Class of almughavars?

Robert241167 · Post by **Robert241167** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:55 am

Hi everyone

In the Catalan Company list it says all almughavars need to be of the same class.

Well they can be protected/unprotected and offensive spear or impact foot/sword. Is the class related to armour as well as weapons so that if I choose some protected spear that all almughavars need to be protected spear only?

Cheers

Rob

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:10 am

Only that they must be all Impact Foot or all Offensive Spearmen.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:46 am

IMO they must all be the same in all ways including armour. The restriction says that "All MF almughavars must be classified the same" I can't see any way that would allow some unprotected and some protected.

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:04 pm

Yes, that wording indeed indicates they must be identical.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:19 pm

Deliberatley so

azrael86 · Post by **azrael86** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:43 pm

The correct classification being of course - 'hard and likely to bear a grudge'...

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:54 am

azrael86 wrote:The correct classification being of course - 'hard and likely to bear a grudge'...

At the club on Monday my unprotected almughavars ran about even 50/50 with equal numbers of Dailami

xavier · Post by **xavier** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:35 pm

hammy wrote:IMO they must all be the same in all ways including armour. The restriction says that "All MF almughavars must be classified the same" I can't see any way that would allow some unprotected and some protected.

There were doubts on how to class almughavars in the game since from a definition point of view they should clearly be impact foot (they started combat with a shower of heavy iron javelins before clashing in the melee), but from game balance point of view, offensive spearmen reflect better their capability to stand against mounted in the open. Therefore we allowed both classes but forcing the player to choose one of them.

Regarding armour, there was no intention from my side to class them all the same, since the grade and quality of armour could vary from unit to unit. Originally they would be unprotected, but they could become "protected" depending on what equipment had they found / looted during a campaign, and not all units joined a campaign at the same time, nor could loot the same during it...

On the other hand, last word has always been of the rules authors, not the list writers. If for whatever reason they don't want to allow unprotected and protected units in the same list, I disagree, but despite having wrote the list myself, I have to accept it

ethan · Post by **ethan** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:52 pm

xavier wrote: On the other hand, last word has always been of the rules authors, not the list writers. If for whatever reason they don't want to allow unprotected and protected units in the same list, I disagree, but despite having wrote the list myself, I have to accept it

Just a guess, but doing that sort of thing might lead to "cleverer" play than the authors might have wanted. People would take small units of unprotected to provide rear support for protected or whatever. Or even doing paradoxical things like putting the less well equipped unprotected guys out to fight enemy knights while the "best" troops with armor support their flanks - which doesn't strike me as historical.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:13 pm

ethan wrote:
xavier wrote: On the other hand, last word has always been of the rules authors, not the list writers. If for whatever reason they don't want to allow unprotected and protected units in the same list, I disagree, but despite having wrote the list myself, I have to accept it
Just a guess, but doing that sort of thing might lead to "cleverer" play than the authors might have wanted. People would take small units of unprotected to provide rear support for protected or whatever. Or even doing paradoxical things like putting the less well equipped unprotected guys out to fight enemy knights while the "best" troops with armor support their flanks - which doesn't strike me as historical.

Good guess

All too easy for the Law of Unintended Consequences to kick in - look at the Dom Roms for a good example.

xavier · Post by **xavier** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:23 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
ethan wrote:
xavier wrote: On the other hand, last word has always been of the rules authors, not the list writers. If for whatever reason they don't want to allow unprotected and protected units in the same list, I disagree, but despite having wrote the list myself, I have to accept it
Just a guess, but doing that sort of thing might lead to "cleverer" play than the authors might have wanted. People would take small units of unprotected to provide rear support for protected or whatever. Or even doing paradoxical things like putting the less well equipped unprotected guys out to fight enemy knights while the "best" troops with armor support their flanks - which doesn't strike me as historical.
Good guess

All too easy for the Law of Unintended Consequences to kick in - look at the Dom Roms for a good example.

I hadn't thought about those cheesy possibilities. And I have to admit that I prefer not being able to field both protected and unprotected almughavars (even if it happened), than seeing them being used in the wrong way. Sad that we can't have it all...

That's why rules writers have the last word