PDA

View Full Version : First Strike, Mounts & Lances.



MarcoPollo
01-09-2006, 05:38
I came across this situation last game. He had a bretonian lord all tooled up with some nast lance of a blessed lady or something like that and a pegasus mount.

Q#1: What would happen to that lance if he was on foot (pegasus was shot from underneath him). -- I would assume that the lance would be pretty much useless. A character is usually obliged to use his magic weapon. So given that he is on foot, his lance is done and he attacks with handweapon and shield (getting the hw/shield bonus).

Q#2: What would happen to the lance if there was combat with a first strike item (say--great weapon and helm of many eyes) and you killed the mount (in a challenge say). Would that lance still be a viable option in the combat? -- I would say that the lance would not be usefull. No mount, no lance bonus.

I didn't really know what to think about Q#2. Does anyone have an argument for or against this?

T10
01-09-2006, 06:57
1. This is one of those situations were you may want to simply submit to the lure of common sense and have the character use the hand weapon.

The *cannot use* trumps the *has to use*.

2. With the mount dead the character is no longer mounted, so no lance.

GodHead
01-09-2006, 08:25
Lances are useable while dismounted, they just provide no benefits.

If a character is equipped with a magic weapon they must use it, even if it provides no benefits.

Bretonnian characters are able to switch to a mundane weapon in the second round of combat, but must use a magical lance in the first round of combat.

Reinhard
01-09-2006, 11:48
Well, I don'd know any rule why he could not use the lance on foot.
If he has a magic lance he has to use it all the time.
If he has a non-magic lance and a magic handweapon he has to use the lance while charging and he has to switch to the magic hand weapon if not charging.

At least it is writen in this way in the german version.

Avian
01-09-2006, 13:35
Well, I don'd know any rule why he could not use the lance on foot.
IIRC the 7th edition rules say "Mounted models only"...

mageith
01-09-2006, 14:21
Well, I don'd know any rule why he could not use the lance on foot.
If he has a magic lance he has to use it all the time.
If he has a non-magic lance and a magic handweapon he has to use the lance while charging and he has to switch to the magic hand weapon if not charging.

At least it is writen in this way in the german version.
"All cavalry, monster riders and chariot riders armed with a lance can employ this deadly weapon with devastating effect." (91)

I suppose if you consider this to be mere fluff, there isn't anything to prevent a footed knight from employing (using) the lance.

If he can use the magical lance while on foot, the benefit would be that its still magical and that would help him in certain situations.

There's also debate on whether a magical lance is really a lance too despite its name.

None of this has ever come in a game to my knowledge and if it did I'm sure my group would go the fluffy/common sense route advocated above.

Anyway its an old unresolved debate from sixth edition. 7th seems to have cleared it up. Unless the 7v rule is that only mounted models can BUY the lance.

ZomboCom
01-09-2006, 14:32
Bretonnian characters are able to switch to a mundane weapon in the second round of combat, but must use a magical lance in the first round of combat.

Not quite. They're allowed to switch to a magical (non lance) weapon in the second round of combat after using their normal lance on the charge.

Atrahasis
01-09-2006, 14:36
"All cavalry, monster riders and chariot riders armed with a lance can employ this deadly weapon with devastating effect." (91)

I suppose if you consider this to be mere fluff, there isn't anything to prevent a footed knight from employing (using) the lance.

Even if you consider it to be rule, there isn't anything to prevent a footed knight from employing (using) the lance.

Saying that mounted models can use something with great efficacy is not the same as saying infantry models cannot use it at all.

T10
01-09-2006, 15:52
Ok, the Lance actually only says:

Rules: +2 Strength bonus in first turn of combat when charging.

There is no actual rules distinction between being on foot or being mounted. Wow. I'm stunned: utterly speechless and at a loss for words to eloquently convey my stupefaction. I believe, Sirs, that we have found an Easter Egg!

Oh, mageith pointed out something about mounted models, but I am now convinced this has no bearing on this. It is solely fluff.

Sarcasm aside, though, Atrahasis has a good point. There is nothing to clearly dictate that the Lance is useless when the character is on foot. It is reasonable to assume that the character must be mounted and charging to gain the Strength bonuses, but it is also acceptable to assume that the weapon can be used even while the character is on foot.


-T10

TheWarSmith
01-09-2006, 16:06
For the Bretonnian magical lances, it says "mounted characters only", so once the character is dismounted, they no longer fill the requisite for their magical weapon.

This brings up some contraversy, as is the magical weapon still valid because you originally had a mount, or does it become unusable when mount is destroyed.

I'd vote for lances not being usable while unmounted.

DeathlessDraich
01-09-2006, 19:05
Well, I don'd know any rule why he could not use the lance on foot.
.


"All cavalry, monster riders and chariot riders armed with a lance can employ this deadly weapon with devastating effect." (91)
I suppose if you consider this to be mere fluff, there isn't anything to prevent a footed knight from employing (using) the lance.
.


Even if you consider it to be rule, there isn't anything to prevent a footed knight from employing (using) the lance.
.



Ok, the Lance actually only says:
Rules: +2 Strength bonus in first turn of combat when charging.
-T10

Nothing in the rules state he explicitly can't but
"All cavalry, chariots, mounted riders etc.." followed by "+2 bonus on the charge..." shows that

The +2 bonus is only given in the cases stated beforehand i.e. cavalry,chariot and mounted riders. By implication, it is necessary to be mounted and it is the combination of mount and lance that grants the +2 bonus

If a 'footed' rider uses a Lance, he does not get the +2 bonus when charging because he hasn't got a mount.
Therefore it does not make a difference whether he uses a HW or a Lance when charging on foot.

Marco, I think for Q2, it would seem right to grant the +2 bonus even if the mount was killed because the rider charged with the mount.


For the Bretonnian magical lances, it says "mounted characters only", so once the character is dismounted, they no longer fill the requisite for their magical weapon.
.

That solves the problem of magical lances, at least for Brets. Are there any other magical lances?

Apologies for the bold script which is intended to ease reading.

Anyone agrees with my interpretation by implication.;)

Atrahasis
01-09-2006, 19:22
The +2 bonus is only given in the cases stated beforehand i.e. cavalry,chariot and mounted riders. By implication, it is necessary to be mounted and it is the combination of mount and lance that grants the +2 bonus

That's not what the rules say.

DeathlessDraich
01-09-2006, 19:26
Yes, I know. I'm combining the 2 parts and making an inference through what each part implies.
An attempt at trying to squeeze more meaning from inadequate rules!

Atrahasis
01-09-2006, 19:29
Then please make that clear. This is a forum for rules discussion, not "what I'd like the rules to be" discussion :D

DeathlessDraich
01-09-2006, 19:43
It's not what I like the rules to be at all but what I stated before. I'm totally indifferent to rules desirability
If rules are too vague to be applicable, then don't you think they have to be examined closely, maybe even word for word, and an interpretation somehow derived from this close scrutiny of the different shades of meaning of the written rules?
That's what I tried to do.

My main contention is the 2 sections quoted by Mageith and T10 must be taken together and they are linked. The second part ("+2 bonus etc") should not be detached from the first ("All cavalry") because it follows immediately after the first.
Does that not suggest to you, that the +2 bonus given, is tied in with the Cavalry bit?

Atrahasis
01-09-2006, 20:01
Does that not suggest to you, that the +2 bonus given, is tied in with the Cavalry bit?

As I said in my previous post, that section tells us that cavalry are REALLY effective with lances, not that infantry cannot use them.

MarcoPollo
01-09-2006, 23:17
It would seem that the player could choose to use the lance with no bonus other than being a magic weapon. As a friendly gesture, I think it would be ok for him to use the lance or the hw/sh combo if he chose.

As for the second question, I too would agree that he was able to get the charge off and it would seem fair that he would be able to us the abilities of the lance in that turn. I however, would be hard pressed to find a rule that supports this. In a tournament, I would like to hear from a judge about that.

T10
02-09-2006, 09:12
All the Bretonnian magical lances require the character to be mounted to gain the Strength bonus. The remainder of their rules are not subject to such a restriction, allowing (or at least: not disallowing) them to be used even if the character is no longer "mounted and charging".

I am sure that it can be argued left and right wether or not the standard rules for Lances apply to mounted or unmounted models.

I doubt, however, that anyone that have been involved in this discussion would ever arm any of their characters with a lance and not give him some sort of mount.

I dare you to do so before you spit Black in the eye and call him White.

-T10

ZomboCom
02-09-2006, 09:20
For those claiming they can get a +2S bonus for charging on foot with a lance.


Don't be bloody stupid. Rules lawyering sucks.

samw
02-09-2006, 16:00
I would never claim to get the +2 ST bonus, however I would fight you tooth and nail on the magical effect still working. After all, the effects apply in subsequent combat rounds after the charge, why not after the mount is dead? Same thing as with the magic spears from the wood-elf list. If you are riding you get the strength bonus, if on foot just the magical effects, view it as a magic pike.

DeathlessDraich
02-09-2006, 16:51
A reasonable deduction Samw and I agree with the logic.

From Brets magical lances.

Brets pg 61 Silver lance, Wyrmlance, Heartwood Lance ALL state: "The bearer has +2S on the charge when mounted"**

Each lance then has its additional magical properties described.

Brets pg 61 Silver lance: auto hit, Wyrmlance:breath weapon, Heartwood Lance: reroll "[/B]

The additional magic remains but the +2S disappears after dismounting

2 important questions arise:

1) **Could this statement simply be a reiteration of the rules for Lances, previously omitted in the rule book?

2) Following Brettonian rules, if the rider with a magical Lance is dismounted he loses the +2S on the charge but retains all the remaining magical properties. If this happens with a magical Lance (losing the +2S) then surely it must happen with an ordinary Lance, otherwise the following situation crops up:

Lord A armed with a magical Lance is dismounted by shooting. He charges with his magical Lance and does Not have the +2S bonus

Lord B armed with an ordinary Lance is dismounted by shooting. He charges with his ordinary Lance which performs better than an ordinary lance and gives him a +2S? Ordinary lances cannot be better than magical ones.

The rules may not explicitly say so, but I feel Bretonnian rules are sufficient to guide us towards the correct interpretation.

Atrahasis
02-09-2006, 17:13
1) **Could this statement simply be a reiteration of the rules for Lances, previously omitted in the rule book?How can it be a reiteration of something not previously said?


Ordinary lances cannot be better than magical ones.Why not?
The Breton magical lances do not get their +2S by virtue of being lances (as magical weapons lose all properties of their mundane type) but by virtue of their special rules grating +2S.

Mundane hand weapons are better than magical single-handed weapons as far as armour saves go, why can mundane lances not have an advantage here?

Your reasoning is flawed, it makes too many assumptions.

ZomboCom
02-09-2006, 21:25
You all know damn well that you don't get +2S from charging on foot with a lance.

End of discussion.

Atrahasis
02-09-2006, 23:17
You all know damn well that you don't get +2S from charging on foot with a lance.

End of discussion.

Thanks Gav. Or is it Alessio? :rolleyes:

We can only do what the rules say we can do, and the rules say that someone armed with a lance gets +2S on the charge.

NakedFisherman
03-09-2006, 01:45
Thanks Gav. Or is it Alessio? :rolleyes:

We can only do what the rules say we can do, and the rules say that someone armed with a lance gets +2S on the charge.

For a few more days.

CrimsonFOX
03-09-2006, 02:33
Thanks Gav. Or is it Alessio? :rolleyes:

We can only do what the rules say we can do, and the rules say that someone armed with a lance gets +2S on the charge.

I disagree with your interpretation of the rules. The exact description under 'Lance' on pg. 91 of the rulebook is"

"All calvalry, monster riders and chariot riders armed with long lances can employ this deadly weapon to devastating effect."

My interpretation is that they are the ones that can use it. This is based on the fact that it is nearly identically worded to the description of 'Spears' for cavalry:

"All calvary, monster riders and chariot riders armed with spears can empoy them to ride down enemy troops with, spitting them as the horsemen ride into the ranks."

If you are on foot and you charge into a combat, you will not get the +2 Strength bonus. However, in the specific situation here where the mount was killed during the charge, I think with a normal lance you would get the +2 bonus. On page 89 the rulebook states:

"Some strength bonuses only apply in the first turn of a combat and only if the user charged that turn. These are weapons that rely upon the impact of the charge to pierce the foe."

If you charged on horseback into a combat and your horse was killed as you slammed into the enemy, you still are impacting the enemy the same with the lance.

Not airtight by any means, but I believe the game designers would be proud of the use of reason...

DeathlessDraich
03-09-2006, 07:51
On page 89 the rulebook states:

"Some strength bonuses only apply in the first turn of a combat and only if the user charged that turn. These are weapons that rely upon the impact of the charge to pierce the foe."
Not airtight by any means, but I believe the game designers would be proud of the use of reason...

I can see Atrahasis arguing that the "impact of the charge" as stated in the rules above is not confined to cavalry charges but any charges.
Can this statement be truly applied to infantry or characters on foot, though?
There is no precedent for this.
I can't find any infantry weapon that gets a strength bonus on the charge.

Well Atrahasis, the rules above clinches it in my view.

So far, you have simply used the 'The rules do not expressly forbid this, so we cannot assume it can't be done' argument.

Can you support your point of view with rules that directly support your contention?
Can you find anything in the rules to say that unmounted characters armed with a lance can get a +2S bonus?

An extension to this thread:

Can Characters be armed with a lance if on foot?
Bretonnian characters cannot as clearly stated by their rules.
High Elves - no similar restriction!

Has anyone seen a crazy High elf player arm his unmounted Prince or Commander with a lance?:D

Atrahasis
03-09-2006, 08:22
Can you find anything in the rules to say that unmounted characters armed with a lance can get a +2S bonus?

I don't need one. Weapon bonusses are available as long as

a) you have the weapon
b) satisfy the conditions for the bonus (in this case, charging)

Nowhere does the rulebook say that you have to be mounted to get a strength bonus in general, or for the lance in particular.

Senbei
03-09-2006, 18:41
I could have sworn there was a rule that stated that when a monsterous mount is killed any riders are crushed underneath it.... If that's true, wouldn't it be impossible to dis-mount in the first place ? Unless those bret's have invented a spring powered ejector-seat.........

Atrahasis
03-09-2006, 18:43
I could have sworn there was a rule that stated that when a monsterous mount is killed any riders are crushed underneath it.... If that's true, wouldn't it be impossible to dis-mount in the first place ? Unless those bret's have invented a spring powered ejector-seat.........

There's no such rule.

MarcoPollo
04-09-2006, 04:54
Sir Reginald Leutenant in the Kings mounted knights:

Hey! There are those slimey good for nothing lizards just up yonder past the misty marsh. Let us charge them and to scatter them back to the swampy lowlands from whence they came.


Quetzl the chief of the chameleon skinks:

Ah! A great target for our menacing little darts. Let's hit their horses for a the greater glory of Qer-mit our holy slann.

Reginald:
Blast! My trusty mounted has fallen beneath me and I am loathe to continue on without him. I suppose that my lance will only hinder me on my quest for greater glory. What good is this clumsy, heavy weapon going to do but slow me down. I will not be able to hit the saurus line with enough punch now to damage that slimy scaly skin. ... To swords men, we'll have to do it the old fashioned way.

Quetzl:

Great work! We have made it even. Qer-mit will be pleased that we have spared his children the wrath of the dredded lance. Now they can truly fight and die like the wariors they were bred to be.

Atrahasis
04-09-2006, 08:15
An interesting read, but I don't see what it adds to the discussion, given that you can't kill horses.

samw
04-09-2006, 11:45
I suppose that my lance will only hinder me on my quest for greater glory.

Not if it lets him hit automatically it wont.

eldrak
04-09-2006, 17:04
I can't find any infantry weapon that gets a strength bonus on the charge.

Ever heard of the choppa?

Idea for original army, mount your orcs on things similar to this one:
http://images.google.se/images?q=tbn:El0diHB9pVjZ0M:http://www.briobutiken.se/WebArchive/products/medium/23030-429.jpg
and give them tiny lance's as choppas.

mageith
04-09-2006, 18:56
pP 268: Remember, the spirit of the game is the best guideline to follow, so try to do something that looks right and is realistic, as opposed to trying to stretch the rules to create a weird situation which looks obviously wrong [...] and gains some unfair advantage to one player.

This sentence probably doesn't appear in the 7v. It is pretty much ignored and discredited in 6v but I think was (and probably still is) part of the design principles (or excuses) for GW's rules writing.

Gav once said to me "We'll never defeat the rules lawyers, there's too many of them."

Strictly reading the rules doesn't prevent footed warriors from either buying or using lances and gaining all of its advantages. Sad but true. Doing so, however, clearly violates the above sentence and I've yet to face anyone who actually attempted to use this loophole.

To the secondary question of whether a magical lance still retains is magical properties while on foot. I'd say yes because the opposite side of the question is that a player can't switch from the lance once he's decided to use it. GW created its own unrealistic and weird situation when it doesn't allow a model to switch from a lance to its (magical) weapon in subsequent rounds of battle (except for Brets of course).

Besides there's numerous historical situations where knights dismounted and used their lances as spears (or pikes). Sometimes these lances were "cut down". Of course, this is merely for information and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. However I know of no situation where a dismounted knight actually charged with a lance whether cut down or not (though I'm sure it happened some time or other).

A charging knight who has his mount knocked out from under him is just not dealt with in 6v but the image of him recovering from that, landing on his feet, still running with a lance is quite comical and if a player can live with the derisive laughter of his opponent, I guess one can go ahead and claim the right under the rules.

There once was a knight that jousted with windmills, or so I've read.
Mage Ith