Dismounters

[ravenflight]

Hi All,

Another pet peeve:

The dismounting for free guys. Does this seem reasonable to anyone? I mean, it does give a certain flexibility and advantage over other troops. Should they be treated like anyone else that come with an advantage - i.e. have a points cost associated to them?

If not, should rules be made so that it is a slight pain in the arse?

For example, I thought of two rules (well, I thought of one, and a friend thought of another).

If deployed as mounted at the time of deployment they can dismount in their first movement phase only, but must declare the intent to dismount at the end of deployment. If they dismount that takes their entire movement. This would mean that those with initiative would effectively lose their initiative, and those without initiative would effectively lose two turns of movement.

The other idea was that all who dismount start the game as disrupted.

I actually like the second idea, as it would be very disrupting and time consuming to arrange a couple of thousand horses to move through the line.

Considering the thought of decreasing the cost of average mounted...

Thoughts?

[david53]

Its not been brought up in V2 IIRC, not saying it will not be mind you.

How many lists allow the troops to deploy for the same points,

I can only think of one Arab Conquest, sure there might be others.

[ravenflight]

Its not been brought up in V2 IIRC, not saying it will not be mind you.

How many lists allow the troops to deploy for the same points,

I can only think of one Arab Conquest, sure there might be others.

ANYONE who can dismount can do it for the same points as someone who can't. What I mean is that the French Medieval knights can dismount, but the Scandinavian Medieval knights can't. The French get the advantage (for free) of doing this, where-as the Medievals don't.

But then there are troops like the Merovingian Franks who can dismount their average as superior... so the 12 point Average guys (who might be cheaper under V2) get the free upgrade to Superior (at 12 points).

Why should one army get this free advantage? I mean, why not just make Armoured Romans the same cost as Protected Romans... they don't get an advantage for free, so why should anyone else?

[eldiablito]

I had a similar problem when I first started looking at army lists. When I brought this up, I was given a quick, but sensible answer:
Knight armies that can dismount are supposed to be the ones who did so in history AND do not have access to light horse.

In other words, the Later Crusaders do not have access to dismounted knights because they have access to Bedouin and Saracen light horse. Likewise, Medieval Spanish and Portuguese cannot because they have access to jinetes. Meanwhile HYW French can dismount because they have no light horse.

Well, I'm sure that there must be some dismounting army out there that has access to light horse, however every list that I was interested in seemed to follow this trend.

[ravenflight]

That doesn't ring true as there are many armies with knights who don't dismount who have no access to lighthorse... Medieval Danes come to mind - not sure about all the Germans but there would be German states who can't (I would think).

But my issue isn't to do with the capacity of a troop type to dismount, it's with the lack of cost and the "free 'complete change of deployment'".

Lets say you have an army of Inca vs an army of Merovingian Franks.

Both armies are completely deployed and THEN the Merovingian go "Ok, I'll dismount those guys who are facing off against your Offensive Spear guys, and I'll leave those guys who are facing off your Light Spear MF mounted". How much does this cost them? Nothing! At least if they were disordered or cost extra points or had to waste movement phase to dismount the Inca would have a chance to react to the change.

[ShrubMiK]

Interesting point. It also applies to e.g. Roman HF who get the choice to deploy instead as MF under v2 proposals.

I don't like the idea of charging extra to account for the added value to the troops in question of their dimount option. Presumably in the majority of battles the option is not used, and then those troops are poor value for money.

Although maybe it is okay if you allowed players to pay a bit extra to have the option, but allow them alternatively to take the troops with no dismount option at normal cost. Then it is up to them whether they think the extra point cost is worth it, bearing in mind what armies they are likely to be facing and what their likely plan is in each case.

Penalising thetroops for dismount in some way other than points charged seems preferable though, I'm just not sure what the appropriate way is. Making them disrupted, effectively tying up a general per dismounted BG for some number of turns to make them battle-worthy, is IMHO too much of a penalty. Making them unable to move and disordered for a small number of turns I like better.

Alternatively, I would suggest that the example of average mounted dismounting as superior foot is an out and out anomaly, and should be fixed in the army list. When you consider superior is effectively average amongst mounted troops, average rating is effectively poor; so suddenly they jump off their horses and it is like they instantaneously jump up two quality ratings.

Now I would argue that any troops who are significantly above the norm in fighting capability on foot but a bit pants on horseback shiuld perhaps be rated as mounted infantry rather than cavalry that can dismount. Now if FoG actually had the concept of mounted infantry, maybe that would be the way to solve the problem!

[ravenflight]

I don't like the idea of charging extra to account for the added value to the troops in question of their dimount option. Presumably in the majority of battles the option is not used, and then those troops are poor value for money.

Although maybe it is okay if you allowed players to pay a bit extra to have the option, but allow them alternatively to take the troops with no dismount option at normal cost. Then it is up to them whether they think the extra point cost is worth it, bearing in mind what armies they are likely to be facing and what their likely plan is in each case.

I accept your point here Shrubmeister... One option could be to give an expanded either/or option.

Either they are foot @ x cost, or mounted @ y cost, or mounted with the ability to dismount @ y+1 point. The player then has the option.

So, in the Merovingian example, they would be mounted average blah blah @ 12 points, dismounted superior blah blah @ 12 points or mounted average dismountable to superior blah blah @ 13 points.

[waldo]

Hi All,

Another pet peeve:

The dismounting for free guys. Does this seem reasonable to anyone? I mean, it does give a certain flexibility and advantage over other troops. Should they be treated like anyone else that come with an advantage - i.e. have a points cost associated to them?

If not, should rules be made so that it is a slight pain in the arse?

For example, I thought of two rules (well, I thought of one, and a friend thought of another).

If deployed as mounted at the time of deployment they can dismount in their first movement phase only, but must declare the intent to dismount at the end of deployment. If they dismount that takes their entire movement. This would mean that those with initiative would effectively lose their initiative, and those without initiative would effectively lose two turns of movement.

The other idea was that all who dismount start the game as disrupted.

I actually like the second idea, as it would be very disrupting and time consuming to arrange a couple of thousand horses to move through the line.

Considering the thought of decreasing the cost of average mounted...

Thoughts?

Light spear is free for foot and is lot more useful than the free dismount option for some troops. I haven't seen very many people dismount troops, not enough to be worth adding any extra rules to cover it.

Walter

[madaxeman]

Light spear is free for foot and is lot more useful than the free dismount option for some troops. I haven't seen very many people dismount troops, not enough to be worth adding any extra rules to cover it.

Walter

Agreed. I think the "average mounted dismount as superior foot" is the only thing arguably worth looking at here, as it means troops who rarely fought on foot end up as the best infantry (for their weapon type) available anywhere in the entire game.

[marty]

as it means troops who rarely fought on foot end up as the best infantry (for their weapon type) available anywhere in the entire game.

I was assuming it was only given to troops who made a habit of fighting on foot?

Is this a "problem" that requires fixing? None of these armies have been exactly dominating the world of competitions!

PS I own a Merovingian Frank and it is probably my worst performing army.

Martin

[philqw78]

But in V2 the average mounted 'MAY' cost less than what they dismount as under some proposals

[madaxeman]

as it means troops who rarely fought on foot end up as the best infantry (for their weapon type) available anywhere in the entire game.

I was assuming it was only given to troops who made a habit of fighting on foot?

Is this a "problem" that requires fixing? None of these armies have been exactly dominating the world of competitions!

PS I own a Merovingian Frank and it is probably my worst performing army.

Martin

OK, maybe another way of looking at it is to say that loads of useless and dull-to-play protected foot armies might become more viable and interesting with the addition of a nominal number of superior and/or armoured foot units, the addition of which would be perfectly justifiable on the grounds of a vague notion of a leaders bodyguard/retinue/some blokes with more money than the rest, but currently the only way to get these units is to pick one of the handful of armies who are allowed dismounting cavalry.

[marty]

But in V2 the average mounted 'MAY' cost less than what they dismount as under some proposals

I'm working on the assumption that the changes to the point system proposed so far a very much a "work in progress" and that this is a loophole that is pretty much certain to be closed (probably by simply stipulating you are priced as the more expensive of the two options when you are dismount capable).

Martin

[viperofmilan]

It may not happen often, but it does happen. And when it does, it can have a profound impact on the game. I recall an early medieval game (my Normans vs. some flavor of early Germans). My opponent deployed a lot of average, armored, cavalry opposite my armored knights. I was really looking forward to mixing it up, when all this average cavalry (which by the rules should dismount as medium foot) jumped off their horses as superior heavy foot offensive spear. Ruined my day I can tell you.

Perhaps no tweaking of points and/or rules is needed beyond requiring BGs to be deployed dismounted if they are to be used dismounted.

Just a thought.

Kevin

[ravenflight]

as it means troops who rarely fought on foot end up as the best infantry (for their weapon type) available anywhere in the entire game.

I was assuming it was only given to troops who made a habit of fighting on foot?

Is this a "problem" that requires fixing? None of these armies have been exactly dominating the world of competitions!

PS I own a Merovingian Frank and it is probably my worst performing army.

Martin

Martin, an army that can't roll anything better than a 3 (that's with two dice ladies and gentlemen - even after re-rolls for quality) isn't a 'worst performing army' because of it's troops.

Naturally, my incredible natural ability as a master tactician made the Ghurids reign supreme in that particular bit of biff, but...

Oh - am I bragging on an international board?

Did anyone hear the time when _I_ beat Australia's #1 seeded player 25-0?

That's T-W-E-N-T-Y-F-I-V-E-Z-I-P!

[ravenflight]

It may not happen often, but it does happen. And when it does, it can have a profound impact on the game. I recall an early medieval game (my Normans vs. some flavor of early Germans). My opponent deployed a lot of average, armored, cavalry opposite my armored knights. I was really looking forward to mixing it up, when all this average cavalry (which by the rules should dismount as medium foot) jumped off their horses as superior heavy foot offensive spear. Ruined my day I can tell you.

Perhaps no tweaking of points and/or rules is needed beyond requiring BGs to be deployed dismounted if they are to be used dismounted.

Just a thought.

Kevin

Same here Kevin, and of course an argument is that you are not likely to get stung by this again, but what I don't like about these kinds of games is that the players get all the options without compromise in any way, shape, or form.

Or putting it another way... if in ANY other circumstances an army wishes to completely change their deployment it is a major headache. An army that can (and chose to) dismount WOULDN'T (IMHO) do so at the deployment stage. They wouldn't ride on up and go 'oh, we're going to act as foot, we'll saddle up and then dismount! What's the point? They should deploy AS they expect to fight -OR- suffer some kind of logistical nightmare the general would suffer, which is why I suggested some rules changes.

1 - Disrupted (agree with ShrubMiK here)
2 - lose a turn of movement - their first turn is 'to dismount'.

[grahambriggs]

Martin, an army that can't roll anything better than a 3 (that's with two dice ladies and gentlemen - even after re-rolls for quality) isn't a 'worst performing army' because of it's troops.

Naturally, my incredible natural ability as a master tactician made the Ghurids reign supreme in that particular bit of biff, but...

Oh - am I bragging on an international board?

Did anyone hear the time when _I_ beat Australia's #1 seeded player 25-0?

That's T-W-E-N-T-Y-F-I-V-E-Z-I-P!

Meh. That's A-u-s-t-r-a-l-i-a.

When you beat an author and triple world champion 25-0 on the other hand...

[ravenflight]

When you beat an author

Bah - meaningless. Being an author means nothing. Some authors (*cough*Phil Barker*/cough*) aren't particularly good at the game they write!!!

[ravenflight]

More on this...

I just realised something.

In an example of the "Carolingian Frankish"

You can buy 24 elements of "Average, Armoured, Lance, Swordsmen". They cost 12 points each (same as their dismounted counterparts of "Superior, Armoured, Offensive Spearmen).

If you were to buy them as cavalry you get the advantage of being able to pick and choose their dismounting but you also get +2 to the initiative... something that an army of Superior, Armoured, Offensive Spearmen can't do. They would have to buy an IC (at 80 points) to be on even grounds and STILL not be able to remain in the saddle if the whim took them.

Anyway - seems most people think this is fair. I personally don't like 'getting something for nothing' - not when it's this good.

[grahambriggs]

I've used the Merovingians - 12 point light spear Sword average armoured cavaly, dismount as 12 point superior armoured impact foot sword.

It's certainly handy, the problem is that the cavalry rarely dismount and are a little overpriced at 12 points if they don't.

And that's the issue with much of this freebie dismounting. It looks like a free lunch, but if you want it, you're stuck with armies that aren't great anyway.

Mid you, Tibetans would be fun. Cataphracts that dismount as heavily armoured spear mmmmmm.