Art De La Guerre
Bienvenue sur le forum de discussion de la règle de jeu l'Art De La Guerre
 
FAQFAQ RechercherRechercher Liste des MembresListe des Membres Groupes d'utilisateursGroupes d'utilisateurs S'enregistrerS'enregistrer
ProfilProfil Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privésSe connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés ConnexionConnexion
Dismounting Knights
Page 1 sur 2 Aller à la page 1, 2  Suivante
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules questions
Auteur Message
A4
Archer


Inscrit le: 08 Oct 2014
Messages: 60
MessagePosté le: Sam Juin 01, 2019 3:58 pm    Sujet du message: Dismounting Knights Répondre en citant
P 19 of the English version says that knights "can always dismount if their army list allows deploying these units on foot."

Am I right in thinking that a knight with the same name must be available in a dismounted version for this to work?

Or, as others have argued, is a list containing both mounted and dismounted knights sufficient to allow all to have learnt this trick?

Take the Portuguese (on p 205) as an example. They can choose to take nobles and men-at-arms - who only come mounted. Or they can replace some with mercenaries - who only appear on foot. If a Portuguese player takes some of his knights as mounted could he deploy them as foot knights?

As an aside, the Portuguese are allowed to replace "some" of their nobles and men-at-arms with mercenaries. Do people take that to mean that a player could field only mercenaries? Or is "some" here taken to imply that the army must contain at least some nobles or men-at-arms?

Alan
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
AlanCutner
Centurion


Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014
Messages: 451
Localisation: Scotland
MessagePosté le: Sam Juin 01, 2019 4:23 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
To be able to dismount a particular troop type must have options for mounted and dismounted units. So, taking the Medieval Spanish list, Pouruguese option

1. The 'Military Order Men-at-Arms' can be Heavy Knight or Foot Knight. So if purchased as Heavy Knights they can be dismounted.
2. The 'Nobles and Men-at-Arms' can be purchased as Heavy Knight only. So no option to dismount.
3. The 'Mercenaries' can be purchased as Foot Knight only. So no option to deploy them as mounted in the first place.

That Nobles can be replaced by Mercenaries simply means you can take a total of 4-8 Nobles/Mercenaries combined. But Nobles and Mercenaries are still different troop types.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Ramses II
Tribun


Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 792
Localisation: London
MessagePosté le: Dim Juin 02, 2019 12:29 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
The issue is that the wording on p19 is potentially ambiguous. It only requires the list to contain both knights and the relevant dismounted unit types. Your narrower definition would require the rules to stipulate that both unit types must be present in a given enrtry for the knights to be able to dismount. 

However, a number of lists provide a group of generic entries followed by sections for particular nationalities which is the only place where the paired entry is found. Using the wider definition, this would suggest that some nationalities in the list may dismount while others may not which is also confusing. 

I have raised this with the TB, which hopefully will be clarified shortly. 
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
madaxeman
Tribun


Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 993
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
MessagePosté le: Dim Juin 02, 2019 8:13 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
I honestly struggle to see this as ambiguous.

It surely only applies to Knights where you can take a particular flavour/named group of noblemen as either mounted or foot Knights, where these two troop types appear in the same “box” of the army list 

Any other more generous reading is just seeking semantically marginal excuses to bend the rules in your own favour IMO.  We need to be more careful not to put every minuscule , wilfully engineered thing like this into the faq. 
_________________
www.madaxeman.com
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Visiter le site web de l'utilisateur
AlanCutner
Centurion


Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014
Messages: 451
Localisation: Scotland
MessagePosté le: Dim Juin 02, 2019 9:05 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Have to agree with Tim here. I struggle to see any ambiguity without using some really obtuse logic.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Mike Bennett
Vétéran


Inscrit le: 11 Nov 2017
Messages: 174
Localisation: London, UK
MessagePosté le: Dim Juin 02, 2019 7:48 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
I agree as well
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Ramses II
Tribun


Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 792
Localisation: London
MessagePosté le: Dim Juin 02, 2019 11:03 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
I don't disagree guys, though the wording is not entirely clear and this narrower definition does raise some queries with various lists.

  • Under this definition, very few Feudal lists with medium knights can actually dismount, the exceptions being Feudal Scots, Feudal Irish and the Order of St John, all of which dismount as HI swordsmen.

  • Some lists seem to have exactly the same mounted and foot units in separate entries, eg Crusader (#186) where between 1098 and 1099, some crusaders may be replaced by Heavy spearmen armour, or the Free Company (#230) which has both mounted and foot men at arms. Under the narrower definition any mounted knights in the army could not voluntarily dismount. . . .

  • As previously noted, in some lists where there are multiple entries for Knights, some may dismount, where others are apparently prevented from doing so, eg Condottieri, Medieval Spanish. This is confusing and open to abuse, especially as most people announce the unit type (Heavy Knights impact) rather than the name (French mercenaries).
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
madaxeman
Tribun


Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 993
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
MessagePosté le: Lun Juin 03, 2019 8:35 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Ramses II a écrit:
Under this definition, very few Feudal lists with medium knights can actually dismount, the exceptions being Feudal Scots, Feudal Irish and the Order of St John, all of which dismount as HI swordsmen.


Given dismounting without due cause is a "free" bonus I have no issues with it being extremely limited. Maybe feudal knights rarely dismounted without due cause?

Ramses II a écrit:
Some lists seem to have exactly the same mounted and foot units in separate entries, eg Crusader (#186) where between 1098 and 1099, some crusaders may be replaced by Heavy spearmen armour, or the Free Company (#230) which has both mounted and foot men at arms. Under the narrower definition any mounted knights in the army could not voluntarily dismount. . . .


These sound like examples where specific lists can explicitly field a mix of foot and mounted knights, or where dismounting is explained and proscribed in the list itself. Not sure what the issue is here?

Ramses II a écrit:
As previously noted, in some lists where there are multiple entries for Knights, some may dismount, where others are apparently prevented from doing so, eg Condottieri, Medieval Spanish. This is confusing and open to abuse, especially as most people announce the unit type (Heavy Knights impact) rather than the name (French mercenaries).


These sound like issues with players not fully defining their troops at deployment or list submission in certain very specific lists. Neither seem like legitimate reasons to issue an FAQ, nor to implement whoolesale changes to multiple lists.
_________________
www.madaxeman.com
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Visiter le site web de l'utilisateur
kevinj
Vétéran


Inscrit le: 07 Fév 2017
Messages: 178
Localisation: Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK
MessagePosté le: Lun Juin 03, 2019 2:49 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Citation:
The issue is that the wording on p19 is potentially ambiguous. It only requires the list to contain both knights and the relevant dismounted unit types. Your narrower definition would require the rules to stipulate that both unit types must be present in a given enrtry for the knights to be able to dismount.


This is reasonable for those examples like the Crusaders, where the replacement troops are specifically dismounted knights. However, there are some other examples where the appropriate dismount types are available, but to use them to justify he ability to dismount would not seem to make sense.

For example, Feudal French (#175). This contains Heavy Spearmen who can have armour, so are an appropriate dismount type for the Medium Knights. However, they are described as Feudal or Commual Militia so that would not suggest any relevance to dismounted knights.

Similarly, Feudal German (#183) Has Mercenaries who may be Heavy Spearmen or Swordsmen with armour. Does that allow the knights to dismount as either type?
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Ramses II
Tribun


Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 792
Localisation: London
MessagePosté le: Lun Juin 03, 2019 3:10 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
While I agree with the use of the 'narrow' definition presented above, I am merely suggesting that the wording on P19 needs to be tightened up to reflect this.

This interpretation could come as an unwelcome surprise to those who are less used to the rules, especially if they have designed an army and painted stuff with this option in mind only to be told that their knights may not dismount.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
MC_Delicatessen
Frondeur


Inscrit le: 30 Juil 2020
Messages: 3
MessagePosté le: Ven Juil 31, 2020 12:29 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Ramses II a écrit:
While I agree with the use of the 'narrow' definition presented above, I am merely suggesting that the wording on P19 needs to be tightened up to reflect this.

This interpretation could come as an unwelcome surprise to those who are less used to the rules, especially if they have designed an army and painted stuff with this option in mind only to be told that their knights may not dismount.


As a newb, this caused confusion. P19 is almost clear. P72 is more of a problem as it muddies. With a fix to the word order and the same phrasing used in both sections it would be crystal.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Hazelbark
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1056
MessagePosté le: Ven Juil 31, 2020 5:28 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
kevinj a écrit:
Citation:
The issue is that the wording on p19 is potentially ambiguous. It only requires the list to contain both knights and the relevant dismounted unit types. Your narrower definition would require the rules to stipulate that both unit types must be present in a given enrtry for the knights to be able to dismount.


This is reasonable for those examples like the Crusaders, where the replacement troops are specifically dismounted knights. However, there are some other examples where the appropriate dismount types are available, but to use them to justify he ability to dismount would not seem to make sense.

For example, Feudal French (#175). This contains Heavy Spearmen who can have armour, so are an appropriate dismount type for the Medium Knights. However, they are described as Feudal or Commual Militia so that would not suggest any relevance to dismounted knights.

Similarly, Feudal German (#183) Has Mercenaries who may be Heavy Spearmen or Swordsmen with armour. Does that allow the knights to dismount as either type?



I find those connections quite specious and trying to see an issue where there is none.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Hazelbark
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1056
MessagePosté le: Ven Juil 31, 2020 5:30 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
MC_Delicatessen a écrit:


As a newb, this caused confusion. P19 is almost clear. P72 is more of a problem as it muddies. With a fix to the word order and the same phrasing used in both sections it would be crystal.


Legitimate question here. Since the first bullet under dismounting troops pnm p72 is identical to p 19. What would you suggest we change in new edition?
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
kevinj
Vétéran


Inscrit le: 07 Fév 2017
Messages: 178
Localisation: Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK
MessagePosté le: Sam Aoû 01, 2020 8:05 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Citation:
I find those connections quite specious and trying to see an issue where there is none.


I see now that my first paragraph was ambiguous. My intention was to show these as examples that someone looking to exploit the current wording could use.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
lionelrus
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2009
Messages: 3539
Localisation: paris
MessagePosté le: Sam Aoû 01, 2020 6:42 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
it's always funy to read Brits arguing about rules . Thank you guys.
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
  
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules questions
Page 1 sur 2 Aller à la page 1, 2  Suivante
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet Toutes les heures sont au format GMT

 
Sauter vers:  
Vous ne pouvez pas poster de nouveaux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas éditer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas supprimer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas voter dans les sondages de ce forum