Light Horse versus Light Foot; Number of Dice

[southbaybob]

Looking for a ruling from RBS, Nik or Hammy.

Light horse versus light foot in impact or melee. Let's say there are
4 LH bases in single rank fighting 4 LF bases in single rank (in the
impact phase. If the both sides weren't light, it would be 8 dice for
each unit. Normally light troops lose 1 dice per 2, which would mean
they'd each have 4 dice. But the cheat sheet says that light troops
lose 1 dice per 2 unless :
LF vs. LF
LH vs. LH or LF................
So I read this as the light horse get 8 dice while the light foot get
4 dice. Do you agree?


Thanks,
Bob

[rbodleyscott]

Looking for a ruling from RBS, Nik or Hammy.

Light horse versus light foot in impact or melee. Let's say there are
4 LH bases in single rank fighting 4 LF bases in single rank (in the
impact phase. If the both sides weren't light, it would be 8 dice for
each unit. Normally light troops lose 1 dice per 2, which would mean
they'd each have 4 dice. But the cheat sheet says that light troops
lose 1 dice per 2 unless :
LF vs. LF
LH vs. LH or LF................
So I read this as the light horse get 8 dice while the light foot get
4 dice. Do you agree?

No ruling required. It is what the rules say. Not only on the cheat sheet but in the main rules P.92 (and P.93).

[lawrenceg]

Looking for a ruling from RBS, Nik or Hammy.

Light horse versus light foot in impact or melee. Let's say there are
4 LH bases in single rank fighting 4 LF bases in single rank (in the
impact phase. If the both sides weren't light, it would be 8 dice for
each unit. Normally light troops lose 1 dice per 2, which would mean
they'd each have 4 dice. But the cheat sheet says that light troops
lose 1 dice per 2 unless :
LF vs. LF
LH vs. LH or LF................
So I read this as the light horse get 8 dice while the light foot get
4 dice. Do you agree?

No ruling required. It is what the rules say. Not only on the cheat sheet but in the main rules P.92 (and P.93).

Some have tried to argue that "LH or LF lose 1 dice per 2 unless LH vs. LH or LF"

means "if LH and LH, or LH and LF, are fighting each other, then the dice reduction applies to neither the LH nor the LF".

The logic is (if I am LF fighting LH):

I am (LH or LF)
The fight is LH vs LF
This is a listed exception
Therefore I don't get a dice reduction.

IMO there is some ambiguity in the wording. "Versus" does not mean "trying to hit".

The intended rule assumes an understood "they are" after the "unless" and "fighting" before "versus". This might be too many (not very strongly implied) words to be added in by a LF player whose blood is up.

[SirGarnet]

The actual line in the official QRS is "unless LF vs. LF, or LH vs. LH or LF, or any vs. Fragmented enemy" and p92 spells out versus.

vs. = against which is transitive, so there is a subject base and and object base. Adding "they are" or "fighting" doesn't affect the meaning. It's the "vs/against".

I think the contrary argument some people are making is disingenuous, since "if X vs. Y" in effect means "if X and Y are in combat" then logically POAs apply to both sides mentioned in the table, so the ++ for "Impact Foot against any foot" means "if Impact Foot and any foot are in combat" then both get the ++.

[southbaybob]

Hi,

You may not like his English, but Richard is clear on what they were trying to say.

Cheers,
Bob

[lawrenceg]

The actual line in the official QRS is "unless LF vs. LF, or LH vs. LH or LF, or any vs. Fragmented enemy" and p92 spells out versus.

vs. = against which is transitive, so there is a subject base and and object base. Adding "they are" or "fighting" doesn't affect the meaning. It's the "vs/against".

"against" is not a verb, so can it be transitive?

Chelsea vs Arsenal is the same as Arsenal vs Chelsea isn't it?

I think the contrary argument some people are making is disingenuous, since "if X vs. Y" in effect means "if X and Y are in combat" then logically POAs apply to both sides mentioned in the table, so the ++ for "Impact Foot against any foot" means "if Impact Foot and any foot are in combat" then both get the ++.

No, because it is not "Impact foot or any foot + if impact foot against any foot"

I agree the argument is usually disingenuous, but the wording is such that a disingenouous (or mistaken) argument is easy to make, and to refute it requires a number of relatively obscure and/or somewhat dubious linguistic points to be made.

THis is certainly not the first time this issue has been raised, so, although it is possible to work out what it means, the wording obviously is not as clear as it could be. For example:

LH.......Lose 1 dice per 2 unless fighting LH, LF or fragmented enemy
LF........Lose 1 dice per 2 unless fighting LF or fragmented enemy

cannot be misinterpreted. It takes an extra line in the table at the back of the rules, but they could have shifted the "to hit" numbers to the opposite page.

[SirGarnet]

in the rules "against" and "vs." are used as a transitive verb, and also as shorthand in other contexts.

Chelsea vs Arsenal is the same as Arsenal vs Chelsea isn't it?

In some contexts that first option tells me Chelsea is the visiting team, party initiating the lawsuit or invader.

No, because it is not "Impact foot or any foot + if impact foot against any foot"

It says "Impact Foot ++ against any foot", which is like "Chelsea ++ against Arsenal."

I think it is assumed that players have the intelligence to figure out that ++ against means "gets two POAs against" and LH vs. LF reduction refers to the reduction of the first listed and not the second.

[Claudius]

Do the various aspects of the authors' here-to-fore unknown logic and linguistic assumptions contained within the FoG rule book tables apply to all the tables in the rule book and Army lists? How are we to interpret the various sometimes ambiguous (since their logic may be unknown) tables?

Suggest that the various FoG rule book tables and rules be cleansed of the implicit, often unknown, arcane linguistic constructions and assumptions; or that the tables and rules be expanded to clear up some observed discrepancies. Maybe it is American English Vs. UK English?

For example, from another Forum rules discussion, the "Light" forces Impact and Melee tables seem to contain rules/regs which are ambiguous without some accompanying knowledge of the author's logic and intentions.

Regarding the number of dice per base for Light Foot vs. Light Horse - or any Light vs. Light Impact or Melee ...
From the FoG rule book, page 92, "Impact Phase Dice" table:
REDUCTIONS
Light Foot or Light Horse Lose 1 dice per 2 unless:
> Light Foot vs. Light Foot
> Light Horse vs. Light Horse or Light Foot
> Any vs .....

Without insight into the authors' logic/intent, the table's English and meanings, in terms of the "or"s, is perfectly clear:
In the cases of Light Horse vs. Light Horse, Light Horse vs. Light Foot, Light Foot vs. Light Foot or Light Foot vs. Light Horse there are no dice losses.

Perhaps the dice loss penalties are only intended for Light vs. Medium, or Light vs. Heavy. Which makes sense.

In the p. 93 Melee table, there also are no modifiers, or explanations of the authors' underlying assumptions and logic.

Code: Select all

[lawrenceg]

in the rules "against" and "vs." are used as a transitive verb, and also as shorthand in other contexts.

Chelsea vs Arsenal is the same as Arsenal vs Chelsea isn't it?

In some contexts that first option tells me Chelsea is the visiting team, party initiating the lawsuit or invader.

In those contexts, the extra information is by context-dependent convention, not implicit in the language.

No, because it is not "Impact foot or any foot + if impact foot against any foot"

It says "Impact Foot ++ against any foot", which is like "Chelsea ++ against Arsenal."

I think it is assumed that players have the intelligence to figure out that ++ against means "gets two POAs against" and LH vs. LF reduction refers to the reduction of the first listed and not the second.

Yes, I too think this is assumed. I'm just pointing out that there is evidence that for some players in the second case this assumption may not be justified and drawing attention to the reasons why these players have difficulty.

The rules do mean:

In impact or melee
LH lose dice except when fighting LH, LF or any FRAGMENTED troops
LF lose dice except when fighting LF or any FRAGMENTED troops

It's just that some players (with whom I have some sympathy) have some difficulty working out that that is what they mean.

[lawrenceg]

in the rules "against" and "vs." are used as a transitive verb, and also as shorthand in other contexts.

Chelsea vs Arsenal is the same as Arsenal vs Chelsea isn't it?

In some contexts that first option tells me Chelsea is the visiting team, party initiating the lawsuit or invader.

In those contexts, the extra information is by context-dependent convention, not implicit in the language.

No, because it is not "Impact foot or any foot + if impact foot against any foot"

It says "Impact Foot ++ against any foot", which is like "Chelsea ++ against Arsenal."

I think it is assumed that players have the intelligence to figure out that ++ against means "gets two POAs against" and LH vs. LF reduction refers to the reduction of the first listed and not the second.

Yes, I too think this is assumed. I'm just pointing out that there is evidence that for some players in the second case this assumption may not be justified and drawing attention to the reasons why these players have difficulty.

The rules do mean:

In impact or melee
LH lose dice except when fighting LH, LF or any FRAGMENTED troops
LF lose dice except when fighting LF or any FRAGMENTED troops

It's just that some players (with whom I have some sympathy) have some difficulty working out that that is what they mean.

[Redpossum]

So LH do not lose dice when fighting LF?

That seems to be the question here, now that I have a headache from parsing all the rules-lawyerly verbiage...

[rbodleyscott]

So LH do not lose dice when fighting LF?

Correct

[Redpossum]

So LH do not lose dice when fighting LF?

Correct

Thank you, sir.

I heartily agree with the poster who said that "vs" is ambiguous and should not be used in this context. What they mean is "attacking" and that is what should be said. If an abbreviation is needed, "atk" works fine.

Rules arguments are the bane of happy gaming. Not the smallest joy of computer games is the absence of even the potential for such. Being a board gamer from way back, (~1972) I remember those all too well.

[SirGarnet]

I heartily agree with the poster who said that "vs" is ambiguous and should not be used in this context. What they mean is "attacking" and that is what should be said. If an abbreviation is needed, "atk" works fine.

Doesn't that open the door to their losing no dice when "defending"? Even more room for argument.

I think Lawrenceq's wording leaves the least to misinterpretation even by those with no military or historical context.

Rules arguments are the bane of happy gaming. Not the smallest joy of computer games is the absence of even the potential for such. Being a board gamer from way back, (~1972) I remember those all too well.

But in a computer game you just have to live with the errors.

[Claudius]

Why not just write out the rules in the FoG rule book text and tables fully, clearly and succinctly.
Without depending upon arcane and/or unspecified modifiers, verbs, adverbs, football analogies or logic structures.
The Light forces rows of the FoG rule book tables on pages 92 and 93 would be a good place to start.

As customers paying quite a bit for these FoG books, we should be provided with comprehensive well-written easy-to understand rules and tables.
We should not have to refer dictionaries, grammar books or philosophy/logic texts to understand FoG.

Another gripe is that the rules tend to be spread over the text, tables, glossary, et al in a random fashion.
So info may have to be gathered from various books or "chapters", and then compiled to put together a complete story on an issue.

Cheers,
Claudius

[carlos]

You people should be ashamed of yourselves for such poor reading comprehension.

[sagji]

Regarding the number of dice per base for Light Foot vs. Light Horse - or any Light vs. Light Impact or Melee ...
From the FoG rule book, page 92, "Impact Phase Dice" table:
REDUCTIONS
Light Foot or Light Horse Lose 1 dice per 2 unless:
> Light Foot vs. Light Foot
> Light Horse vs. Light Horse or Light Foot
> Any vs .....

Without insight into the authors' logic/intent, the table's English and meanings, in terms of the "or"s, is perfectly clear:
In the cases of Light Horse vs. Light Horse, Light Horse vs. Light Foot, Light Foot vs. Light Foot or Light Foot vs. Light Horse there are no dice losses.

I think you are slightly wrong.
In a straight up fight LH versus LF then neither gets a reduction - because there is LH vs LF in the combat.
However if the LF are fighting as an overlap, or against a flank or rear that hasn't turned, and thus there is no LH vs LF but purely a LF vs LH then the LF are reduced.

However I believe the authors' intensions are that it should be read with a "they are" immediatly after the unless.

[lawrenceg]

You people should be ashamed of yourselves for such poor reading comprehension.

I blame the teachers.

Why not just write out the rules in the FoG rule book text and tables fully, clearly and succinctly.
Without depending upon arcane and/or unspecified modifiers, verbs, adverbs, football analogies or logic structures.
The Light forces rows of the FoG rule book tables on pages 92 and 93 would be a good place to start.

As customers paying quite a bit for these FoG books, we should be provided with comprehensive well-written easy-to understand rules and tables.
We should not have to refer dictionaries, grammar books or philosophy/logic texts to understand FoG.

In a 170 page rule book there are only a few places where people have difficulty. So the authors have delivered 99% what you ask for. Those few places are mostly where the balance is too much towards "succinctly".

Another gripe is that the rules tend to be spread over the text, tables, glossary, et al in a random fashion.
So info may have to be gathered from various books or "chapters", and then compiled to put together a complete story on an issue.

This is easier said than done as some information is used in a number of places in different ways. Also I believe the authors had a policy of not duplicating information. Do you put all the rules relating to disorder by terrain in:
A section on terain definitions?
A section on movement?
A section on combat?
A separate section on disorder?

Which section would you look in to find out if your combat dice would be affected by terrain you proposed to move into?

This issue is cured to a large extent by the more comprehensive index at
http://www.fieldofglory.com/file/EXPANDEDINDEX.pdf

[SirGarnet]

I must be getting tired. It seems like I'm reading the same posts over and over again.

The official view is clear, the linguistic contentions are clear - let's stop before we have to draft another light horse to beat into pulpy horsejuice.

[Redpossum]

I must be getting tired. It seems like I'm reading the same posts over and over again.

The official view is clear, the linguistic contentions are clear - let's stop before we have to draft another light horse to beat into pulpy horsejuice.

NO LIE!

I summarised the question as briefly and directly as possible in the 11th post, rbodleyscott answered answered it in a totally unequivocal manner in the 12th post, and people are still arguing...

<humor>
I'll tell you what it is. I think you guys enjoy this part. You never get to win an argument with your wives, so you have to try to score a argument-win on each other
</humor>