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 2 sur 2 Aller à la page Précédente  1, 2
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules questions V3
Auteur Message
Mike Bennett
Centurion


Inscrit le: 11 Nov 2017
Messages: 489
Localisation: Carnforth, Lancashire, UK
MessagePosté le: Sam Aoû 01, 2020 9:32 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
I think that you will find that there are yanks involved here, not just Brits Smile

Ps why is it funny?
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Hazelbark
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1525
MessagePosté le: Dim Aoû 02, 2020 7:08 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
kevinj a écrit:
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.


I get what you are saying, could you expound, because I don't see it. There are rules that could use clarity. But can you be a bit more precise.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
kevinj
Signifer


Inscrit le: 07 Fév 2017
Messages: 323
Localisation: Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK
MessagePosté le: Lun Aoû 03, 2020 9:34 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
My problem is with this interpretation:

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.


The examples of Feudal French and Feudal German were intended to show how that interpretaton could be exploited. However, I think that while the "same box" interpretation covers most cases, the example of the Crusaders would meet the conditions on page 19.

Short version: I'm basically agreeing with you, Alan and Tim that the list needs to contain a dismount type that is relevent to the dismounting knights and not just an unrelated appropriate troop type.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
MC_Delicatessen
Auxiliaire


Inscrit le: 30 Juil 2020
Messages: 87
MessagePosté le: Lun Aoû 03, 2020 9:49 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Hazelbark a écrit:
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?


Fair enough, good question. Disclosure: I'm a copywriter and a referee and if you ever want some LOLz over rule wording head over to some of the referee fora Wink And, in my second game of ADLG, these dismount passages waylaid us for 15 mins, including an international phone call;)

Here's my take:
- Have one section on dismounting. On p72: "See the dismounting section on p19". Or at least remove p72 first three bullets to avoid partial repetition. And save trees.
- Don't start the passage with "Medium and heavy knight units can always dismount if" - always-if is odd and this is only a minor point. I feel the balance is off - the 3 cohesion and loss of impact are more important than their place on page.
- Fix the reference to "...if their army list allows deploying these units on foot." The army lists do not say this! So, either add this specifically to the relevant army lists, or change it to "...if there are Foot Knight options for the Heavy Knights" or whatever accurately reflects the intent of the rule.
- If I understand correctly and there are only 17 armies that have the "Ft Kn dismount anytime option", I think's it worth an asterisk and bullet in each army list.
- I can imagine Free Company #230 being problematic as there are Foot Knights but they are not listed as options for the Heavy Knights, they are separate. Depending on the intent of the rule, this should be clarified. I guess the intent is to allow dismounting Free Company Kn under any circumstances, so this should be noted in that list.


Bonus:
- Only lists #235 and #237 (I think) have specific guidelines for dismounting non-Kn troops as different from the list on p19. This is worth mentioning on p19 to save newbies and rule benders endless hours looking for others.
- Some dismounted troop types cost fewer points than their mounted cousins. I understand that, due the timing of deployment and dismounting, it should not be possible to spend these points on a crafty upgrade or extra unit. But I can't be the first person to have thought of this - and I'll wager plenty have tried. So, it might be worth a line on p19.


- I would consider opening something like:

Mounted units, except El and Scy Ch, can dismount only in the following circumstances:
 The enemy has deployed fortifications. (A fortified camp is not sufficient.)
 The enemy has deployed elephants, war wagons or bowmen with stakes (even if the stakes are not yet in place). Units in ambush or in flank march are not taken into account.

Notes:
 Some army lists offer a Foot Knight alternative to M or H Kn. M or H Kn in these army lists can dismount during deployment under any circumstances.
 Army lists #235 and #237 have special instructions for dismounted troop types.
 Elephants and scythed chariots can never dismount.
 Knights, heavy chariots and cataphracts that dismount have a cohesion of 3 points (irrespective of their dismounted troop type).
 Knights, heavy chariots and cataphracts that dismount lose their impact ability and are no longer considered impetuous (as this ability is only valid when mounted).
 Army points saved due to dismounting as a different troop type are not allowed to be reassigned or spent.


Smile
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
MC_Delicatessen
Auxiliaire


Inscrit le: 30 Juil 2020
Messages: 87
MessagePosté le: Lun Aoû 03, 2020 2:34 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
(As well as Free Company #230, also #225 Hundred Years War English has Foot Knights separate from the H Kn - there may be others - I'm just researching a Legio Heroica purchase... Wink )
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
lionelrus
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2009
Messages: 4700
Localisation: paris
MessagePosté le: Lun Aoû 03, 2020 5:36 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Mike Bennett a écrit:
I think that you will find that there are yanks involved here, not just Brits Smile

Ps why is it funny?

sorry, my english is to poor to explain and argue. But there's a joke about this:

When a frech reads a new rulebook in wc ( and all culture read rulebook in wc) , he studies fastly the quick sheet and try to find the Army Of Killing Dead; containing the more strong troops.
A English reads all rulebook more and more, trying to fond THE point of rule wich may obtain victory.
I could explain in french for you mike, and you may translate?
_________________
"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
Hazelbark
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1525
MessagePosté le: Lun Aoû 17, 2020 5:15 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Lionel, I get the humor of the point. In my experience, I have found French Tournament Tigers and British Tournament Tigers a very similar breed. Just as both nations have very excellent tournament champions that play within the spirit.

I do agree there is a culture that seemed to grow out of WRG that whatever oddity the rules created was intentional and should be exploited. Both WRG and the DBx systems seemed to embrace that.

One of the things I have enjoyed about ADLG is the return to a better time, where the rules were set up to allow a fun game of strategy.

The other piece that should not be forgotten is, the culture of not losing. Which afflicts gamers of many varieties.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Hazelbark
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1525
MessagePosté le: Lun Aoû 17, 2020 5:20 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
MC_Delicatessen a écrit:


Fair enough, good question. Disclosure: I'm a copywriter and a referee and if you ever want some LOLz over rule wording head over to some of the referee fora Wink And, in my second game of ADLG, these dismount passages waylaid us for 15 mins, including an international phone call;)


So I get both copywriter and referee issues more than you know. Add the rules are first written in the author's style...in FRENCH. Then the translation seeks to use the same rule page location and wording to allow international events with different language rules that can both turn to cite the same sentence!

Just because the early steps you outlined aren't enough! LOL.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
lionelrus
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2009
Messages: 4700
Localisation: paris
MessagePosté le: Lun Aoû 17, 2020 6:08 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Well, the discord point in particular cas of dismounting troops come from a thing named in France "hièrarchie des normes". I can't translate it.
So page 19 are rule about dismounting troops, who can dismount , what type of troops when dismounted and so one.
page 72 are in deployment chapter, so paragraf about how dismounting troops are here only to remind p19.
In a french mind (with exception Hazel , i must admit) all point about how dismounting troops are in the chapter about that, in page 19. All discution point must be solved by this
"hièrarchie des normes", so in case of contradiction between p19 and 72 page 19 wins.
_________________
"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 V3
Page 2 sur 2 Aller à la page Précédente  1, 2
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