Slitherine

Played a game yesterday and noticed that swordsmen get a POA against mounted but skilled swordsmen don't. Seems odd that skilled swordsmen should be worse against mounted than 'ordinary' swordsmen. So I think I must have this wrong. If not what is the rationale?

Most skilled sword are romans or people trained as romans I think.

These used the short stabbing sword against mainly foot foes.

I would think and this is only my thoughts is that the stype of fighting with the short stabbing sword out through the side of the shield would'nt work against someone higher up than you and with a larger cavalry sword. Just my idea mind

sijeet wrote:Played a game yesterday and noticed that swordsmen get a POA against mounted but skilled swordsmen don't. Seems odd that skilled swordsmen should be worse against mounted than 'ordinary' swordsmen. So I think I must have this wrong. If not what is the rationale?

I think its the subtlety of the language used by the rule writers in trying to economise by using the fewest words possible.

The page 97 table reads to me as meaning:

Skilled Swordsmen get a plus against any except:
- elephants
- swordsmen who are mounted (only)
- steady pike/spear

Swordsmen get a plus against any except:
- elephants
- all swordsmen (whether mounted or not)
- skilled swordsmen
- steady pike/spear

Sounds plausible but aren't samurai with very effective long'ish swords also skilled swordsmen? And also aren't Spanish scutarii with very similar swords to Romans just swordsmen.

sijeet wrote:Sounds plausible but aren't samurai with very effective long'ish swords also skilled swordsmen? And also aren't Spanish scutarii with very similar swords to Romans just swordsmen.

The Samurai have skilled sword but only from 1467 and only 16 bases, true that the Spainish had a simular smallish sword but they were'nt drilled trained to use the sword till they were experts and then drilled again. I'm also sure the Spainish did'nt use the shield wall and the thrusting short sword of the romans. But its not my period but I'm sure someone will pop by that can explain it better than me.

The real reasoning is to net out the effect to 0 POA. They did not want skilled swordsmen to get a POA advantage versus mounted swordsmen for game effects reason.

sijeet wrote:Played a game yesterday and noticed that swordsmen get a POA against mounted but skilled swordsmen don't. Seems odd that skilled swordsmen should be worse against mounted than 'ordinary' swordsmen. So I think I must have this wrong. If not what is the rationale?

You have got it wrong. They are exactly the same as normal swordsmen vs mounted - not better or worse.

Madaxeman can you explain how you get to that from the language of the rule. I wish it were so but I'm not seeing it. Is it Zoltan's reasoning ie mounted subsumed within swordsmen?

sijeet wrote:Madaxeman can you explain how you get to that from the language of the rule. I wish it were so but I'm not seeing it. Is it Zoltan's reasoning ie mounted subsumed within swordsmen?

You have to remember that there is no such capability as "Mounted Swordsmen", just "Swordsmen". When the rules mention mounted swordsmen it means mounted troops who have the Swordsmen capability. A touch clumsy perhaps, but it all flows when you just think in terms of the actual capabilities.

Odd though that the skilled swordsmen POA mentions mounted swordsmen and swordsmen doesn't (perhaps lack of space) if that is the explanation. But happy with the interpretation - makes sense.

So I think we have reached a position where the rules give effect to:
- Samurai (et al) on foot get a POA against mere mortal swordsmen also on foot (i.e. your typical Hollywood/Kurowsawa foot fight)
- however even Samurai (et al) on foot are "neutralised" by the elevated position of mere mortal swordsmen on horses.

skilled sword cancels sword POA except for mounted sword. Sword and sword cancel each other out, so mounted or foot you end up at 0 POA. really makes it all less wordy in the end.

If we assume that swordsmen includes skilled and mounted swordsmen then no swordsmen get a + against any other swordsmen (second line of melee POA). However skilled swordsmen get a + against any swordsmen except mounted swordsmen (first line of melee POA). So

Skilled v ord swordsmen = +
Skilled v mounted = 0
Mounted v any swordsmen = 0

Sounds reasonable and you get there but the language isn't easy. FOG generally is a massive improvement over other ancient rule sets in its clarity and use of modern English. I suppose this is the odd example which could have done with a fuller exposition.

Equal weapons always cancel out each others POA, so two HW's, or pike vs pike will cancel out to 0 POA's

Sw will always cancel out Sw so 0 POA

Its just the skilled Sw that is affected by the mounted Sw.

I guess if you play a few times you pick up on it and it seems easy to remember if you look at it on the charts. I thought it was a clever system for troops that are great Vs foot but not so good against the mounted. Also gives my Cats 1 up on the Roman scum they have to chop down all the time.