Topic: Another Lance and FBIGO discussion

[The Peacemaker]

Commandant you seem to make alot of assumptions.
GW rules writers are native english speakers but they are not competent in writting english.
English is a very nuanced language which has alot of words with similar meanings but still different. GW rules writers get this wrong all the time.

You also make assumptions about the player base as a whole, saying players are interpreting the rules because they don't want lances to be nerfed. I am a player who has all great weapons on my knights and I would love a nerf to lances in order to make great weapons worthwhile. And Bret players would like a reason to field their very expensive questing knights too.

Lances specifically state they get their bonus when charging. Everyone arguing about turns, rounds, etc... ses to ignore this. How are y'all leaping to lances only working on the first round/turn or whatever of a combat?
....you guys just copy pasting in your mind from 6th edition 20 years ago or something?

[commandant]

I am admittedly making a lot of assumptions.

We are not ignoring the fact they get their bonus when charging. We are are simply stating that in order to get their bonus they must be armed with lances.

The question is not "Do the models get the bonus if a: they are charging and b: they are armed with the lances?" The answer to this is obviously yes.

The question is "Are the models armed with lances in the second round (turn) of combat?" The answer to this is no. Therefore they can't get the bonus because they are not armed with the weapon which gives them the bonus, regardless of the fact they sre charging.

This is the importance of the "or" in the sentence and the importance of assumed knowledge. Like for example the sentence "Would you like cake or bread?" doesn't really make sense. The sentence is in fact "Would you like cake or, if you would not like cake would you like bread?" The thing is that in common speech the "if you would not like cake would you like" is left out as assumed to be understood.

The lance rule should read something like

Models whose troop type is cavalry or monster only. A lance can only be used during a turn in which the wielder charged. In subsequent turns of the same combat or in other combats in which the wielder did not charge the model must use its handweapon instead."

After the "or" there is some interpretation needed certainly but because or is a conjunction you can remove it and all that is tied to it and see what happens.

Then you get the rule "In subsequent turns the model must use its handweapon."

Now you can ask In subsequent turns of what? You get in subsequent turns of combat.

Now what would the rule look like if you were correct and you get to use the lance after FBIGO.   It would read

In subsequent turns (and if the wielder did not charge) the model must use its handweapon.

Here both conditions need to be fulfilled in order for the model to be compelled to use its handweapons.

In the rule as written if 1 of the conditions is fulfilled the model is compelled to use its handweapon.


Therefore the question is are either of the conditions laid down in the lance rule fulfilled and the answer is, following the FAQ, yes. It is a subsequent turn and therefore regardless of whether or not the model charged it kust use its handweapon as per the rule "In subsequent turns the model must use its handweapn"

[PowerSeries]

I think my interpretation of their English is more like this

Models whose troop type is cavalry or monster only. A lance can only be used during a turn in which the wielder charged. If the wielder did not charge this turn (either because it's a subsequent round of combat or they were charged and did not countercharge) the model must use its handweapon instead."

The  extra clause is just "not charging" -> use hand weapon.  And explaining why you might have not charged.

[Hoffa]

In subsequent turns OR if the wielder didn't charge


We have an OR statement with the two terms

Subsequent turn
didn't charge

This statement tells us when a lance can't be used*

An OR statement is true if any of the terms are true

Either term can be true or false so we get:

Subsequent turn = false, didn't charge   = false(Allowed to use lance)
Subsequent turn = false, didn't charge   = true (Not Allowed to use lance)
Subsequent turn = true,  didn't charge   = false(Not allowed to use lance)
Subsequent turn = true,  didn't charge   = true (Not allowed to use lance)

A seen lances require charging but it is not enough to be charging,

*The rules would be much easier to read if GW had written rules for when a lance can be used instead of describing when it can't

[commandant]

*The rules would be much easier to read if GW had written rules for when a lance can be used instead of describing when it can't

This is true. You wrote the explanation in a much shorter method than me.

[PowerSeries]

Gw did, they said "Can be used if you charged".

They just also gave some overlapping negative cases too.

[Hoffa]

Gw did, they said "Can be used if you charged".

They just also gave some overlapping negative cases too.

It's the other way around. It's the positive part that is overlapping You don' really need the " A lance can only be used during a turn in which the wielder charged" it is redundant since the second part of the rule tells us all we need to know

The full Rule is an AND statement with two terms

Charged
not(subsequent turn OR didn't charge)   

An AND statement is true if both terms are true.

Writing this I realized the problem. Some people must be misreading the rule as Charged OR not(subsequent turn OR didn't charge) If that was the rule charging would indeed be enough and the second part would be redundant.

EDIT: or even simpler. Misreading (subsequent turn OR didn't charge) as (subsequent turn AND didn't charge)

In any case rule is horribly written as there is a redundant statement and you should not need to apply formal logic to decipher a rule. Actually the rule is written in a way that makes it unlikely the designer has ever studied formal logic meaning that RAW might not be RAI and that a faq on this could go either way.

[PowerSeries]

I think it's two rules.

1.  You can use Lance when changed.
2.  If you aren't using the Lance (with possible reason given), you can use hand weapon, and get enscorceled weapons of whatever.

If they didn't have 2, you would be using a +0S Lance in following turns.  But 2 isn't meant to override the clear conditions of 1.

[commandant]

You might think that but that is not what the rules says. For the rule to say that you would need an "and" statement.

[Hoffa]

I think it's two rules.

1.  You can use Lance when charging.
2.  If you aren't using the Lance (with possible reason given), you can use hand weapon, and get enscorceled weapons of whatever.

If they didn't have 2, you would be using a +0S Lance in following turns.  But 2 isn't meant to override the clear conditions of 1.

Doesn't matter if it one or two rules as you still have to follow both. You have also changed 2) when you reworded it.

1)  You can use Lance if you charged.
2)  You must use hand weapon if it is a subsequent turn OR if you are not charging.

Is what the rules say. You must follow both, nothing says that 2) only applies if you don't fulfill 1)

[The Peacemaker]

Page 215 im reading the lace rules.
"In subsequent turns(or if weilder did not charge)".

Poor english with the use of those brackets, but i think i'm reading it correctly now.
So in all subsequent turns the lance is not used.
The brackets simply describe a situation in which the weilder did not charge but it is not a subsequent turn. Such as the cavalry being charged.

[commandant]

Yes. This is correct.

Admittedly because calvary have counter charge in this edition it is difficult for calvary to not charge. Basically you have to hit them in the flank.

[Hoffa]

@Peacemaker. This is my reading as well and really the part in brackets is redundant. It's an example of GW not being able to stop "talking" and there by adding confusion. Without the bracket rule is simplified to

1) You can use lance when you charge
2) You can't use lance on a subsequent turn

Which is the same as saying

You can use lance when:
Charge = true AND Subsequent turn = false

As regardless on if it counts as one or two rules you still have to follow both.

Combat after FBIGO leads to Charge = true, Subsequent turn = true meaning lances can't be used.



(Which is still a strange way of expressing it)

[The Peacemaker]

It also leads to the question of why do FBIGO units count as charging? What other rules does this work on?
If there aren't any then it means they obviously intended it for Lances but then changed their minds and did a poor job of editing.

I guess Cavalry Spears get their bonus in subsequent rounds.

[commandant]

Because then you get I bonus, if you have furious charge you get that, I'm sure there are other bonuses.

[Hoffa]

It also leads to the question of why do FBIGO units count as charging? What other rules does this work on?
If there aren't any then it means they obviously intended it for Lances but then changed their minds and did a poor job of editing.

I guess Cavalry Spears get their bonus in subsequent rounds.

Cavalry spears work in subsequent rounds.

You get the Initiative bonus and impact hits at least (provided you move far enough) there might be more rules. I think lances are unique in only working on the initial charge but not FBIGO charges.

As I have mentioned, there is reason to suspect that the "subsequent turns" and 'combat after FBIGO is not a new combat' interaction was not intended. The "subsequent turns" bit is copy paste from 8:th edition were it didn't matter as you could never be charging in a subsequent turn anyway.

[commandant]

I do think it is intended though because otherwise why would you take Great Weapon Armed knights.

[Hoffa]

@Commendant.

Great weapon knights would still be usefull When you get charged or combat ends with draw/give ground.  If there ever is a faq on lances it feels 50/50 on how it is going to go.

[Minsc]

If cavalry spears work according to their wording then I'm now a 100% certain that it not working for lances is a sloppy oversight due to them being lazy and just copy-pasting their rules from 8th.

It makes no sense that it would work for either but not both

I do think it is intended though because otherwise why would you take Great Weapon Armed knights.

commandant, no offense but this is honestly such a strange thing to say...
I don't necessarily agree with you on some ruleinterpretations, but you're a smart guy, and you know full well why you can take Knights with Great Weapons: Because the parts are included in the box, and have been for 20+ years. It's as simple as that.
It has absolutely nothing to do with game balance (GW couldn't care less what weaponoption is the best) nor is it in any way an insinuation from GW for how to interpret their poorly worded rules.

Besides, even if Lances would be superior in most situations, there are absolutely situations where a GW would be better.

[commandant]

Maybe though cav spears are a different weapon. Can't units armed with cav spears fight in two ranks?

I can't remember what their rules are.

[Hoffa]

The fact the cavalry spears work in later rounds hints at the faq writer not bothering to check the rules before writing.

You don't get to switch from cavalry spears to hand weapons.

Now "...discarding a broken lance or spear and drawing a sword" is only fluff text but still evidence of a poorly written faq.

[Skyros]

The question is "Are the models armed with lances in the second round (turn) of combat?" The answer to this is no..

Incorrect. At the beginning of a 2nd turn of combat, where you are choosing which weapon to use, the knights are still equipped with lances.

[Skyros]

@Peacemaker. This is my reading as well and really the part in brackets is redundant. It's an example of GW not being able to stop "talking" and there by adding confusion. Without the bracket rule is simplified to

1) You can use lance when you charge
2) You can't use lance on a subsequent turn

Which is the same as saying

You can use lance when:
Charge = true AND Subsequent turn = false

As regardless on if it counts as one or two rules you still have to follow both.

Combat after FBIGO leads to Charge = true, Subsequent turn = true meaning lances can't be used.

If lances cannot be used in subsequent player turns, lances are a one use per game item.

There are literally only two possible interpretations using what the rules say, instead of what we wish they said

1) Lances my be used in any player turn where the unit wielding them counts as charging. It doesn't matter if it's a pursuit, an overrun, a new charge, first round, second round, none of that. All that matters is : did you charge.
2) If it is any player turn AFTER you used lances, you may not use lances. Again, it doesn't matter if it's a pursuit, an overrun, a new charge, first round of combat, last round of combat : all that matters is : Is this player turn subsequent to the player turn you charged. If the answer is yes (which it will be for every single player turn of the game now) then no lances

That is because it's not clear how to evaluate the two stage expression 1) You can use lances in a player turn you charged 2) In subsequent player turns, you must use a hand weapon instead.

Is it a logic gate? (IF you charged then lances, otherwise see second clause.) Or  does the second part override the first? (Regardless of if you charged or not, if you charged before, no lances )

But anybody bringing phrases like 'rounds of combat' into it is just wrong. The issues with the lances existed prior to the FAQ and the FAQ did not address them in any way. This is due to the ambiguity in the 'subsequent player turns' expression. This would exist even if FBIGO did not exist at all, technically speaking, although without the FBIGO confusion causing everyone to carefully scrutinize every phrase in the rulebook it might not come up.

[Skyros]

Now, that's one side of the 'can you use lances' discussion. The other is : can you SWITCH to lances if you don't have them equipped?
A unit could be qualified to use lances if they were equipped, but unable to use them if they are not equipped.

This is still vague despite the FAQ and needs a further FAQ

If a unit of knights is armed with lances and charges somebody, let's say they win, opponent FBIGO, they pursue and catch them.
Second round of combat begins. The knights are still armed with lances. They can use lances if they are equipped with them. (Unless lances can only be used in one player turn of the game) and so get the lance bonus. Pretty clear, so far so good.

But let's consider another case
Knights charge with lances
Opponent either holds or gives ground
At the beginning of the second round of combat, since the knights did not charge, they must switch to hand weapons
Let's say in the second round, the opponent FBIGO, the knights pursue and catch them.
At the beginning of the 3rd round, the knights count as charging, but are currently equipped with hand weapons. Can they switch back? The FAQ says that lance armed units (and apparently...spear armed units?) are exempt from the normal rules about not switching weapons between rounds. It *implies* that this is a single directional exemption (IE switching from lances and spears to swords but not back) but doesn't outright state it. Situation is unclear here. And is unclear even in the base rule wording where, again, lances (but not spears this time) are given an exemption to the 'can't switch weapons mid combat' rules.

Note that the answer to switching to lances in pursuing a FBIGO ought to be the same if they pursue a FBIGO target and hit someone else. They have even less time to prepare or switch weapons if there is another unit in between them and their FBIGO target they are pursuing, so if they can use lances there, they should certainly be able to use lances if they catch the original target.

[Hoffa]

@Skyros

"If lances cannot be used in subsequent player turns, lances are a one use per game item."

I remember someone making the above argument when 8:th edition (that also had the subsequent turn wording) was new. It was never resolved. But as no one played lances as one use only during the entire 8:th edition and GW published and updated the 8:th edition faq several times we can safely conclude that this wording does not make lances one use only.

-----------------------
...at the beginning of the 3rd round, the knights count as charging, but are currently equipped with hand weapons. Can they switch back?

No they are locked in place and being locked in place prevents changing weapons. (p213)
----------------------

That is because it's not clear how to evaluate the two stage expression 1) You can use lances in a player turn you charged 2) In subsequent player turns, you must use a hand weapon instead.

Is it a logic gate? (IF you charged then lances, otherwise see second clause.) Or  does the second part override the first? (Regardless of if you charged or not, if you charged before, no lances )

It is not a two stage expression It is one logical statement. Second part does not override the first but the conditions given in the first and second part must all be fullfilled. (This makes the first part redundant but this is beside the point)

 I have written about it in previous post but I can give it as pseudo program code also

if(Charging)
   then (if not subsequent turn)
        then (if Charging)
                use lance
        else
                use handweapon
   else
         use handwepon
else
   use handweapon

If charging is written twice above but that is because the first part of the rule is redundant.

With this said there are two questions left to answer

1) When is it a subsequent turn? 
This is easy to answer: If you charge, win and successfully pursue FBIGO enemy it will be a subsequent turn when combat continues

2) When is it not a subsequent turn
This one is hard, never! would be a possible answer if we didn't know from 8:th edition that the rule is not supposed to work that way. This leaves:When it is combat round 1 again as the only possible answer.

With all of this said. There is no way in  GW meant us to work out the rule as I done above. I'm convinced what I have written follows the RAW but: This is not how GW designers reason or write rules.  I will play lances as first round of combat only until there is a new faq but I really think GW need to write the faq about lances they should have written in 2010 and explain what is meant by the "In subsequent turns" bit.