elephant generals

marshalney2000 · Post by **marshalney2000** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:15 pm

Do these have the same impact as other elephant elements on cavalry?
John

thefrenchjester · Post by **thefrenchjester** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:58 pm

no, of course , they just have the same effect of the flying pigs and flying carpet elements

the general element must be recognisable and have already found an excuse to fight on a giant mouse with giant ears

thefrenchjester" lucanian oxen driver in the barnum circus ( sometimes

)"

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:50 pm

Tis truly symbolic and has no effect on anything - feel free therefore to have them ride a dragon if your opponent is willing to accept this!!

Si

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:18 pm

The rules used to explicitly state that commanders on elephants/camels have no effect on enemy cavalry. This seems to have got lost in one of our rewording sessions and should go back in.

shall · Post by **shall** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:53 am

A good spot then lest the dragon be used to good effet...we'll fix that one

Si

marshalney2000 · Post by **marshalney2000** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:50 am

Damn just when i was going to formulate rules for the effect of a dragon on enemy foot and mounted.
John

donm · Post by **donm** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:20 pm

Si,

feel free therefore to have them ride a dragon if your opponent is willing to accept this!!

Are you sure you want to start another debate on the Welsh list

Don

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:39 pm

donm wrote:Si,

feel free therefore to have them ride a dragon if your opponent is willing to accept this!!
Are you sure you want to start another debate on the Welsh list

Don

Hey, I knew when I managed to get light horse into the list I was on a roll. I really should have pushed a bit harder

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:54 am

How about this:

P.71

ELEPHANTS AND CAMELS
Horses generally don’t like camels or elephants.
 Knights, cataphracts, cavalry, light horse and chariots are DISORDERED if they are less than 1 base width from elephants or camelry.
 Camelry are only so affected by elephants.
 Camelry treat soft sand as rough going, not difficult.
 Heavily armoured camelry otherwise move as undrilled cataphracts.
 Other camelry otherwise move as undrilled cavalry.
 Elephants cause a -1 modifier on the cohesion test when enemy lose a close combat against them.
 None of the the above applies to commanders depicted as camelry or on elephants.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:21 am

It's only one line, but it really shouldn't be there. The section on generals is clear that they are only representational, as I believe most of us understood. We have had this issue before in the discussion on overlaps. We are all becoming familiar with the rules, so adding a repetition here and there doesn't worry us. Then you look back at the overall effect for a new reader. It's a big book, difficult to remember at first. Having the same thing noted in two places makes it harder to remember.

If 90% of the readers did not require it, then this line is not a rule, it is a clarification. If so, it should be on the web site of clarifications.

bddbrown · Post by **bddbrown** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:07 am

I have to disagree. It is only one line and having it is two places makes it easier to find. It cannot be more difficult to remember because it is in two places surely?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:59 am

bddbrown wrote:I have to disagree. It is only one line and having it is two places makes it easier to find. It cannot be more difficult to remember because it is in two places surely?

I am not sure it is in 2 places. Where else is it mentioned?

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:56 pm

I have not got the rules with me. I think of generals as being only representative and would not even consider that an elephant mounted general got something for free. I must have acquired this knowledge somewhere.

Having the same rule in two places can make learning more difficult. You are left with that feeling that "I've seen something else on this somewhere". When the rule is in one place there is no such doubt.

We had a similar discussion to this with relation to overlaps. The suggestion is that by adding clarifications that are necessary for only a small proportion of the readers, the rules do not become clearer. The quantity has a considerable effect on the clarity. Not only does it mean there is more to learn initially, there is more to search through when you need the information at a particular time. Publish a comprehensive manual and few will bother to read it.

DBM, a relatively short rule book, even has this problem. Many club players already do not read the book, they ask the club expert either to tell them, or ask "where in the rules does it say...".

Clarifications should be kept for the web-site. Every effort should be made to keep the rules as short and readable as possible.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:19 pm

rogerg wrote:I have not got the rules with me. I think of generals as being only representative and would not even consider that an elephant mounted general got something for free. I must have acquired this knowledge somewhere.

The rules used to explicitly state this, but it got accidentally taken out when someone reworded them.

You acquired the knowledge from a previous version of the rules - new players won't have access to that.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:33 pm

That's a relief then. I was worried I might have some sort of telepathic link to Simon.

This doesn't change the argument much. Put the rule back in the commander's section and do not repeat it in the elephant section. Add a note to the clarifications web-site under the 'unusual animals' section that none of the animal peculiarities apply to the mounts of commanders.

AlanCutner · Post by **AlanCutner** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:50 pm

Not sure I agree with Roger. I read the rules for the first time a few days ago, and played my first few stumbling moves of a game yesterday. If its recognised that a clarification is needed it should go in the rules now - as a new player it would be more confusing to read the rules, and then have to check a seperate set of clarifications (and be aware of them in the first place). It implies errors in the rules.

Separate clarifications should be reserved for situations discovered after publication.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:47 pm

Many rules can be misinterpreted. Clarifications are required when a significant number of players are disputing something. It is not intended that new players would read them. I would imagine that regular competition players like Alan and myself would read them, but that's because we have sufficient interest to do so and want to be aware of all the detailed arguments.

It is the players outside the few dozen regular competition player that need to be considered. The longer and more technical the rules become, the more this is a barrier to playing. Adding the same rule in two places just adds to the length. Adding a clarification only needed by ten percent of the readers, adds unnecessary words for the other ninety percent.

There has been a lot of thought by some very good analysts on this forum. If this leads to better wording, and it often has, this is a good thing. If it leads to several additional paragraphs that may only be required to resolve a rare situation, then whether these should be added to the rules is questionable. Fog is already a big book and we haven't seen the thing with the diagrams and photos yet.

One major problem is familiarity. When one gets to know the basic rules well, adding a few more items doesn't seem to be a problem. If someone has to pick up the rules for the first time, just reading it all might be a problem. If this is the case, it is irrelevant whether all the details are fully covered. We need to ask how the new 'average' reader will respond to the level of detail.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:14 pm

rogerg wrote:Many rules can be misinterpreted. Clarifications are required when a significant number of players are disputing something. It is not intended that new players would read them. I would imagine that regular competition players like Alan and myself would read them, but that's because we have sufficient interest to do so and want to be aware of all the detailed arguments.

It is the players outside the few dozen regular competition player that need to be considered. The longer and more technical the rules become, the more this is a barrier to playing. Adding the same rule in two places just adds to the length. Adding a clarification only needed by ten percent of the readers, adds unnecessary words for the other ninety percent.

There has been a lot of thought by some very good analysts on this forum. If this leads to better wording, and it often has, this is a good thing. If it leads to several additional paragraphs that may only be required to resolve a rare situation, then whether these should be added to the rules is questionable. Fog is already a big book and we haven't seen the thing with the diagrams and photos yet.

One major problem is familiarity. When one gets to know the basic rules well, adding a few more items doesn't seem to be a problem. If someone has to pick up the rules for the first time, just reading it all might be a problem. If this is the case, it is irrelevant whether all the details are fully covered. We need to ask how the new 'average' reader will respond to the level of detail.

Absolutely, but the item under consideration isn't mentioned twice. You only think it is because you recall the wording that was in before it was taken out. (By person or persons unknown

).