Kiel with an ally

[craig.w]

Hello,

I have landsknechts in my core army plus Swiss allies. Can the landskechts form a kiel with the Swiss?

[lionheartrjc]

I don't think it was covered in the clarification, but the intention is no, the two UGs have to be in the same command.

Richard

[nikgaukroger]

If that is the intent it needs stating as currently it only requires that the units with Keil are touching with front edges aligned - nothing about which commands they are in.

[badhabum]

I don't think it was covered in the clarification, but the intention is no, the two UGs have to be in the same command.

Richard

The 2 units must be in the same BLOCK . So slightly different than same command as a professional general can give an order to a unit outside his own command, albeit to a cost . But he could order a block move , one unit of his command the other of another command.

[nikgaukroger]

The definition of keil in the Characteristics document makes no mention of "block" at all for when the characteristic applies.

"Block" is only mentioned in the recent clarification when illustration how the clarification works and is, IMO, not used in the "technical" sense as in a Block Move.

Probably best to avoid using the word in relation to keils.

[badhabum]

Sorry on my tablet I did not have the very latest update ....stability is needed 

[Onurbm]

+1 on Bahdabum

[Simon Meg-Meister]

I will add that it must be in the command.
Clearly logical.

Si

[badhabum]

I am not convinced it should be in the same command but would say the same army. Not an ally.

The reason is continuty in the rules : if side by side, they can fight with files supporting the other unit but could not contribute to a keil formation .. seems strange and counterintuitive.

Being in another command they obey other generals but being mostly swiss in a professional army that means they may receive orders from another commander not in their direct line of command but may not support each other ...makes no sense

[craig.w]

I am not convinced it should be in the same command but would say the same army. Not an ally.

The reason is continuty in the rules : if side by side, they can fight with files supporting the other unit but could not contribute to a keil formation .. seems strange and counterintuitive.

Being in another command they obey other generals but being mostly swiss in a professional army that means they may receive orders from another commander not in their direct line of command but may not support each other ...makes no sense

+1. Swiss is a tiny army i think saying only commands is too restrictive.

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Will ponder and find a way.

S

[Jilu]

I am not convinced it should be in the same command but would say the same army. Not an ally.

The reason is continuty in the rules : if side by side, they can fight with files supporting the other unit but could not contribute to a keil formation .. seems strange and counterintuitive.

Being in another command they obey other generals but being mostly swiss in a professional army that means they may receive orders from another commander not in their direct line of command but may not support each other ...makes no sense

the swiss are indeed particular...they always ..always did what they wanted to do.

they never were under the command of a non swiss general.

it is why i came up with the swiss having to be under their own command and maximum under a competent genera last year l.The swiss were great fighters but not always reliable for the army paying them. As they did not fight other swiss. they went home if home was in danger.  when not in a swiss army they were mercenaries with an independent agenda but still great fighters.

And the swiss would never have fought shoulder to shoulder with landsknecht they being arch enemies