Auteur |
Message |
AlanCutner
Tribun
Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014 Messages: 747
Localisation: Scotland
|
Posté le: Jeu Juil 06, 2017 9:08 am Sujet du message: Cavalry vs LMI |
|
Cavalry without impact get a +1 in first phase against MI. Do they also get this against LMI? Factors against LMI and MI are specifically seperately stated in every other case. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
fdunadan
Tribun
Inscrit le: 12 Juin 2009 Messages: 984
|
Posté le: Jeu Juil 06, 2017 10:24 am Sujet du message: |
|
they get the bonus versus MI and LMI _________________ Audentes fortuna iuvat. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
ethan
Signifer
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 354
|
Posté le: Jeu Juil 06, 2017 11:21 am Sujet du message: |
|
This is in the FAQ, but LMI are a sub-category of MI (look at the troop descriptions in the front of the rules). |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Laurence
Archer
Inscrit le: 31 Mar 2017 Messages: 51
|
Posté le: Ven Juil 14, 2017 8:56 am Sujet du message: |
|
ethan a écrit: | This is in the FAQ, but LMI are a sub-category of MI (look at the troop descriptions in the front of the rules). |
MI mainly melee troops, LMI mainly missile - therefore it makes sense to distinguish between MI and LMI - as it is in the reference sheet e.g. Light infantry destroyed by LMI, MI,... or Medium cavalry +1 vs LMI, MI,...
Imo, cavarly get the bonus only versus MI types = both medium swordsmen and spearmen. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum

Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015 Messages: 1236
Localisation: London
|
Posté le: Ven Juil 14, 2017 9:20 am Sujet du message: |
|
Sorry Lawrence. Unfortunately, this is a common misconception. LMI is a sub-category of MI.
LMI are unarmoured missile troops so they need to be distinguished from their armoured close-quater MI brethren, but otherwise have the same formation density so they are treated the same in all other respects including the penalties for fighting cavalry |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Laurence
Archer
Inscrit le: 31 Mar 2017 Messages: 51
|
Posté le: Ven Juil 14, 2017 2:51 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Ramses II a écrit: | Sorry Lawrence. Unfortunately, this is a common misconception. LMI is a sub-category of MI.
LMI are unarmoured missile troops so they need to be distinguished from their armoured close-quater MI brethren, but otherwise have the same formation density so they are treated the same in all other respects including the penalties for fighting cavalry |
...just wondering why they state in the Reference sheet
Basic factor for Cavalry: +1 vs LMI, MI...
Basic factor for Light infantry: Destroyed in open by LMI, MI...
???
Based on your explanation, makes no sense to mention LMI, as they are included in MI |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
matthieu
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 25 Fév 2009 Messages: 291
Localisation: ales
|
Posté le: Ven Juil 14, 2017 3:20 pm Sujet du message: |
|
LMI are LMI , not MI ... |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Laurence
Archer
Inscrit le: 31 Mar 2017 Messages: 51
|
Posté le: Ven Juil 14, 2017 5:20 pm Sujet du message: |
|
matthieu a écrit: | LMI are LMI , not MI ... |
Exactly, that is what I meant in my reply to Ramses II in form of a question, and in reply to Ethan...LMI is not equal MI
Obviously my comments were not clearly - I have related them always to the inititial question re CV impact bonus vs LMI if yes or not, and LMI as a sub-category of MI, otherwise the differentiation LMI/MI in the Ref sheet would not make sense.
I guess the discussion was finally how to interpretate some of the answers. Sorry if I caused confusion. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Dickstick
Tribun
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016 Messages: 721
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
Posté le: Ven Juil 14, 2017 8:32 pm Sujet du message: |
|
I feal your pain
To the French this is simple in french.
To the English they are different beasts thus the different name.
LMI are MI except when they are not. But are MI = LMI ever?
If only MI was written instead of "MI, LMI" we would have consistency.
Instead we have the seed of confusion _________________ Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
ethan
Signifer
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 354
|
Posté le: Mer Juil 19, 2017 2:21 am Sujet du message: |
|
I then refer you to the FAQ.
+1 bonus from mounted against MI and LMI
Q : If an impact Cv charges medium spearmen, it will lose the Impact. But does she then get the +1 bonus vs Mi
and LMi ?
A : No. This bonus doesn’t apply if the Cv already has Impact.
Q : Is the +1 bonus in the 1st round of the non impact Cv vs Mi/LMi still valid if the unit is attacked in the flank ?
Or if the unit conforms after a melee ?
A : No. Like the Impact capability, it is valid only from the front, and during the charge. Therefore, the
bonus can’t be used if the Cv is attacked from the flank, or if it conforms after a melee.
Q : Do we count this bonus in rough/difficult terrain ?
A : No. This bonus only counts if in open terrain. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 1669
|
Posté le: Mer Juil 19, 2017 3:02 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Dickstick a écrit: |
To the English they are different beasts thus the different name.
|
WRG really did damage to English. But we also have an FAQ that has addressed this point specifically for quite a long time.
Dernière édition par Hazelbark le Mer Juil 19, 2017 6:00 pm; édité 1 fois |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
AntiokosIII
Barbare
Inscrit le: 01 Aoû 2016 Messages: 23
Localisation: Salinas, California, USA
|
Posté le: Mer Juil 19, 2017 4:02 pm Sujet du message: |
|
War games rules don't destroy English. Wargamers destroy English. WRG rules were just a tool, that could be used for good or evil. _________________ Tabletop miniatures are the only completely honorable form of warfare ever invented. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun

Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016 Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
Posté le: Jeu Juil 20, 2017 9:15 am Sujet du message: |
|
Hazelbark a écrit: | Dickstick a écrit: |
To the English they are different beasts thus the different name.
|
WRG really did damage to English. But we also have an FAQ that has addressed this point specifically for quite a long time. |
Now that's stretching the definitions of "addressed" and "specifically" quite a bit.
More accurate may be to say it was covered tangentially  _________________ Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Dickstick
Tribun
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016 Messages: 721
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
Posté le: Lun Aoû 07, 2017 6:15 pm Sujet du message: |
|
[quote="Hazelbark"][quote="Dickstick"]
To the English they are different beasts thus the different name.
[/quote]
WRG really did damage to English. But we also have an FAQ that has addressed this point specifically for quite a long time.[/quote]
Well two weeks later, I still find this funny.
An American "kettle calling the pot black"
The US has done more damage to English than WRG could ever do.
Any way the issue is LMI was defined more than 40 year ago as faster moving an less disordered troop type in terrain MI, not a looser fighting MI. I first read 4th edition WRG ancients at 16 so definition is older than that.
Old dog new tricks.
Redifining words long used is never easy or to be encouraged _________________ Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|