Auteur |
Message |
AlanCutner
Tribun
Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014 Messages: 711
Localisation: Scotland
|
Posté le: Mer Juin 28, 2023 7:42 pm Sujet du message: List 179 Normans |
|
William the Conquerer in 1066 gets to replace 1/3-2/3 mounted knights to dismounted heavy spearmen. There is an option to upgrade to elite. But this option is limited by the statement "max 8 in total". If the upgrade was limited to just the spearmen I would expect the limitation to be just "max 8". By adding "in total" it implies the limit of 8 is shared across other troops, and the only possibility is the mounted knights.
So is it correct that Williams Normans in 1066 are limited to just 8 elites across both mounted and dismounted? If not what does the "in total" mean? |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Three
Vétéran
Inscrit le: 20 Déc 2017 Messages: 180
|
Posté le: Jeu Juin 29, 2023 8:47 am Sujet du message: |
|
FWIW - my view is that if you take the William/1066 option then only 8 Normans* in total can be upgraded to elite. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014 Messages: 1471
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
Posté le: Jeu Juin 29, 2023 12:24 pm Sujet du message: |
|
I've always assumed that the total number of elite Normans doesn't change, irrespective of whether they are turning up on foot or on horseback for any given battle. _________________ www.madaxeman.com |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
AlanCutner
Tribun
Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014 Messages: 711
Localisation: Scotland
|
Posté le: Jeu Juin 29, 2023 2:21 pm Sujet du message: |
|
madaxeman a écrit: | I've always assumed that the total number of elite Normans doesn't change, irrespective of whether they are turning up on foot or on horseback for any given battle. |
That was my assumption until I read the list in more detail. Not convinced its correct. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Jhykronos
Auxiliaire
Inscrit le: 02 Aoû 2015 Messages: 95
|
Posté le: Jeu Juin 29, 2023 8:03 pm Sujet du message: |
|
madaxeman a écrit: | I've always assumed that the total number of elite Normans doesn't change, irrespective of whether they are turning up on foot or on horseback for any given battle. |
Seems to be the most straightforward interpretation. Though it is kind of odd that William the Bastard gets less elite knights than any of his predecessors.
Then again, it's also kind of odd that he's only a strategist in 1066... dude had a very solid military record up to that point, IIRC. _________________ - Let the Die be Cast |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Three
Vétéran
Inscrit le: 20 Déc 2017 Messages: 180
|
Posté le: Ven Juin 30, 2023 9:47 am Sujet du message: |
|
Jhykronos a écrit: | madaxeman a écrit: | I've always assumed that the total number of elite Normans doesn't change, irrespective of whether they are turning up on foot or on horseback for any given battle. |
Seems to be the most straightforward interpretation. Though it is kind of odd that William the Bastard gets less elite knights than any of his predecessors.
Then again, it's also kind of odd that he's only a strategist in 1066... dude had a very solid military record up to that point, IIRC. |
It's straightforward only if you ignore the "max 8 in total" bit.
Not looking for an argument here, but both things can't be true at the same time? |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 1544
|
Posté le: Ven Juin 30, 2023 9:00 pm Sujet du message: |
|
I don't know how else to interp Max in total. It has a clear meaning elsewhere, why not here? |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Mike Bennett
Centurion
Inscrit le: 11 Nov 2017 Messages: 490
Localisation: Carnforth, Lancashire, UK
|
Posté le: Jeu Juil 06, 2023 7:11 am Sujet du message: |
|
I am confused on the answer, as some replies here seem inconsistent between the cited text and the coments.
So is max 8:
1. Mounted and foot
2. Foot armoured and unarmoured
3 ...... |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
AlanCutner
Tribun
Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014 Messages: 711
Localisation: Scotland
|
Posté le: Jeu Juil 06, 2023 8:27 am Sujet du message: |
|
Mike Bennett a écrit: | I am confused on the answer, as some replies here seem inconsistent between the cited text and the coments.
So is max 8:
1. Mounted and foot
2. Foot armoured and unarmoured
3 ...... |
For William in 1066 there is a max 8 elite Normans - mounted or dismounted. In all other cases there is no option to dismount, but all the mounted Normans can be elite. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
SteveR
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018 Messages: 287
|
Posté le: Dim Fév 04, 2024 3:15 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Hazelbark a écrit: | I don't know how else to interp Max in total. It has a clear meaning elsewhere, why not here? |
Hi Dan,
I'm not sure that the words "in total" have a clear meaning at all. They seem superfluous.
If they had meaning then there would be a difference between, say list 108 and 109.
In 108, Alans, the base horsemen may have 0-8 elites. And the upgrade specifies 0-8 may be upgraded "in total"
In list 109 the verbiage is different. The base list may have max 4 Asavaran upgraded. The replacement may have max 8 without the words "in total" used.
So what is the practical difference? Is the omission of "in total" here deliberate? Are the words "in total" ever needed?
Because page 87 is pretty explicit that when there is an upgrade you don't get to add the two maximums together.
But it is not clear to me what was intended. Probably the Max 8 in the Norman list is a total replacement including both mounted and dismounted. However the Norman replacement line is pretty unique as I posted elsewhere. So a unique construction of replacement here would not offend me - it is a special case.
Maybe I need a copy of the rules in French to help. For last weeks game I cut the Gordian knot by just not taking any elites. But like Alexander that trick only works once and I should have upgraded my included general (at least) |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|