Slitherine

IMHO it is unambiguous, and the alternative meaning would require 'except' rather than 'unless'. It would be a shame to invent another language in an attempt to avoid Barkerese...I'd rather just stick with English!

rbodleyscott wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:

Impact Foot

1) Impact phase POAs for impact foot become:

++ against any foot
+ against any mounted, unless charging shock mounted

Does this mean :

"+ against any mounted unless the Impact foot are charging against shock mounted"
or
"+ against mounted unless those mounted are shock mounted who are charging" ?

The first.

I would submit that that is by far the more natural (plain English) reading if you treat the whole POA line as a sentence. "Impact foot [get] + against any mounted, unless charging shock mounted.".

However, I accept that if you read it assuming it is in Barkerese, you could get the alternative meaning.

I wholly agree with your comment (and that "except" would have been the natural word to use for interpretation 2). I would also submit that fans of previous WRG sets may well read it assuming it might be in Barkerese, especially when it suits them to do so.

rbodleyscott wrote:Can you suggest alternative completely unambiguous wording?

Here are two suggestions:

Impact foot if not charging shock mounted + against any mounted

Impact foot + against any mounted except shock-mounted they are charging

Leaving aside theoretical considerations, how do those who have actually play-tested MF archers/crossbowmen with the proposed changes feel about them?

Is their shooting too effective with 1 dice per 1st/2nd rank at effective range, or is the rules modification an improvement?

(If you haven't play tested them, don't comment now, please go and play-test them and then comment).

Obviously this issue is important for game balance.

rbodleyscott wrote:Leaving aside theoretical considerations, how do those who have actually play-tested MF archers/crossbowmen with the proposed changes feel about them?

Is their shooting too effective with 1 dice per 1st/2nd rank at effective range, or is the rules modification an improvement?

(If you haven't play tested them, don't comment now, please go and play-test them and then comment).

Obviously this issue is important for game balance.

Ignoring the mini argument between Dave and I over how long it would have taken for him to loose ...

In our game last night reasonably massed MF longbow and crossbow were effective but not super troops. If Dave had tried to advance without generals etc. he may well have had a different story but while I shot several bases dead I don't think the end result was unreasonable.

Hammy

Our game yesterday we decided to try plentiful missiles against good cavalry. We played a Burgundian Ordonnance (3x6 longbow BGs, 2x4 crossbows, assorted pikes and knights, some light troops and inconsequential artillery) against an Early Byzantine (2x6 lancer cavalry, 2x6 bow cavalry, 1x4 Boukellarii mixed bows and lances, skutatoi, Isaurians, some LH and an 8 base BG of archers).

The battle was decided mostly in melee, but that was indirectly caused by the menace of projectile fire, forcing the Byzantine to be aggresive when the Burgundian line got in range, enabling the knights and pikes to catch them. We did not notice more breaks and cohesion losses due to bowfire, as compared to before the change, but there were more base losses. When we usually had 2-3 hits, now are 3-4, with some 5s (6 longbows against armoured cavalry in double ranks, 8 bows focusing fire on my own bows). The Byzantine IC made sure the cohesion loss from missile fire within his influence was minimal, but outside it there were problems. I should mention the 4 base crossbow BGs which are excellent stoppers for marauding light horse. The Byzantine LH was shot up and broken by one of these BGs. That extra die makes them deadly for troops with weak cohesion rolls.

As I said above, it was melee what gave the Burgundians the victory, but without the archers they could never have forced the Byzantines into inadequate melees in the first place. And the Byzantine bows were the best unit of their army, breaking longbows with fire, blunting the Burgundian knights and almost saving the centre.

Once they have beaten a cavalry army, a harder test awaits, an infantry army.

Jos?©