|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Sept 20, 2017 13:55:56 GMT
We had this situation come up yesterday. A Tibetan Cataphract (4Kn) is in close combat with an Umayyad Solid Spear. They tied in combat. What happens to the 4Kn. Don't be so quick to answer, look at the wording.  |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Sept 20, 2017 14:09:16 GMT
I would say they are recoiled by other solid foot.
As there is a full stop after "4Kn recoiled in close combat by 3Kn",I believe the "Otherwise no effect" refers to all the preceding conditions - not just the "4Kn recoiled in close combat by 3Kn" one.
Cheers
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Sept 20, 2017 14:12:15 GMT
So you are saying that 4Kn suffer all of the effects appropriate for all KNIGHTS with the ADDITIONAL effect that they are recoiled by 3Kn as well? If so, this is how we have been playing it but re reading it last night created some doubts. Trying to discern where a period or comma is located is giving us a headache.  |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 20, 2017 14:40:44 GMT
So you are saying that 4Kn suffer all of the effects appropriate for all KNIGHTS with the ADDITIONAL effect that they are recoiled by 3Kn as well? If so, this is how we have been playing it but re reading it last night created some doubts. Trying to discern where a period or comma is located is giving us a headache. That is the way I read it. That said, I can see a case for having them lock as well, since some authors believe they were less "shock" types than traditional knights. But I am pretty sure Phil did not subscribe to that view. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 20, 2017 15:25:57 GMT
So you are saying that 4Kn suffer all of the effects appropriate for all KNIGHTS with the ADDITIONAL effect that they are recoiled by 3Kn as well? If so, this is how we have been playing it but re reading it last night created some doubts. Trying to discern where a period or comma is located is giving us a headache. I am planning to buy a new copy as this one is nearly in tatters.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 20, 2017 16:37:06 GMT
So you are saying that 4Kn suffer all of the effects appropriate for all KNIGHTS with the ADDITIONAL effect that they are recoiled by 3Kn as well? I interpret the rules that way. 4Kn also differ from 3Kn in that they do not pursue. That could be better or not so good, depending on the situation and tactical usage. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 20, 2017 16:40:50 GMT
The long convulated sentences with various subordinate clauses and no way to tell which modifies which are hardly an ideal way to present rules. The confusion is understandable. But remember we had to keep all rules confined to a certain amount of space. A weird restriction but one Phil insisted on. So we were often desperate for space - no way to do anything but toss at least part of the desired rule into an existing sentence and hope for the best.
The intent was that "4Kn" behave like regular Knights except for Pursuit. Since this seemed to give them an advantage we searched around for some compensating disadvantage which became Recoiling from regular Kn. We did not intend to also allow them to avoid Recoiling on Equals (Drive Off). I agree that this is hardly clear from the written rules and may even counterdict them.
Just curious: any experts on Cataphracts and how they should in game terms behave? Were they more proof against missile and so should count as Foot v. Bow shooting? Slower? Less (or more able) to Shock Foot?
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 20, 2017 17:03:41 GMT
I don't see the conundrum here.
'Knights or Camelry Destroyed in close combat by any Blades or any Bows that are Lb or Cb, recoiled in close combat by other “Solid” foot. 4Kn recoiled in close combat by 3Kn. Otherwise no effect."
All knights -- 3, 4, 6,heavy chariot --destroyed in CC by any Bl and Lb and Cb and they are recoiled in CC by any other solid foot. Moreover, 4Kn, and no other type, is recoiled by 3Kn, and no other type. All knights in a tie with fast foot ( other than Bl, Cb, and Lb) or shot at are not effected.
Note there are three separate and distinct sentences here, not really convoluted.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 20, 2017 17:41:27 GMT
The long convulated sentences with various subordinate clauses and no way to tell which modifies which are hardly an ideal way to present rules. The confusion is understandable. But remember we had to keep all rules confined to a certain amount of space. A weird restriction but one Phil insisted on. So we were often desperate for space - no way to do anything but toss at least part of the desired rule into an existing sentence and hope for the best. The intent was that "4Kn" behave like regular Knights except for Pursuit. Since this seemed to give them an advantage we searched around for some compensating disadvantage which became Recoiling from regular Kn. We did not intend to also allow them to avoid Recoiling on Equals (Drive Off). I agree that this is hardly clear from the written rules and may even counterdict them. Just curious: any experts on Cataphracts and how they should in game terms behave? Were they more proof against missile and so should count as Foot v. Bow shooting? Slower? Less (or more able) to Shock Foot? TomT I think the rules cover cataphract characteristics quite well. I am reading B. Bar Kochva’s The Seleucid Army for the Battle of Magnesia and he references the Greek sources as giving riders a frontage of 3 feet. Granted, horses averaged 14 – 15 hands high (modern day pony), but riding knee to knee is best done at the walk slowly escalating the gait to a trot before contact. The weight of armour for mount and rider would quickly exhaust a horse if it made repeated charges, so not pursuing a recoiling opponent is a subtle way of dealing with fatigue. |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 20, 2017 21:24:42 GMT
I agree with Bob. It is one of the clearer parts of the rules.
But Tom is right, of course, that it is not so easy to piece all the information from different places in the rules together and to find out how 4Kn are meant to behave.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 20, 2017 21:26:20 GMT
The weight of armour for mount and rider would quickly exhaust a horse if it made repeated charges, so not pursuing a recoiling opponent is a subtle way of dealing with fatigue. I would have thought that it also represents the slower charge in a tighter formation, less likely to develop into a great push forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Spitzicles on Sept 21, 2017 4:20:41 GMT
Just curious: any experts on Cataphracts and how they should in game terms behave? Were they more proof against missile and so should count as Foot v. Bow shooting? Slower? Less (or more able) to Shock Foot? TomT Hi Tom, I wouldn't call myself a cataphract expert, more someone with a deep interest in/fascination with them. So for what its worth, I have always thought 4Kn should get -1 when shot at by Bow - the man and horse are both armoured, thus reducing the effectiveness of arrows. I believe that was a combat factor in DBM 1.0 many years ago. Tibetan armor was considered particularly strong and arrow proof. Sorry, I cannot recall the source for that. 4Kn should move slower than 3Kn and 3Cv because: (a) with both man and horse armored, the poor horse has to carry a much greater weight; and (b) cataphracts didn't seem to charge home for shock, they simply rode into (and occasionally over) their opponents. As regards the initial question, I agree the rules are three separate sentences and relatively straightforward. At least thats the way I have been played with my 4Kns. Cheers, |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 21, 2017 19:50:14 GMT
Tony Aguilar a very experience play posed a question regarding this section. I think this is the second "4Kn" related question we have had from an experienced player - as always clarity is in the eyes of the beholder.
Note that this is the only Equal outcome where "Otherwise no effect." is a seperate sentence and not an "else" clause in another sentence.
On a positive note the rules orginally had a bunch of "3Xx" exceptions scattered around which got brought togehter to become the "Fast" rule - avoiding these little "number" nuggets.
TomT
|
|
beda
Munifex
Posts: 7 
|
Post by beda on Sept 22, 2017 16:08:10 GMT
btw, any suggestions to distinguish between Chariots and Knights/Cavalry?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 22, 2017 23:22:56 GMT
beda,do you mean like house rules? I would suggest considering HCh with a further restriction on rough going movement, to account for heavier yokes and bigger horse teams, but this seems like solving a non-existent problem: HCh are Kn, basically, so you are not going to be putting them in rough or bad going!
Now LCh represent an interesting challenge. I think you could make a case that these should be more like LH than Cv, but there does not seem to be a concrete way to break out a chariot subtype. I am thinking perhaps have them ignore corner overlaps like Ps and SCh to reflect missile work? I will leave this to the seasoned charioteers.
|
|
