First Charge Bonus, p16 : it's written "Knights with other melee weapons can charge, but get no charge bonus, nor use their horse damage, but have a +1d6 to their own damage, if successful", and, in The Charge synopsis, p26, it's written "Mounted w/ other weapon : +1d6 bonus to damage against foot..." : so, does the bonus damage apply against a mounted man ?


Correction:
On page 26, strike the words "against foot"



Moreover, does this bonus applies also in a normal fight, because it's not written in the Base Book


It probably ought to be.



(and, with a Saxon knight with a two hand axe, it might be very powerful... more than a Charger charge...


In truth, i is a provisional rule that I came up with to give something to the knights in a unit who charge but have no lance. If too many people complain I'll strike it.
As for Saxons and horses, here is another unpublished rule:

Horse too small?
If a knight’s damage bonus is equal to or greater than the damage bonus of his horse, the rider is “too big” for the horse. Each 1d6 damage that is greater than the horse adds another -6 to his Combat Skills.


--Greg

Horse too small?
If a knight’s damage bonus is equal to or greater than the damage bonus of his horse, the rider is “too big” for the horse. Each 1d6 damage that is greater than the horse adds another -6 to his Combat Skills.


--Greg



I really like this idea....

First Charge bonus is not properly defined here.
If you read first paragraph and then followed by second you get the idea that the first charge bonus is +5 weapon skill but not against other mounted lance-opponents.
If that's true its better to drop your lance and fight with melee weapon against lance using opponents because you at least get your +1D6 damage...
I think that the second part of that sentence should be stricken. You should always get +5 weapon skill when charging with lance and having fist charge bonus..

fg,
Thijs

First Charge bonus is not properly defined here.
If you read first paragraph and then followed by second you get the idea that the first charge bonus is +5 weapon skill but not against other mounted lance-opponents.

I think you mean:
"Charging horsemen, armed with lance, get a +5 t Lance skill, unless their oponent is also mounted and charging with lance, or is infantry armed with greatspear, halberd or similar long-reaching weapon."

Is that right?



If that's true its better to drop your lance and fight with melee weapon against lance using opponents because you at least get your +1D6 damage...
I think that the second part of that sentence should be stricken. You should always get +5 weapon skill when charging with lance and having fist charge bonus..


Let us start the discussion with KAP5, page 122, left co., top just after the Crown picture
"If a lance charge is made against anything other than a character wielding a great spear or another character making a lance charge, the charging knight gets a +5 modifier to his Lance skill."

A serious consideration here: the +5 is fine if you have it, but not if you lose and your foe has it. Of all common ways to get killed in one shot is to receive a critical hit from a charging enemy. Losing half of your player characters on the first round of a battle is not conducive to maximum fun.

(Have you played with the larger horses yet? I know that a lot peoples' perceptions are based on the 6d6 charger and 10+6 point protection.)

"Charging horsemen, armed with lance, get a +5 t Lance skill, unless their oponent is also mounted and charging with lance, or is infantry armed with greatspear, halberd or similar long-reaching weapon."

Is that right?


Yes



If that's true its better to drop your lance and fight with melee weapon against lance using opponents because you at least get your +1D6 damage...
I think that the second part of that sentence should be stricken. You should always get +5 weapon skill when charging with lance and having fist charge bonus..




Let us start the discussion with KAP5, page 122, left co., top just after the Crown picture
"If a lance charge is made against anything other than a character wielding a great spear or another character making a lance charge, the charging knight gets a +5 modifier to his Lance skill."

A serious consideration here: the +5 is fine if you have it, but not if you lose and your foe has it. Of all common ways to get killed in one shot is to receive a critical hit from a charging enemy. Losing half of your player characters on the first round of a battle is not conducive to maximum fun.

(Have you played with the larger horses yet? I know that a lot peoples' perceptions are based on the 6d6 charger and 10+6 point protection.)



I've had players with 10D6 and 16+6+3 armor in 4th edition long time ago. And a horse crit is indeed a battle ender.

But as the rule is written know, one side gets (potentially) the charge bonus, the other side definitely not.
So if the enemy has the charge bonus from the battle roll off, hold on to your lance/greatspear as you will deny the bonus to the enemy (as you are both lance wielding).
But if you get the charge bonus, and your opponent has a lance (and not the bonus) and you have a lance, neither gains any advantage.
However as the rules are written now, if you drop your lance at that moment instead, then you get +1D6 damage (and the opponent doesnt get the charge bonus since your leader won the first lance battle check).
You dont deny the opponent his charge bonus if your side won the roll off so you are free to drop your lance without giving advantage to the enemy.
So you get no advantage with lance during first charge, but you do get bonus for dropping lance and fighting with sword???


fg,
Thijs

Here's how I would run it:

First you decide what weapon to use in the charge (during Step 1 p. 18: "each player checks whether their knight … is armed with lance/spear, or other weapon"), then the unit comander rolls his Battle roll (at the start of Step 3, p. 22).

Just because you, the player, knows ahead of time that someone is getting a bonus does not mean that your character realizes that the odds are stacked against him until the very last second.

But as the rule is written know, one side gets (potentially) the charge bonus, the other side definitely not.
So if the enemy has the charge bonus from the battle roll off, hold on to your lance/greatspear as you will deny the bonus to the enemy (as you are both lance wielding).
But if you get the charge bonus, and your opponent has a lance (and not the bonus) and you have a lance, neither gains any advantage.
However as the rules are written now, if you drop your lance at that moment instead, then you get +1D6 damage (and the opponent doesnt get the charge bonus since your leader won the first lance battle check).
You dont deny the opponent his charge bonus if your side won the roll off so you are free to drop your lance without giving advantage to the enemy.
So you get no advantage with lance during first charge, but you do get bonus for dropping lance and fighting with sword???


Nonsense. this is rules lawyering of the most petty kind.
Let's scrutinize the rules.
Here is what I would do if my players tried such nonsense:

"OK, you dropped your lance so you are now at -5 for an additional action and the enemy still has lances so they get the +5 bonus for using a lance in a charge against an enemy without a long weapon."

Yes...I believe that once both sides DECLARE a lance charge then thats it. period. U arent able to wait and see that the other guy got a +5 bonus and so SUDDENLY change your mind. The rules are clear on this and made that way purposely to stop just this sort of silliness. :D

Horse too small?
If a knight’s damage bonus is equal to or greater than the damage bonus of his horse, the rider is “too big” for the horse. Each 1d6 damage that is greater than the horse adds another -6 to his Combat Skills.


--Greg



I really like this idea....



Hi !
Just a reaction about this idea
I think it's a good idea but Launcelot or Gawain have often greater damage bonus than the damage bonus of her horse... ::)
If only tall character must be penalized, SIZ must only be considered ?

I agree with Caball, that I'd prefer to see it be somehow just based on SIZ if such a penalty is used.
The amount: -6 per d6 seems a little extreme. It's probably fine later in the campaign when 8d6 destriers are about, but earlier on, it will make people who want to boost their SIZ and STR feel punished, and cause them to just boost Sword instead. There's already plenty of incentive to do that - I like players to consider it worthwhile to spend the glory they want to put in combat areas, on places other than sword.

My preference would probably be just a penalty to horsemanship, and maybe SIZ for the purpose of getting knockback rolls, OR maybe reducing the horses MOV and CON (it's burdened, carrying that giant around all day).

In any case, my bias is towards having no penalty at all. I see SIZ increases (which come from Glory, a supernatural benefit) as more of an abstract thing. The character isn't necessarily getting bigger, he is just getting better at not being knocked down and hitting harder.

I suggest a penality (-5, not -6 ?) for character who have a cultural bonus on SIZ (like Saxons & Danes) and a bonus dommage equal or greater than the dommage bonus of his horse.
what do you think of it ?

My preference would probably be just a penalty to horsemanship, and maybe SIZ for the purpose of getting knockback rolls, OR maybe reducing the horses MOV and CON (it's burdened, carrying that giant around all day).



I like this suggestion as well, and it's what I'll use in my game (especially as we've been playing without any such rule, and I have two knights with 6 or 7d6 damage. They've spent a lot of points on doing so, and I'd feel like I was unfairly penalising them if I made it 'suboptimal' to do so). -5 to Horsemanship and staying mounted and -1 to the horses Move and CON per d6 over its damage sounds good to me.

My preference would probably be just a penalty to horsemanship, and maybe SIZ for the purpose of getting knockback rolls, OR maybe reducing the horses MOV and CON (it's burdened, carrying that giant around all day).

I like this suggestion as well, and it's what I'll use in my game (especially as we've been playing without any such rule, and I have two knights with 6 or 7d6 damage. They've spent a lot of points on doing so, and I'd feel like I was unfairly penalising them if I made it 'suboptimal' to do so). -5 to Horsemanship and staying mounted and -1 to the horses Move and CON per d6 over its damage sounds good to me.


I understand these urges to be kind.
I have no objection. We all play our own games.
However, it is not done to penalize the player knights. There is a rule that I find logical and useful in my game to make things feel more right. I don't want giants riding horses, and the fact that the player knights are at the lowest edge of "giant" is a condition of the rules, not a design to penalize.

I do not think that a set of guidelines for using APP would be considered penalizing the early period knights, who tend to be plug ugly, big and strong.

I only bring this up because there is a tendency to make or modify rules to suit the PCs. I don't mind this (believe it or not, I think I built a number of these into the rules), as I do it all the time. But one thing I try to do is to keep it simple.

As a point of reference, the STR and SIZ are, to me, representative of physical characteristics. A big STR isn't abstract--skills and passions, those are abstract. The characteristics are physical--it is what sets them apart from the other statistics. Bigger might be taller, fatter, bulkier, big boned or whatever, but you will see it and feel it if you try to life it. Stronger might mean more muscles, harder muscles, wirey or thews like steel, but they are physical.

--Greg

Hum I agree with Greg for SIZ and STR
Greg doesnt want giants riding horse
and really in medieval text "giant knight" are often "evil knight" or "heathen knight" except for Galehaut

I think use this rules
a giant or tall character (SIZ 16+) with bonus damage greater (or equal ?) than the damage of his horse has - 5 to his combat skill/d6 greater