I am uncertain if i understand the rules about mounted vs. foot-soldier.
The way i read the rules being mounted versus a soldier on foot gives you a 5 plus bonus to your attack skill, while simultaneously giving your opponent a 5 point penality is.
Is this correct and what some other circumstances, your opponent being armed with a great spear does that take away both bonus and the penality or just the one?
And what if you are fighting something different like a giant, do you still recieve the bonus and penality, when your oppenent tower over you even on horseback?

I am uncertain if i understand the rules about mounted vs. foot-soldier.
The way i read the rules being mounted versus a soldier on foot gives you a 5 plus bonus to your attack skill, while simultaneously giving your opponent a 5 point penality is.
Is this correct and what some other circumstances, your opponent being armed with a great spear does that take away both bonus and the penality or just the one?
And what if you are fighting something different like a giant, do you still recieve the bonus and penality, when your oppenent tower over you even on horseback?


Mounted vs foot, non armed with greatspear: +5/-5
Mounted vs foot, armed with greatspear: +5/0 [the greatspear offsets the normal -5]

As for the last question, I don't think there is any guidelines in the rules. Generally I do not grant the mounted bonus when fighting monsters [though it could be applicable against anything thats roughly the size and shape of a human]. Then again, I never give monster the +5/-5 height advantage just for being larger than a mounted knight. I'd say it's already part of their stats.

And, of course:
Lance charge vs foot, not armed with greatspear: +10/-5
Lance chrage vs foot, armed with greatspear: +5/0 [greatspear offsets the normal +5 for a lance charge]

Just like Skarpskytten said for me too.

I've always ruled it as the normal +5 for the mounted knight and -5 for the foot soldier with all weapons other then the spear classes. If an infantry man has a spear I negate the -5 penalty to the foot soldier cause the weapon would allow them to reach their opponent just fine in comparison to a sword, axe or mace (know this from personal experience with the C.S.A. and other mock medieval warfare recreation). The great spear also negates the +5 bonus the mounted opponent gets, due to the great spear's extensive reach and the unwillingness of any horse to be led at sharp pointy objects (even war trained horses were know to throw their riders in combat to avoid a spear wall).

Mounted vs foot, non armed with greatspear: +5/-5
Mounted vs foot, armed with greatspear: +5/0 [the greatspear offsets the normal -5]

.................

And, of course:
Lance charge vs foot, not armed with greatspear: +10/-5
Lance chrage vs foot, armed with greatspear: +5/0 [greatspear offsets the normal +5 for a lance charge]


Thanks a lot...but Book of Battle 2nd edition page 22 makes me more confused...

It speaks about a +5 for non-lance Charge
So we have +5 for all charges and +5/Horse Damage for Lance charges.

However, the very confusing bit is this piece about defenders armed with spears/great Spears/haberds:
"...the Charge Bonus still applies, and so does the normal combat bonus of +5 for mounted versus foot troops. However, the spearmen do not suffer the normal -5 disadvantage of foot versus mounted.."

So your last example should be changed in:
Lance charge vs foot, armed with greatspear: +10/0 [in this case greatspear does not offset the normal +5 for a lance charge...it only nullifies the -5 to the footman roll].

So, here we have a contradiction!
What's the right interpretation?

Not sure if it is right, but...

Book of Battle is about unit combat. You get the charge bonus with non-lance weapons because the whole unit charges, and you are supported by all that weight of metal, men and mounts. Hence, +5 for all weapons.

KAP is about personal combat. There, charge in itself doesn't give any bonus, but charging with a Lance against non-Great Spear and non-lance will give +5 to your skill.

Personally, I would let Great Spears nullify the charge bonus also in BoB, since stopping charges is exactly what pikes were good for.

Personally, I would let Great Spears nullify the charge bonus also in BoB, since stopping charges is exactly what pikes were good for.


I'm too old for exegesis ...

Generally, I just ignore anything that I find strange in BoB (like the charge bonus) and use the regular rules. Like Morien does.

OK, but it's a bit odd using different rules for something which is, at the end, just a single attack roll (whether it is done in singke combat or in a great whole unit).

And I do not even understand the "unit momentum" explanation for the +5 to non-lance charge...since this means that we should also add a +5 "unit momentum" bonus to Lance charge too...getting therefore up to +10...or even +15 (if mounted vs foot).

I think it's all a mess!
I'll houserule something, maybe.

I think it's all a mess!


Well, if it's any comfort, so do I. I don't use the First Charge rules.

Just use the regular combat rules.

And I do not even understand the "unit momentum" explanation for the +5 to non-lance charge...since this means that we should also add a +5 "unit momentum" bonus to Lance charge too...getting therefore up to +10...or even +15 (if mounted vs foot).

Actually you do understand
Your math is correct in each example here