Matti Luostarinen
Finland
Helsinki
-
Hi
I`m confused....
"Knights ignore one ADDITIONAL bonus strike rolled in melee"....
"Both foot and mounted knights hit on ALL bonus strikes rolled regadless of whether the enemy is mounted or on foot"....
So what happens if my foot knight rolls for example two bonus strikes against a mounted knight?
-
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
Mourning the end of the Manning era.
Welcome baby brother Toby James, 03/24, 8 lb. 15 oz.
-
Masa wrote: Hi
I`m confused....
"Knights ignore one ADDITIONAL bonus strike rolled in melee"....
"Both foot and mounted knights hit on ALL bonus strikes rolled regadless of whether the enemy is mounted or on foot"....
So what happens if my foot knight rolls for example two bonus strikes against a mounted knight?
It should be one bonus strike is ignored and 1 is a hit.
The "all" is not overriding the defensive attribute. It just means all Bonus Strikes count as hits. Since the defender can ignore one of these hits, it is a miss.
No different than saying a red unit gets hit on all red helmet results. But some red units can ignore one hit. The ignore is greater than the hit.
-
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
-
Matti, I don't have the time to go through the rule books right now - but did that "knights ignore one additional bonus strike rolled in melee" bit come from a description of the mounted knights?
I ask because on Saturday we had a question come up when a short sword unit attacked a foot knight unit, and for some reason I had thought that the foot knight would ignore two bonus strikes (Dan was rolling uncharacteristically hot - I am beginning to realize that many of my victories against him are just because I rush in not expecting him to be able to hit my guys  ). Closer reading of the short sword card lead me to "1st bonus strike against mounted units is ignored" - so doesn't apply to foot knights...or does it? Was FFG's intent for the Foot Knights to ignore two bonus strikes rolled against it by short sword units, same as a mounted knight would?
-
Matti Luostarinen
Finland
Helsinki
-
Brian. Doesn`t that "additional" mean that mounted knights can ignore TWO bonus strikes, because mounted units can ignore one bonus strike against foot units, and knights wear even "better armor", and there is that word "additional"? Hard to understand properly, because english is not my mother tongue...
And why they use the word "all" bonus strikes. Say "Foot knights hit on bonus strikes", would have done the thing? Dunno...
-
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
Mourning the end of the Manning era.
Welcome baby brother Toby James, 03/24, 8 lb. 15 oz.
-
I'll need to look it all up when I get home. I was just answering off of what you had posted. Let me see what I can dig up here...
-
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
Mourning the end of the Manning era.
Welcome baby brother Toby James, 03/24, 8 lb. 15 oz.
-
OK, I still maintain that the Sword on Shield are simply hits. It is just a means to quantify the hits. Not only do they hit on color, but also on all the SoS (as opposed to only 1 like a lot of units). The rule is just for mounted and foot, not knight in particular, so I do not think it is an overriding rule that is special for defending Knights.
Foot Knights are bold so by definition ignore the Flag. As Foot Knights, they ignore one SoS (not just melee, but ranged as well).
Mounted Knights are bold so by definition ignore the Flag. As Mounted Knights, they ignore one SoS in melee. The additional comes about because if they are equipped with the Lance, they also ignore one SoS in melee. So the two stack, which is why it states "additional." However, they do not get two by default.
With Code of Chivalry, the Mounted Knights now have the option to either carry a Lance or the Longsword. So the answer should be modified that if a Foot Knight hits on 2 SoS, 1 would be ignored by the Mounted Longsword and both would be ignored with the Mounted Lance.
-
Matti Luostarinen
Finland
Helsinki
-
toddrew wrote: Matti, I don't have the time to go through the rule books right now - but did that "knights ignore one additional bonus strike rolled in melee" bit come from a description of the mounted knights?
Todd. page 2 Code of Chivalry. They are speaking of knights, not mounted knights in particular. So, what is the right interpretation? I"ll go crazy...
-
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
Mourning the end of the Manning era.
Welcome baby brother Toby James, 03/24, 8 lb. 15 oz.
-
Masa wrote: So, what is the right interpretation? I"ll go crazy...
What don't you like about my explanation? I don't see an issue here.
-
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
-
Not sure if this will clarify the confusion, but I think what FFG intends and what the rules say are slightly different.
What I think they intended was that all Knights (whether mounted, with lancers or longswords) ignore one bonus strike rolled from any other unit, and also ignore one bonus strike from short sword units (which, for some reason, includes axe wielding dwarfs and claymore armed chieftans). Additionally, the foot knights are able to ignore the first bonus strike from a ranged unit.
The reason I think that was the intention is the phrasing "wearing the best of armor,Knights also ignore one additional (bonus strike) rolled
against them when attacked in melee", where the initial mysteriously unreferenced bonus strike would be the one that is already ignored by being a mounted unit for the mounted knights when attacked by a short sword unit. I am guessing they meant that to still apply to the foot knights, since they are talking about all knight units here.
Originally, when DoW had the game, the only units with longswords were mounted units, so it was considered synonymous that longsword/mounted units ignored the first bonus strike from short sword units, when the summary card for short swords said "against mounted units, the first (bonus strike) rolled is ignored."
Normally I would love to hear from the production company about rules clarifications, but I currently don't trust that thorough thought is put into BL at this time. Happy to have my feelings reversed.
EDIT: and the more I read the knight descriptions in the CoC rulebook, the less sure I become - now I do have doubt about whether or not the Lance is to be treated more as a short sword attack than a long sword attack. Seems silly, but then why distinguish that the Long sword wielding foot and mounted knights do not have the first bonus strike ignored when attacking mounted units, but not include Lancers? Just ill choice, I conject, but not certain.
-
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
-
Masa wrote:
So what happens if my foot knight rolls for example two bonus strikes against a mounted knight?
And, just to be clear - this question does have a clear answer, to me  :
First bonus strike is ignored, but second (and any other results in the same roll) would be a hit.
-
Matti Luostarinen
Finland
Helsinki
-
ColtsFan76 wrote: Masa wrote: So, what is the right interpretation? I"ll go crazy... What don't you like about my explanation? I don't see an issue here.
Brian. I think that I understood YOUR answer, but it is still very confusing on rule books. Maybe they have too many cooks in the same game?
To drive you two crazy, too, and to make it very simple and clear for me, will you please answer my examples. So how many bonus strikes knights can ignore in following examples?
1. Mounted knight vs. ordinary foot unit(short sword)?
2. Mounted knight vs. ordinary mounted unit?
3. Mounted knight vs. mounted knight?
4. Mounted knight vs. foot knight?
5. Foot knight vs. ordinary foot unit (short sword)?
6. Foot knight vs. ordinary mounted unit?
7. Foot knight vs. mounted knight?
8. Foot knight vs. foot knight?
And thank you very much for your patience...
Masa
-
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
Mourning the end of the Manning era.
Welcome baby brother Toby James, 03/24, 8 lb. 15 oz.
-
Now that I have everything in front of me at home, let me think out loud and go through this.
This is what we had: Mounted Knights (no further description) in Scottish Wars. Mounted Knights are described as being Bold (which means ignore 1 flag no matter what and possibly battle back).
They were given a Lance which allows them on Offense to count all Sword on Shield (SoS) as hits and on Defense they were allowed to ignore 1 additional SoS. The additional comes from the fact that on all foot weapons, mounted units ignore 1 SoS when SoS counts as hits (e.g. Short Sword, Spear, Battle Axe).
Now Code of Chivalry comes out. Mounted Knights are broken into 2 categories: Lancers (what we had in Scottish Wars) and Long Swordsmen (making them "elite" Heavy Cavalry). We also added Foot Knights.
All Knights remain Bold (which means ignore 1 flag no matter what and possible battle back). But FFG changed up things. It updates the Lance card to reflect that the lance is no longer giving the Knights an additional Defensive ignore on the SoS. Instead they give us two new cards for knight - mounted and foot. They transfer the ignore one SoS to those cards making them inherent on the Knights, not dependent on the weapon.
So Mounted Knights (whether Long Sword or lance) are Bold and Ignore one SoS regardless of who attacks as long as it is Melee. Most foot Units still auto ignore 1 SoS against Mounted units, depending on the Weapon. Neither the Lance nor the Longsword defelct any hits and only work on Offense. Foot knights have the additional protection from ranged attack.
So what does that leave us with?
Mounted Knight Lancers (MKL)
- Bold (ignore 1 flag, possibly battle back)
- Ignore 1 SoS in melee (in addition to any other SoS ignores from the attacker)
- Lance: Strike on all SoS
- Other: Bonus to the Mounted Charge Card
Mounted Knight Long Sword (MKLS)
- Bold (ignore 1 flag, possibly battle back)
- Ignore 1 SoS in melee (in addition to any other SoS ignores from the attacker)
- Long Sword: Strike on all SoS
Foot Knight Long Sword (FKLS)
- Bold (ignore 1 flag, possibly battle back)
- Ignore 1 SoS in melee
- Long Sword: Strike on all SoS
- Other: Ignore 1 SoS in range, Gain Ground & Bonus Attack, 3 figures
This jives with the CoC rulebook since the cards have been updated since SW:
- Best of Armor: the ignore 1 SoS was moved from the Lance to the Knights themselves. this is what the paragraph on p. 2 of CoC above the MKL means.
- Long Swordsmen: No longer just a mounted weapon (it was never specifically limited, just no foot units carried it). It does hit on all SoS (just like most weapons) but does NOT have an auto-miss like most. This is what the paragraph on p. 2 of CoC under the MKLS means.
- Foot: Also ignore the ranged SoS and gain Gain Ground & Bonus attack. This is what the paragraph on p. 2 of CoC under the FKLS means.
-
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
-
I'm not Brian, but:
Masa wrote:
1. Mounted knight vs. ordinary foot unit(short sword)? 2
2. Mounted knight vs. ordinary mounted unit? 1
3. Mounted knight vs. mounted knight? 1
4. Mounted knight vs. foot knight? 1
5. Foot knight vs. ordinary foot unit (short sword)?Not sure, but I think it is supposed to be 2
6. Foot knight vs. ordinary mounted unit? 1
7. Foot knight vs. mounted knight? 1
8. Foot knight vs. foot knight? 1
My additional questions would be - 9. Mounted Knight Long Sword vs. Mounted Knight Lancer? 10. Foot Knight vs. Mounted Knight Lancer? and 11. Ordinary Mounted Unit vs. Mounted Knight Lancer?
I think the answer to 9 & 10 would also be 1, and the answer to 11 would be 0. I don't think excluding mention of the Lancers hitting on all bonus strikes was the intention of FFG.
Quote: And thank you very much for your patience...
Masa
I am just happy to be talking about BL. Now to play more...
EDIT: obviously, Brian responded while I was composing this - still have questions about how many SoS (bonus strikes) Foot Knights are to ignore from short sword (and short sword treated ) units.
-
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
Mourning the end of the Manning era.
Welcome baby brother Toby James, 03/24, 8 lb. 15 oz.
-
Masa wrote: So how many bonus strikes knights can ignore in following examples?
Using the above summaries, here is what you should have:
1. Mounted knight vs. ordinary foot unit(short sword)?
Hit on foot unit color and SoS.
2. Mounted knight vs. ordinary mounted unit?
Hit on mounted color and SoS.
3. Mounted knight vs. mounted knight?
Hit on red and SoS. However, first SoS is ignored because of defending knight's ability.
4. Mounted knight vs. foot knight?
Hit on red and SoS. Â However, first SoS is ignored because of defending knight's ability.
5. Foot knight vs. ordinary foot unit (short sword)?
Hit on foot unit color and SoS.
6. Foot knight vs. ordinary mounted unit?
Hit on foot unit color and SoS.
7. Foot knight vs. mounted knight?
Hit on red and SoS. Â However, first SoS is ignored because of defending knight's ability.
8. Foot knight vs. foot knight?
Hit on red and SoS. Â However, first SoS is ignored because of defending knight's ability.
What you should probably ask is the opposite of these:
1b. Ordinary foot unit vs. Mounted knight?
Hit on red. If Ordinary Foot unit hits on SoS, ignore 2 SoS in melee (1 because of attacker's weapon, and 1 because of defending knight's ability)
2b. Ordinary mounted unit vs. Mounted knight?
Hit on red. If Ordinary Mounted unit hits on SoS, ignore 1 SoS in melee (because of defending knight's ability).
5b. Ordinary foot unit vs. Foot knight?
Hit on red. If Ordinary Foot unit hits on SoS, ignore 1 SoS in melee (because of defending knight's ability).
6b. Ordinary mounted unit vs. Foot knight?
Hit on red. If Ordinary Mounted unit hits on SoS, ignore 1 SoS in melee (because of defending knight's ability).
-
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
Mourning the end of the Manning era.
Welcome baby brother Toby James, 03/24, 8 lb. 15 oz.
-
Sorry I took the first unit as the attacker while Todd took it as the defender. But I answered them as "b's" below that.
-
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
-
It really isn't supposed to be this confusing
I still very much appreciate how BL (and C&C games in general) are consistently ruled, and almost always intuitively interpreted. Simplest application of the rules is the correct application of the rule, almost without exception when it comes to this gaming system.
-
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
Mourning the end of the Manning era.
Welcome baby brother Toby James, 03/24, 8 lb. 15 oz.
-
toddrew wrote: I'm not Brian, but: Masa wrote:
5. Foot knight vs. ordinary foot unit (short sword)?Not sure, but I think it is supposed to be 2
No. It should be 1. It ignores 1 SoS because it is a Knight. It would not ignore any auto-ignore from the attacking weapon because it is a foot unit, not mounted.
toddrew wrote: My additional questions would be - 9. Mounted Knight Lancer vs. Mounted Knight Long Sword? 10. Mounted Knight Lancer vs. Foot Knight? and 11. Mounted Knight Lancer vs. ordinary mounted unit?
I think the answer to all of those would also be 1.
9. Mounted Knight Lancer vs. Mounted Knight Long Sword?
As far as rolling dice, the two units are the same even with different weapons. Same as #3 above - so each would ignore 1 SoS.
10. Mounted Knight Lancer vs. Foot Knight?
Same as 4 and 7 - each would ignore 1 SoS
11. Mounted Knight Lancer vs. ordinary mounted unit?
Same as 2 and 2b - the MKL would ignore 1 SoS, the ord MU would not ignore anything.
-
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
Mourning the end of the Manning era.
Welcome baby brother Toby James, 03/24, 8 lb. 15 oz.
-
toddrew wrote: It really isn't supposed to be this confusing I still very much appreciate how BL (and C&C games in general) are consistently ruled, and almost always intuitively interpreted. Simplest application of the rules is the correct application of the rule, almost without exception when it comes to this gaming system.
The confusion is that FFG changed the Lance and created the Knight cards. I didn't have that info with me and didn't glean it off the rules.
I understand what they are doing. DOW wanted the defense to be in the weapon. FFG wants it to be on the Unit so that the weapons can just focus on attack. So they had to change the original weapon to reflect that and create new unit cards as well.
I see no conflict amongst the rules and revised cards. I think this should be "clear" now!
-
Matti Luostarinen
Finland
Helsinki
-
Yep. NOW I got it! One minus coming from the attacking weapon and one coming from the knights themselves...
  Ya know I`m not one of those smartest guys. And sometimes it is hard to understand everything in foreign language, to understand right all those little details and nuances...
But thanks alot again. Ready to play again and beat my opponents... Hoka hey!
-
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
-
ColtsFan76 wrote: I see no conflict amongst the rules and revised cards. I think this should be "clear" now!
Get rid of the word "additional" in the phrase "wearing the best of armor, Knights also ignore one additional rolled against them when attacked in melee" for the description of Knights, and then it is clear to me. It is the word that it causing confusion, for me if no one else, because I can see no other "additional" bonus strike that would be ignored aside from that coming from the short sword units (and short sword treated units, such as axe wielders, etc.).
-
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
Mourning the end of the Manning era.
Welcome baby brother Toby James, 03/24, 8 lb. 15 oz.
-
toddrew wrote: ColtsFan76 wrote: I see no conflict amongst the rules and revised cards. I think this should be "clear" now!
Get rid of the word "additional" in the phrase "wearing the best of armor, Knights also ignore one additional rolled against them when attacked in melee" for the description of Knights, and then it is clear to me. It is the word that it causing confusion, for me if no one else, because I can see no other "additional" bonus strike that would be ignored aside from that coming from the short sword units (and short sword treated units, such as axe wielders, etc.).
Two things:
1) It is the exact wording that was used in Scottish Wars - so it is probably a copy paste error.
2) It is an additional for the reasons you state: Mounted units can ignore 1 SoS if foot units have a weapon that hits on SoS. The reason why they copied it over. The "error" would be that Foot Knights are on foot and so have no primary SoS they ignore. they are the only ones that don't have an "additional"
-
-
Thanks for breaking it down. This summary clears up the situation perfectly.
-
Jim W
United States
Clatskanie
Oregon
-
Masa wrote: Yep. NOW I got it! One minus coming from the attacking weapon and one coming from the knights themselves... Ya know I`m not one of those smartest guys. And sometimes it is hard to understand everything in foreign language, to understand right all those little details and nuances... But thanks alot again. Ready to play again and beat my opponents... Hoka hey!
You posted an excellent question which is deals with extremely confusing rules. Luckily the Battlelore community have hardcore supporters like Brian and Todd. I 'm guessing you made Brian and Todd's day by posting questions about Battlelore ...BL just doesn't get much attention anymore
-
|
|
