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