Slitherine

For example, two ranks of DefSpear/Bow. During the impact phase can you choose which attribute the second rank uses, are they forced to use a specific one, or do they automatically use both?

No way both ranks have both Def Spear AND bow. It's probably a mixed BG of Def Spear in front and Bow in the rear, right?

Sure. Doesn't matter The only thing that matter is that the front rank has DefSpear and the second rank also has DefSpear and a missile weapon.

I guess we need to ask the list designers if there will be such a type as DefSp/Bw...my guess is not, as in FOG, troops are classified not by weapon carried but by "main function".

Martin

Fugu wrote:Sure. Doesn't matter The only thing that matter is that the front rank has DefSpear and the second rank also has DefSpear and a missile weapon.

There are no troops classified thus in any of the existing lists, nor likely to be in any future lists as they would be unhistorically overpowered.

e.g.

Achaemenid foot are light spear, bow, -

Nikephorian Byzantine foot are 1/2 DSp, 1/2 Bow.

Otherwise, I am hard pushed to think of any troops that might even conceivably qualify for the classification you are querying.

So the point you are querying will not arise.

Persian Sparabara are light spear and bow but only the front rank get light spear so this issue does not arrise.

Pretty hard to hold shield and spear, and still be able to fire a bow efficiently.

hammy wrote:Persian Sparabara are light spear and bow but only the front rank get light spear so this issue does not arrise.

Actually Immortals have light spear for both ranks (although it makes little difference unless you choose to deploy them less than 2 full ranks deep), but the issue still does not arise as only the front rank fight in the impact phase.

I took the original query to be whether the suggested formation could count DSp POA (which requires 2 ranks of DSp) even if the 2nd rank support shoot. This would indeed be an interesting query if such troops existed, but they don't and they won't.

rbodleyscott wrote: Actually Immortals have light spear for both ranks (although it makes little difference unless you choose to deploy them less than 1 rank deep)...

If you do choose to deploy them less than 1 rank deep then you might have problems getting them all on the table.

rbodleyscott wrote: I took the original query to be whether the suggested formation could count DSp POA (which requires 2 ranks of DSp) even if the 2nd rank support shoot. This would indeed be an interesting query if such troops existed, but they don't and they won't.

This is indeed my query. And whether that troop type ever shows in an army book is irrelevant, the rules allow for that formation and question is still valid.

The question is valid, but it's the same as asking what the PoA is for Godzilla in impact w/ mounted in the open. It's as likely to appear as a stand w/ DefSp+Bow.

I know I'm new to this, and haven't got the rule book with me, but isn't the POA talked about a melee POA not an impact one?
Don

carlos wrote:The question is valid, but it's the same as asking what the PoA is for Godzilla in impact w/ mounted in the open. It's as likely to appear as a stand w/ DefSp+Bow.

*sigh* I thought it was a simple question relating to two sections in the rules that interacted in an odd way, and it turns out it's a heathenistic attack on historical fact, which is amusing when you setup a game where you can have medieva French Knights fighting Qin Chinese.

Wouldn't it be easier and more productive just to either not reply or say something like "Even though this never happened historically, the player may choose one or the other, but not both"?

donal wrote:I know I'm new to this, and haven't got the rule book with me, but isn't the POA talked about a melee POA not an impact one?
Don

It's both. There is an entry for Pk/Sp of >=2 in the Impact and Melee sections

Fugu wrote:*sigh* I thought it was a simple question relating to two sections in the rules that interacted in an odd way, and it turns out it's a heathenistic attack on historical fact, which is amusing when you setup a game where you can have medieva French Knights fighting Qin Chinese.

Wouldn't it be easier and more productive just to either not reply or say something like "Even though this never happened historically, the player may choose one or the other, but not both"?

*condescending sigh*
You've had the main rules writer tell you that there will NOT be any troops on any army lists that have both DefSp and Bow capabilities. What exactly are you trying to get at? The rules are written taking into account how the lists are built and vice-versa, so I can't understand where you are trying to go with this. Are you writing your own lists that have troops w/ both DefSp and Bow?

carlos wrote:The rules are written taking into account how the lists are built and vice-versa.

This is true, and a lot of thought has gone into making sure that they interact to produce historically realistic results.

Fugu wrote:*sigh* I thought it was a simple question relating to two sections in the rules that interacted in an odd way

They only interact in an odd way if troops are organised/classified in a way that we do not intend to ever occur. Not all permutations of troop classification and battle group organisation potentially allowed by the troop classification system are historically valid. The rules are only intended to cover those formations and classifications that in our opinion are historically valid. Clearly such classifications are to some extent subjective, but the rules may not work correctly with classifications outside the boundaries of those we deem historical, because the rules were not designed to work with those classifications.

carlos wrote:The question is valid, but it's the same as asking what the PoA is for Godzilla in impact w/ mounted in the open. It's as likely to appear as a stand w/ DefSp+Bow.

In the interests of completeness, I think it's fair to say that Gozdilla would be on a ++ POA in both the impact and melee phases. I surmise that the mounted would also take a -1 on their CT for losing a combat to Godzilla in the open.



Marc

carlos wrote: *condescending sigh*
You've had the main rules writer tell you that there will NOT be any troops on any army lists that have both DefSp and Bow capabilities. What exactly are you trying to get at? The rules are written taking into account how the lists are built and vice-versa, so I can't understand where you are trying to go with this. Are you writing your own lists that have troops w/ both DefSp and Bow?

Wow. All I'm "getting at" was for a simple answer to a simple rules question. Not is it historically accurate. Not are we going to see these troops in an official list. Just a simple interpretation to the written rules. I just don't understand how venomantly people are getting up in arms about it, especially in a rules set where they have encouraged you to write your own lists.

But to answer your quesitons, Yes I'm making my own list, infact it's posted to the Armies section, and No it doesn't contain double rank DefSpear/Bow, but it was a permutation I looked at trying to get the right feel for the troops but disregarded because it didn't fit into the historical accounts that I have read.

Fugu wrote:Wow. All I'm "getting at" was for a simple answer to a simple rules question. Not is it historically accurate. Not are we going to see these troops in an official list. Just a simple interpretation to the written rules. I just don't understand how venomantly people are getting up in arms about it.

It is not a question of getting up in arms about it. It is simply a matter that there is no correct rules interpretation for the situation you describe, because the rules are designed on the basis that such a situation cannot exist.

If you wish to use troop classifications that are outside the parameters of the system, and the people you are playing with agree, you can of course make up any rule interpretation you like.

It would not be appropriate for the FOG team to give "off the cuff" rules interpretations on situations that should not occur when the rules are used as intended.

If such troop formations existed (in our opinion) we would have written the rules so that they cover the answer to your qury. As (in our opinion) they didn't, the rules are not written to cover the answer to your query.

Any answer we gave on how to deal with the situation would therefore be outside the rules, and hence could not be a valid answer. So the only valid answer we can give is "don't use troops classified as Bow, DSp."

We are not trying to be awkward, we are just trying to be consistent.

So instead of it being historically unsupported it would be better as an Errata to bring it in line with not allowing Spearmen/Swordmen combo