Slitherine

What happens when an attachment chart says two things and one may contradict the other? Example: The 1809 Austrian Reserve Cuirassier Div. The maximum artillery attachments are 1 per Division, however all 6 base Cuirassier units MUST have an artillery attachment. Does this mean 1) only one 6 base Cuirassier unit per Division so that the attachment rule takes precedence, or 2) The Cuirassier Div MUST have more than 1 artillery attachment if more than one 6 base Cuirassier unit is fielded (the special instructions taking precedence over the general rule).

I think you're missing out the word "additionally" which is crucial. The full instruction from p. 10 is "Up to one (Artillery attachment) per division. Additionally all large cuirassier units MUST have one."

This is quite clear. If the cuirassier division has only small units it may take only one artillery attachment but doesn't have to. If it has one or more large cuirassier units then each of them must have an attachment with the key word being "additionally".

Hope this makes sense!

Don

Only question I have had regarding this is if you have a large and small cuirassier unit, the large must have an attachment which is mandatory, but is that mandatory one also the optional one so that the small unit can't have one as well?

Yes I am using an Austrian army and more than likely the answer is no the small unit can't have one as the first mandatory one is the only one the division could have in this case, but still one has to hope and dream correct

Sometime you don't get to eat the cake.
Keep dreaming.

quackstheking wrote:I think you're missing out the word "additionally" which is crucial. The full instruction from p. 10 is "Up to one (Artillery attachment) per division. Additionally all large cuirassier units MUST have one."

This is quite clear. If the cuirassier division has only small units it may take only one artillery attachment but doesn't have to. If it has one or more large cuirassier units then each of them must have an attachment with the key word being "additionally".

Hope this makes sense!

Don

Actually this is the point of the question. If you have all small units you may attach one and only one artillery attachment to any of the units. If just one of the cavalry units is 6 bases then it MUST have the attachment and the others cannot have an attachment. However, if you have a limit of one artillery attachment per any division, and all units of cuirassiers with 6 stands must have an artillery attachment, does this limit a Cuirassier Division to no more than one 6 base regiment? or can I field more and go above the 1 per division limit?

A strict reading of the attachment chart would seem to indicate that you must still obey the 1 per division ratio and this limits your regiment size, but I would like to hear from the rules writers.

Since the list allows for 3 large cuirassiers units, then, as quake has explained, I would read it as:

a) if only small units in the division, then 1 arty attachment allowed
b) if 1 large plus small units then 1 arty attachment for the div + 1 for the large cuirassier unit
c) 2 or more large...same...one arty attachment for each large cuirassier unit + 1 for the division

I agree with Blathergut - the key word is "additionally"!

Don

I respectfully have to disagree. You have layed out one possible interpretation of the word "additionally" but not the only, or the most obvious one. Another, equally valid interpretation is to view the word as imposing an additional restriction on the assignment of the 1 (maximum) artillery attachment permitted for each division similar to the way skrimisher attachments are dealt with the in 1809 Army of Italy list - up to 2 per division, but a maximum of 1 per 3 line units.

We need to hear from the authors on this one. What was their intent?

Kevin

viperofmilan wrote:I respectfully have to disagree. You have layed out one possible interpretation of the word "additionally" but not the only, or the most obvious one. Another, equally valid interpretation is to view the word as imposing an additional restriction on the assignment of the 1 (maximum) artillery attachment permitted for each division similar to the way skrimisher attachments are dealt with the in 1809 Army of Italy list - up to 2 per division, but a maximum of 1 per 3 line units.

We need to hear from the authors on this one. What was their intent?

Kevin

I have to agree with Kevin, but there is no need to wait for the authors answer. Let's look at this assuming the rule works and there is no contradiction. "Additionally" means another restriction applying to solely to large cuirassier units, it does not mean that you can add another artillery attachment by having both large and small units. Keep in mind this is listed in the "Restrictions" column of the list.

In order for the restriction to a maxium 1 per division to make sense or work as intended, the only logical interpretation would be that a large unit must have an artillery attachment and a small unit may have an artillery attachment however this does not change the limit of one per division. Read together this way you have 2 complimentary restrictions for cuirassier divisions. For example: 2 small units can have 1 arty att. or none at all, 1 large and 1 small, the large must have the one arty att., and the small can't have one. Effectively this limits a division to 1 large cuirassier unit.

Wait upon the author reply then.

ooh nothing like starting massive controversy with a simple question ....

Actually as I see it, and this is how I actually interpret it all dreaming aside, if you have one large cuirassier unit you get the mandatory artillery for the division. If you have 2 small units one of them can have an artillery attachment. If you have a large and a small unit, only the large may have the mandatory attachment. Get two large units they both have to have a mandatory artillery attachment. The notes specifically state this is the exception to 1 attachment per division, thus allowing the cuirassier division to possibly have more than a single artillery attachment.

My silly original post was a poor attempt at saving some points and getting the best of both worlds by getting max artillery for least cost of cuirassiers. Certainly would be an expensive division.

moved here

Actually as I see it, and this is how I actually interpret it all dreaming aside, if you have one large cuirassier unit you get the mandatory artillery for the division. If you have 2 small units one of them can have an artillery attachment. If you have a large and a small unit, only the large may have the mandatory attachment. Get two large units they both have to have a mandatory artillery attachment. The notes specifically state this is the exception to 1 attachment per division, thus allowing the cuirassier division to possibly have more than a single artillery attachment.

This is correct.
I thought the entry was fairly straightforward.....but to reverse the wording:
ALL large cuirassier units MUSt have an artillery attachment.
Up to one other unit MAY have an artillery attachment.

deadtorius wrote:ooh nothing like starting massive controversy with a simple question ....

Actually as I see it, and this is how I actually interpret it all dreaming aside, if you have one large cuirassier unit you get the mandatory artillery for the division. If you have 2 small units one of them can have an artillery attachment. If you have a large and a small unit, only the large may have the mandatory attachment. Get two large units they both have to have a mandatory artillery attachment. The notes specifically state this is the exception to 1 attachment per division, thus allowing the cuirassier division to possibly have more than a single artillery attachment.

My silly original post was a poor attempt at saving some points and getting the best of both worlds by getting max artillery for least cost of cuirassiers. Certainly would be an expensive division.

I didn't think it was a massive controversy, but also not as straightforward as it seemed. Just that the use of the word "additionally" does not mean an exception to a general rule (in a legal sense anyway). Although it is a moot point now, I still don't see where the note specifically states it as an "exception" - is that also on p10? (I don't have the book at hand).

Now I may have to paint some more cuirassier bases!

terrys wrote:

Actually as I see it, and this is how I actually interpret it all dreaming aside, if you have one large cuirassier unit you get the mandatory artillery for the division. If you have 2 small units one of them can have an artillery attachment. If you have a large and a small unit, only the large may have the mandatory attachment. Get two large units they both have to have a mandatory artillery attachment. The notes specifically state this is the exception to 1 attachment per division, thus allowing the cuirassier division to possibly have more than a single artillery attachment.

This is correct.
I thought the entry was fairly straightforward.....but to reverse the wording:
ALL large cuirassier units MUSt have an artillery attachment.
Up to one other unit MAY have an artillery attachment.

So large cuirassier units get their attachments above and beyond the one artillery attachment per division limit, so if a Cuirassier Division had two 6 base Cuirassiers, each has to have an artillery attachment AND if there are more cavalry units in this Division, one can have an artillery attachment as well.

So large cuirassier units get their attachments above and beyond the one artillery attachment per division limit, so if a Cuirassier Division had two 6 base Cuirassiers, each has to have an artillery attachment AND if there are more cavalry units in this Division, one can have an artillery attachment as well.

Correct.

Simpleton wrote:So large cuirassier units get their attachments above and beyond the one artillery attachment per division limit, so if a Cuirassier Division had two 6 base Cuirassiers, each has to have an artillery attachment AND if there are more cavalry units in this Division, one can have an artillery attachment as well.

Of course this division will cost you an enormous proportion of your army points. It does have the advantage of being able to wreck any single unit in its path.

In theory it should over run anything it gets pointed at or at least one would hope so after spending half your army points on it. Perhaps some day Austria will give it a try.