Hi Richard
I have sent my Skulls list to Hunter. He has sent you a query.
Crusader lords and knights: It clearly states (Regrade seargents in rear rank of Crusader Lords) ANY
Apparantly you have said i can only do so with 8 ? I dont understand why this is.
Below you can have up to 8 Average Poorer knights, It does not say you can or have to use these in the rear rank. To me it reads completly seperatly.
Regards
Robin
I concur with Robin.
We have the line that says "Regrade sergeants in rear rank of Crusader lords UG" and the note that says "A TuG with Crusader knights may have half the TuG as sergeants.".
Looks clear to me that as written the Superior Lords & Knights TUGs can have half their bases with no Charging Lancer. Otherwise the regrade line would appear redundant.
Perhaps there has been some confusion with another list when answering a query?
I think there could be ambiguity but I am also struck by the line in the notes that says poorer knights and sergeants CAN be in a TUG of their own which would suggest that the option also exists for them to be mixed in with the superior knights. It could then be read that the next line of the army list which allows them to be upgraded to superior imposes the eight base maximum.
If this is not the case then there is no option to mix the troop type defined as poorer knights or sergeants to be mixed in with the superior knights as no proportions etc are given. I presumably could chose my own proportions and have three superior knights and one average sergeant. Nothing to stop me according to the notes.
Its a good point, there does appear to be a bit of a glitch here :(
Personally I'd say that given the performance of the 1st Crusade the Superior sergeants 2nd rank option makes sense.
In fact I'd say the Poorer knights line is not needed and would be covered by the universal allowed downgrade anyway.
So I'd remove the latter and the note referring to them.
Thank you for the response
So does this mean that I can downgrade any of the Crusader Lords ?
Robin, I do not think it is that clear. My gut feeling is, as written, the two lines are intended to be read together and the note I referred to would tend to support this. Of course Nik May be right, indeed he usually is, but not sure Richard will want to make changes to army lists on an individual basis. More likely to add to amendments for review in 2020.
I confess more than a vested interest as I am currently building a similar army but can fully see how Hunter made the call he did.
One other point. If there are lots of sergeants waiting around who could be upgraded then why is maximum for them in separate units only eight and not sixteen or exactly half the number of superior knights allowed?
This also impacts on lots of other Crusader armies too such as Outremer States, Later Crusader etc where maximum sergeants can be as low as four.
Well to be honest not happy as just wasted a day on the list plus sorting figures, re basing etc. It appears fairly clear to me and others. Any mean's any. If not then then for every bodies sake the lists need to be clearer. If all the Crusader lists are incorrect then !!!!!!!!!!
Would appreciate the benefit of the doubt but if not then I will just have to come up with another list.
Thanks for your help
Quote from: marshalney2000 on June 17, 2019, 09:44:15 PM
Robin, I do not think it is that clear. My gut feeling is, as written, the two lines are intended to be read together and the note I referred to would tend to support this. Of course Nik May be right, indeed he usually is, but not sure Richard will want to make changes to army lists on an individual basis. More likely to add to amendments for review in 2020.
I confess more than a vested interest as I am currently building a similar army but can fully see how Hunter made the call he did.
To be fair I read it as a maximum of 8 sergeants available to be upgraded but the question I asked Richard was simply if up to 1/2 the crusaders could downgraded or a maximum of 8. The ruling is a maximum of 8.
HH
Quote from: Robin on June 17, 2019, 10:02:21 PM
Well to be honest not happy as just wasted a day on the list plus sorting figures, re basing etc. It appears fairly clear to me and others. Any mean's any. If not then then for every bodies sake the lists need to be clearer. If all the Crusader lists are incorrect then !!!!!!!!!!
Would appreciate the benefit of the doubt but if not then I will just have to come up with another list.
Thanks for your help
Our posts crossed Robin. I am so sorry that this has happened but the ruling is clear. Take a few days to devise another killer army and get back to me.
Sorry again.
HH
There are a few lines I would like to ignore in my army list too if that is all right.
Whatever the arguments on this at this time I am confident that it will lead to tweaks in wording by RJC at some stage to ensure clarity.
Totally happy with reviews of all lists at the right time and the right place especially when it impacts on other similar lists.
If you change lists before a major tournament then I feel it is only right that all players should have the right to change their armies to something else if impacted by the changes to that list. Now that is nebulous but indeed I might feel that a First Crusade Army is now for me while the 8 bases restriction in the previous form was a deal breaker for me.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on June 17, 2019, 10:38:58 PM
Whatever the arguments on this at this time I am confident that it will lead to tweaks in wording by RJC at some stage to ensure clarity.
Removing the words "Poorer knights" would probably do it to bring it clearly in line with what is apparently intended - as per the Early Outremer States list for example.
As a wider question I do wonder why only a minority of the crusader cavalry units should be allowed sergeants as a 2nd rank - they were pretty ubiquitous as far as I know. In fact as previously discussed (maybe the old forum) they, along with turcoploes, could make up as much as 80% of the crusader cavalry (but rarely operated as separate units).
So if lists cant be changed b4 Jan 1st and all Crusader lists are incorrect. Then surely you should be able to use them up until such time as they are re written ?
I've asked Alasdair for intent, as he wrote these lists
Nobody has actually said up to now that they are actually going to change at the end of the year. Just lots of opinions being expressed which Richard has not yet responded too other than through Hunter that the maximum is eight. May change but then again may not.
I suppose a starting point is how many actual mounted sergeants were there in comparison with the number knights.
Just thinking there might be an even broader issue here. I have done a 100 Years War French list. In that list, no sergeants are shown but clearly there were sergeants and lesser knights in there. So should they also be allowed to remove lances from the rear rank and save me a good few points per base. If interim flexibility was shown on the Crusader lists then I should be able pitch for my list to be reviewed so I can resubmit my army as well.
Looks like most of the European Feudal/Medieval lists possibly need adjusting.
With the First Crusade list. I worked the list out as per the written word. Not the list writers intent.
I read it that you could have 2 units of 4 Poor Knights ie average. Then I could have 4 units of 6 Crusader Lords where it clearly says down grade Crusader lords rear Rank ANY.
So as far as I can see the list should be removed or corrected. If it cant be used as its currently Wrong, what's the point in waiting until Jan 1st.
Robin, I understand your frustration but think we will need to wait until the word comes from on high.
It is clear that you read the wording one way while others including myself clearly read it as restricting rear rank upgrades to eight bases I.e. the eight bases referred to in the notes. The English language is a wonderful thing.
At least Hunter allowed you to submit a completely new army when in theory normal practice is that if an incorrect army is submitted then it can only be amended by the minimum to make it legal. The guy is all heart.
is it really that unclear? regrades and upgrades typically apply the previous record
I agree removing the word Poorer knights , and making sergeants a proper noun would remove ambiguity
if we got down this route we'll end up with when is a spearmen a spearman? :-\
Is that a short spearman or a long spearman? And does the term refer to the length of his anatomy or that of his weapon?
Well we will have to agree to disagree. As the English language is written, it clearly states that (Regrade sergeants in rear rank of Crusader lords UG) ANY.
It also clearly states you can have up to 8 Average Poorer Knights and Sergeants on another line.
So 24 Crusader lords of which you can re grade up to half as rear ranks without lances, so you could have 4 x 6 tugs half lancers half without.
Plus you could have up to 2 units of 4 Sergeants Average, Charging Lancers, Dev Charge, Mele expert.
FWIW, I, too, found this confusing. OTOH, folks often say I am easily confused.
Yes, agree to disagree seems to be the outcome but not our decision in any case.
We generally have tried to make sure that line item titles and comments are specific to each other in nomenclature.
The vast majority have been caught, but this one has slipped through the net, so good to have it pointed out.
Not bad going for us to find so few given 600+ lists. No ruleset has ever attempted so many with such richness.
So the bottom line is this one does need a little tidy up so the note and line items are identical.
All parts of a list work together, so you do need to take the notes as a total entity.
So I think it is convoluted and confusing, but clear in its intent if you take it all:
1. no sergeants in nobles and knights
2. sergeants only mentioned in line below
3. note that alternatively the sergeants may be taken on their own instead of mixed units
Robin, seems to me you still get a great army design out of it.
Not sure how much difference it makes in practice.
2x6 and 1x4 of mixed knights is quite a bit already.
And for me its good to have some of the "full fat" versions as well.
Might be worth a go anyway.
Si
Well thank God that has been put to bed. If not I had checked other armies that could be abused if lines were not read together. In one of the Danish armies you could have had an infinite number of housecarles
I am sure RJC will issue a list clarry in the meantime.
S