Pikes and Cavalry Lances

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Yes he is. Damage is dependent on his own ST, not that of the horse. All the horse provides is greater speed and a height advantage.

It may not be dependent on the horse's ST but that doesn't change that he would be doing less damage with a couched lance if the horse was stationary.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Sindri

It may not be dependent on the horse's ST but that doesn't change that he would be doing less damage with a couched lance if the horse was stationary.

Not something we're disputing. There are rules for using melee weapons from horseback, that are probably more suitable than the lance rules.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Not something we're disputing. There are rules for using melee weapons from horseback, that are probably more suitable than the lance rules.

Oh really? And yet somehow despite not disputing it people disagree that the horse is the source of kinetic energy and thus damage.

The fact that you can fight differently while stationary is irrelevant.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Not something we're disputing. There are rules for using melee weapons from horseback, that are probably more suitable than the lance rules.

Not if lancing at speed from horseback is actually useful, rather than being a convenient adjunct move to trying to intimidate your target with a charging horse.

[Z09SS]

The speed is the source extra energy.

The rider's ST determines how much of that velocity can be applied to the target because he's got to remain seated and hang onto the weapon.

A lance would work from a motorcycle or the back of a truck.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Z09SS

The speed is the source extra energy.

The rider's ST determines how much of that velocity can be applied to the target because he's got to remain seated and hang onto the weapon.

Basing the damage on the collision model but using the rider's ST instead of the horse would not represent that. You'd keep benefitting from more velocity even if you're a chipmunk lancing while strapped to the outside of a jet fighter. You'd just be 10 times less effective at any given speed than the 100-fold heavier gnome lancers.

[martinl]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

You'd keep benefitting from more velocity even if you're a chipmunk lancing while strapped to the outside of a jet fighter.

OK, now someone has to work jet-fighter mounted chipmunk lancers into their game, because that is AWESOME.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Not if lancing at speed from horseback is actually useful, rather than being a convenient adjunct move to trying to intimidate your target with a charging horse.

I imagine that the fact that a couched lance is much longer than any other weapon that the rider can use has something to do with it. In the rare case that you're facing someone who doesn't want to get out of the way of the crashing hooves, you want to skewer him well before he skewers the horse.

Given that knights jousted in mail with sharpened lances, it is obvious that they were not relying on their lances to penetrate real armour with any reliability. Either they hit an unarmoured part, in which case damage was somewhat irrelevant, as it doesn't take penetration of all that much flesh to reach the squishy insides, or they hope that momentum will knock down the standing man, allowing him to be trampled or at any rate making him less than threathening as you rode past.

A lance blow that is stopped by armour ought to transfer a fair bit of momentum, even if the wrist of the lancer is the limit on how much. I can agree that GURPS rules currently represent this less than perfectly.

As a quick fix, I've based damage on an average of rider and mount HP and note that unless the attack penetrates to inflict imp damage, the attack has Double Knockback.

This means that even if the damage is a comparatively slight 5 or so, that will still knock back most soldiers and even have a chance of felling them.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Basing the damage on the collision model but using the rider's ST instead of the horse would not represent that. You'd keep benefitting from more velocity even if you're a chipmunk lancing while strapped to the outside of a jet fighter. You'd just be 10 times less effective at any given speed than the 100-fold heavier gnome lancers.

Shrug, one could cap such weapon-aided collission damage to either Swing damage for the lancer's ST or twice his Thr damage. Add the +3 for the lance on top and either option ought to do fine to avoid staggering foolishness at the table.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Oh really? And yet somehow despite not disputing it people disagree that the horse is the source of kinetic energy and thus damage.

The fact that you can fight differently while stationary is irrelevant.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're looking for here, other than an argument. There are rules in GURPS that cover the usage of melee weapons from horseback, and those rules work quite well, and they are more "realistic" than using the current rules for lance.

Second, we have sources from people with 17+ years of experience with using lances and staging fights in full harness, on foot. We also have, in this very thread, someone who is posting about their experiences, and it's in line with what I have been saying in the first place.

Third we have a GURPS Author, and not just any author, but one who is considered "the expert" for low-tech warfare, and who has published multiple non GURPS books on the subject, agreeing with the basic premise of my statement: it's the rider, not the horse, that provides the kinetic energy of the lance.

So we've got the reality-testing and research side covered, and they appear to be on my side. Leaving you with the, what? What is your argument based on?