Slitherine

Hi All,

In the Army lists for Mongols it says their combat factors are the same as mounted. Does this mean that Mongols on foot cannot shoot as far as other MF??
Does it mean they follow the V2 shooting range rules and must be in two ranks to shoot 4MU and if in single rank shoot 3 MU?

Does it mean they can choose to evade when charged?

When compared with other Armies, dismounted Mongol(Ilkhanate and conquest) always read differently to others.

If this is intended - why?

Cheers
Robkhan

Hi Robkhan

Thankfully you have got the wrong end of the stick.

It means that whatever they have on horseback they get on foot, i.e. armour, sword, bow.................but they use their capabilites as if they were their foot-based counterparts. So they will shoot just like other MF bow and fight with their armour and sword if they have them.

Rob

You are probably right Rob, I always accepted that dismounting followed a consistent standard approach, until I was toying with the idea of dismounting Mongols, then I saw the different wording.

In Swords and Scimitars it says on page 53 that Cav ."..dismount as .....medium foot. Armour, quality, training, and shooting and close combat capabilities are the same as when mounted." At face value the last 11 words are a clear and straight forward in meaning.

Compare this with Mamlukes and the terminology is different. Page 55 "Mamlukes can always dismount.....(as per mounted type), Armoured, Drilled Medium Foot - Bow, Swordsmen."
And Page 32 Syrian States Ghilman are worded the same as Mamlukes. This is consistent and clear enough.

Different words with different meaning.

Page 111 of Oath of Fealty has exactly the same wording for Mongols. I don't know what it says in Eternal Empire.

From the Army list books I have the pattern of difference is constant and consistent, so it appears to be intended and not, maybe, two different authors trying to say the same thing but not.

So, I think it requires a clarification of intent from the authors.

Cheers
Robkhan

OK, I had a blinding thought of doing the obvious, and I went to the rules. Appendix 4 point 11 is interesting. " Mounted bows have the range of foot bows when dismounted"

BUT..it says "Unless otherwise specified in our companion army list books, each base dismounts as its nearest foot equivalent." - this doesn't really help because of the "Unless" which goes on to give the army list book priority if there is a difference.

As I have said, the wording is consistently different for the Mongols.

I am not supporting a difference, as it creates serious problems. It is something that needs clarification. Maybe the Army list books require an errata on these points.

Cheers and goodnight,
Robkhan

Well Rob, I know the sort of clarification you will get from at least one of the authors.

But they get 'Bow' capability. Bow has different characteristics when used by foot.

I'm an army list author (albeit of a book with no mounted...) so I think I can clear it up for you. "shooting and close combat capabilities are the same as when mounted." means:

If the mounted base has the capability "swordsman" and "bow" then when it dismounts, the foot base it becomes has the capability "swordsman" and "bow". So it can, for example, shoot up to 6MU, gets second rank support shooting at impact, etc.

"capability" has a defined meaning in FOG (I think it's in the troop types section). So when it says the capabilities are the same as when mounted it doesn't mean "they can do the same things that they can do when they are mounted". It means "Whatever Capabilities they have when mounted they have when on foot".

There are some examples of troop types that change capabilities when they dismount. For example some knights have lancer capability but whn dismounted they lose that but gain heavy weapon capability.

I think that the difference in wording is merely to cater for the different options that the mounted troops have:

Syrian States Ghilmen are all Cavalry, Armoured, Superior, Bow/Sword and dismount as MF Armoured, Superior, Bow/Sword.

Mamlukes are all Cavalry, Armoured, Bow/Sword but may be Superior or Elite. They dismount as dismount as MF Armoured, Bow/Sword and are Elite or Superior depending on how you bought them mounted.

Mongols can be various combinations of Cavalry or Light Horse, Superior or Average, Unprotected, Protect or Armoured. So the position for each combination needs to be covered.

I also suspect that the list writers do not use a formulaic template for the lists so that variation in wording between specific lists may just represent variations in writing style between list authors rather than a difference in intent.

Chris

I always assumed that the mechanism was standard until I started exploring the idea of running some Mongol Cav dismounted, then when I saw the different text it left me wondering. So thanks for the input one and all, and I still think the Army List books require an errata on this aspect.

Cheers
Robkhan

batesmotel wrote:I also suspect that the list writers do not use a formulaic template for the lists so that variation in wording between specific lists may just represent variations in writing style between list authors rather than a difference in intent.

Chris

Yes that's the way it generally worked on B+G. RBS set down some general rules (e.g. minima should total around this, maxima around that, new combinations of capability need agreement, be wary of the tendency to big up an army you know about, etc) and had overall editorial control. But when I wrote the Aztec list it was a case of me doing the detailed writing because I'd done the research and the other authors doing peer review. e.g. "why do the central American allies work like that?" "should they have the option of a fortified camp?" and so on.

So some general rules but no formulaic template.

kevinj wrote:I think that the difference in wording is merely to cater for the different options that the mounted troops have:

Syrian States Ghilmen are all Cavalry, Armoured, Superior, Bow/Sword and dismount as MF Armoured, Superior, Bow/Sword.

Mamlukes are all Cavalry, Armoured, Bow/Sword but may be Superior or Elite. They dismount as dismount as MF Armoured, Bow/Sword and are Elite or Superior depending on how you bought them mounted.

Mongols can be various combinations of Cavalry or Light Horse, Superior or Average, Unprotected, Protect or Armoured. So the position for each combination needs to be covered.

Precisely, the more general wording was simply to avoid having to specify every different combination in detail.

grahambriggs wrote:"capability" has a defined meaning in FOG (I think it's in the troop types section). So when it says the capabilities are the same as when mounted it doesn't mean "they can do the same things that they can do when they are mounted". It means "Whatever Capabilities they have when mounted they have when on foot".

That too. "Capabilities" is one of the headings in each army list table.

So what you are saying then is that my dismounted Mongol LH do not have the capability to move 7 MU.

ARE you sure
but they STILL cost me 10pts