounted or whatever.
Quote from: AntiokosIII on April 12, 2019, 06:18:17 PM
Shades of Phil Barker!! Surely we have not come to the point where we must construct sentence diagrams to decipher the rules? It seems clear to me that foot PA cancels CL, mounted PA does not.
and logically it does to me to, however as part of the intent of these rules is to do away with Barkerisms I was inclind to assume this was a deliberate distinction as two other very similar sentences explicitly make the distinction. As to Pk , as its not a legal mounted weapon it does not need qualifying.
luckily we have a forum where I can ask :)
Quote from: AntiokosIII on April 12, 2019, 06:18:17 PM
Shades of Phil Barker!! Surely we have not come to the point where we must construct sentence diagrams to decipher the rules? It seems clear to me that foot PA cancels CL, mounted PA does not.
Is indeed the case.
Yes in deed i have alas used two different versions of the same thing.
Apologies that I ... and several proof readers missed that.
Foot XX, YY or ZZ, or .... means XX YY ZZ all as foot.
So = Foot XX, Foot YY or Foot ZZ.
Space saving necessary at times.
Si
"foot with x y or z" might save confusion in the future
Quote from: DracoStandard on April 30, 2019, 07:46:18 AM
"foot with x y or z" might save confusion in the future
A good thought thank you ...