Crusader Interpenetration (or the lack thereof)

[Ghaznavid]

While all in all I like Swords and Scimitars (although it's sad that all my dismounted knights seem doomed to collect dust) I'm really starting to wonder how consistently the list authors are when it comes to special interpenetration rules. So far only English armies get any... hmmm.

Even the introduction in S&S mentions that crusader knights were regularly screened by their infantry. The average crusader player will find that very hard to do in game however. There are no options for the knights to interpenetrate the infantry and since most of the knights and foot are undrilled there isn't even much tricky maneuvering you can do to compensate. So if you deploy your knights behind the infantry getting them out to play at the right moment is virtually impossible.

[nikgaukroger]

Use an advance with a contraction for the infantry to create gaps for the knights to move through - OK its a complex manoeuvre but that one of the things you use commanders for to enhance the odds of it happening. There is skill in timing as the crusaders found out and the rules/lists reflect this

[Ghaznavid]

So you really think the various English armies always managed to pull it off? Not to mention those chums tend to be drilled, so could do just the same as you suggest, just easier, yet they get special interpenetration rules.

Whats worse, using your suggestion, after moving through those gaps the irregular knights then have to spend a full round standing around and trying to expand. Sorry but if I've to start getting through my infantry screen that far from the enemy there is no reason to screen them at all (other then give it a historical look maybe).

[nikgaukroger]

So you really think the various English armies always managed to pull it off? Not to mention those chums tend to be drilled, so could do just the same as you suggest, just easier, yet they get special interpenetration rules.

Actually I argued against the English being allowed the interpenetration, I don't think it is necessary, however, Richard wanted. That said there is a possible argument for allowing them to as they represent retinues unlike the crusader milites and infantry who are distinct bodies and I think this was Richard's view.

Whats worse, using your suggestion, after moving through those gaps the irregular knights then have to spend a full round standing around and trying to expand.

No need to worry about expanding at that point. If the infantry contract they can do so by 2 bases so a knight BG can pass through 2 bases wide which is a viable formation for charging and then they expand by a base in the manoeuvre phase if in combat. Get your positioning right and you'll still get multiple milites BGs next to each other in a unbroken line at that point.

[KingHassan]

Where is the special rule for the English listed?

For those that don't have the book, what is the rule?

[timmy1]

King, I suspect that the only place you will find the rule is in the companion. Sound commerical reasons for that.

[flameberge]

King, I suspect that the only place you will find the rule is in the companion. Sound commerical reasons for that.

I don't like that at all. If someone (like me) doesn't have the book and goes up against an English army and then all of the sudden gets a suprise because the enemy's army has special rules you didn't know about.... well I just don't think its right. Especially since the FOG authors mentioned before they didn't want to make special rules for different armies, requiring you to buy a dozen books to get the rules you need to play. Maybe this is only one instance but it sets a precedent. Since I don't own all the books maybe many armies have special rules I didn't know about. At the very least I think these special rules should be posted in some type of errata and when the inevitable 2nd edition comes out any special rules should be printed in the main rulebook so all players know about them. Thats my (now worthless) two cents.

P.S. Oh and does this special rule the English have cost any points or is it free? I don't know the special English rule but if it allows their troops capabilities other similar troops don't have it stands to reason it should be paid for.

[WhiteKnight]

Flamberge

Agree with your overall point....there will be so many army list books and I too may not buy them all! No, really, I might not!!!!

The Storm of Arrows lists for WotR and HYW British (not always English really cos they might contain Welsh/Irish/Scots) allow dism men-at-arms/billmen to mutually interpenetrate with longbowmen. This is also allowed in the Anglo Irish list, though not in the Scots or Welsh lists

Martin

[flameberge]

Flamberge

Agree with your overall point....there will be so many army list books and I too may not buy them all! No, really, I might not!!!!

The Storm of Arrows lists for WotR and HYW British (not always English really cos they might contain Welsh/Irish/Scots) allow dism men-at-arms/billmen to mutually interpenetrate with longbowmen. This is also allowed in the Anglo Irish list, though not in the Scots or Welsh lists

Martin

Thanks for the info, at least now I know the rules. Every army having special rules you don't know about and your not sure if your opponent is using correctly because you don't own the book is one of the many reasons I don't like GW.

[Quintus]

Flamberge

Agree with your overall point....there will be so many army list books and I too may not buy them all! No, really, I might not!!!!

The Storm of Arrows lists for WotR and HYW British (not always English really cos they might contain Welsh/Irish/Scots) allow dism men-at-arms/billmen to mutually interpenetrate with longbowmen. This is also allowed in the Anglo Irish list, though not in the Scots or Welsh lists

Martin

Why not HYW European or WOTR European because not all the soldiers came from the island of Britain? Why not have Later Medieval Scots (Britain) as Later Medieval European (Britain) because their army might involve Frenchmen. Then there's the Roman Army and all those auxiliaries, not a good idea to call it a "Roman" Army then is it?

[hammy]

The only "rules" in the companions are:

Which troops are allowed to interpenetrate when they would normally not (this is covered on P 48 of the rule book)
Which troops are allowed to dismount (covered on P147 of the rule book)
and the occasional and to my knowledge one off allowing alternate deployment of troops, specifically the Alexandrian phalanx and being able to deploy as MF light spear swordsmen if you pay the extra points in your army list.

I would have said that there are no rules in the companions but the third of these is really a rule. The other stuff in the companions is not a rule, it is just a capability much like an army being allowed longbow swordsmen rather than longbow or such. Realistically such army specific information should be passed to your opponent at the start of a game but in practice I suspect that from time to time it won't.

In DBM for example everyone knew that Protugese knights could dismount but that was a list specific rule as Spanish knights from the same list didn not have that option.

[Ninthplain]

While it may not be financially pleasing to my wife , I plan on buying all the companion books so that I can have an idea what each army has the special capability of doing.

While I do agree with an opponent spinging a rule on you can be a pain, isn't that historical? If everyone knew that the Mongols were going to perform a feigned retreat, and you were going to fight them soon, you would probably train folks to hold thier ground. If the French knew that those pointy things in the ground would stop your horses and the Men at arms would be able to walk through the bowman while you were stuck there and finish you off, I would imagine I would do something instead of run straight forward.

Just my two cents but IMO the potential for this adds flavor to the game.

One of the best games I ever had in DBM was beating a full knight army with my Vikings. I had figured out that quick killing didn't work if the blade was in two ranks, my opponent didn't remember this. Granted the next game he cleaned my clock but for that one game I had the advantage and he was forced to change his tactics going forward. This process also feels historical to me.

<BRIAN>

[PaulByzan]

While all in all I like Swords and Scimitars (although it's sad that all my dismounted knights seem doomed to collect dust) I'm really starting to wonder how consistently the list authors are when it comes to special interpenetration rules. So far only English armies get any... hmmm.

Even the introduction in S&S mentions that crusader knights were regularly screened by their infantry. The average crusader player will find that very hard to do in game however. There are no options for the knights to interpenetrate the infantry and since most of the knights and foot are undrilled there isn't even much tricky maneuvering you can do to compensate. So if you deploy your knights behind the infantry getting them out to play at the right moment is virtually impossible.

Interestingly enough this maneuver was introduced by the Byzantines and is attested to in all their manuals. In some battles the infantry formed a hollow square with the cavalry inside ready to charge through. The Crusaders passing through Constantinople picked it up from Byantine campaigners and probably in their joint attacks with the Byzantines in the later period. Alternatively, the Normans who fought in the first Crusade would already have been aware of this from the mercenary service some of them would already have had with the Byzantines. Be interesting to see if the 10th century Byzantines in Decline and Fall have this ability. On the other hand in game terms it would get fiddly.

Paul Georgian