List Errata

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8508
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: List Errata

Post by philqw78 » Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:57 pm

Your new ally numbers restriction would be a bit odd for Gatae allied with other Thracians
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

petedalby
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2889
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: List Errata

Post by petedalby » Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:24 am

Good point Phil - so just needs a slight tweak to reflect that.
Pete

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: List Errata

Post by terrys » Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:33 am

Your new ally numbers restriction would be a bit odd for Gatae allied with other Thracians
I guess you're thinking that if you select 8 LH horse from a Gatae ally it would be higher than the maximum LH (with bow) permitted to 'other' Thracians.
Since the wording says it 'counts towards the min and max in the main list', you'd simply fill the max numbers (4) of bow armed light horse, and still have another 4 cavalry to choose.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8508
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: List Errata

Post by philqw78 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:29 am

And other Thracians with 2 allied commanders?

Internal allies don't work very well in the lists in my opinion. The ally often ends up with all of a certain troop type. Namely cavalry. Take Indian. Min spearmen is 6, bowmen 8. They can have three allies, they all must have 6 and 8. So the minimum is trebled for spearmen and completely taken up by archers, 2 elephants each as well means the CinC needs no compulsory troops
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: List Errata

Post by terrys » Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:24 am

And other Thracians with 2 allied commanders?
Each allied commander will have at least 1 BG of 4 cavalry and 1 BG of 8 infantry.
This will probably cover the minimums of cavalry in the main list (with the possible) exception of Gatae.
If the number of bases in allied command is equal to (or more than) the maximum number of such bases in the main list, then the main list will not be allowed to use any additional bases of that type.
You can select enough infantry in allied commands to fulfill the minimum requirement and therefore not have any Thracian foot in the main list. Nothing wrong with that!!
Internal allies don't work very well in the lists in my opinion. The ally often ends up with all of a certain troop type. Namely cavalry. Take Indian. Min spearmen is 6, bowmen 8. They can have three allies, they all must have 6 and 8. So the minimum is trebled for spearmen and completely taken up by archers, 2 elephants each as well means the CinC needs no compulsory troops
Anyone brave enough to take 3 allies has to accept that limitation. If anyone does, it is likely that the main list need not field any of those normally compulsory troops.
I fail to see why anyone taking Indians wouldn't take the maximum elephants - but they could all be in allied commands if you really wanted them.
The same goes for ALL of the other Core troops. I don't see a problem with this - You pay your money and take your choice.

The only real value of an internal ally is the saving of 10 points on the cost of a general. The disadvantages usually outweigh the advantages.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8508
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Ancient British

Post by philqw78 » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:35 pm

The Ancient British list has a compulsory ally general, though the 1-3 is printed in header colour, so maybe just a formatting error

The previous list couldn't have one even if you wanted one, and there is a choice of up to 3 TC sub generals, which would only be 2 if the compulsory internal ally is correct

What is the correct interpretation
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10243
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: List Errata

Post by nikgaukroger » Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:54 pm

0-2 subs

1-3 allies
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8508
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: List Errata

Post by philqw78 » Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:07 pm

So Cassivellaunus must have at least 12 allied Average MF Impact foot then instead of the previous 0
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10243
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: List Errata

Post by nikgaukroger » Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:22 pm

Warriors in the allied list should probably be *ed as well to take into account the special campaign. Mind you as it says he sent "most" of his infantry home maybe it wouldn't be wholly wrong to leave it as is ...
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8508
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: List Errata

Post by philqw78 » Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:36 pm

What if the Caledonian has a British ally?
The caledonians can't have slingers but the slingers are taken from the maximum which is 0. Does this mean a British ally can or cannot have slingers
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: List Errata

Post by grahambriggs » Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:42 pm

philqw78 wrote:What if the Caledonian has a British ally?
The caledonians can't have slingers but the slingers are taken from the maximum which is 0. Does this mean a British ally can or cannot have slingers
If you had Caledonians with a British Ally:

The ally must have 6-12 LF Sling. Let's say you took 1 BG of 6.

The 6 are deducted from the main list, so 2-18 remain.

The slingers are not available to the Caledones. So they cannot take the 2-18.

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: List Errata

Post by grahambriggs » Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:57 pm

philqw78 wrote:Your new ally numbers restriction would be a bit odd for Gatae allied with other Thracians
I take a Getae ally and decided on 8 LH Bow

This is deducted from the main list. The top line of core troops.

So, there are now 0-8 Getae LH available in the main list, and the total bases of Thracian cavalry is 0-16 now in the main army.

I read it that way because the internal ally wording in the internal allies says "troops" not "troop types". i.e. it has to pick up the right troop name as well.

I can't say it's a watertight way to do it, or indeed that it specifically says to do it that way in the book, but that is the way I've always done it.

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: List Errata

Post by grahambriggs » Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:09 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:Warriors in the allied list should probably be *ed as well to take into account the special campaign. Mind you as it says he sent "most" of his infantry home maybe it wouldn't be wholly wrong to leave it as is ...
Yes I agree, I think we probably missed the asterisk off of the ally. Terry?

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8508
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: List Errata

Post by philqw78 » Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:16 am

I still can't see that historical research has changed so much that 10 years ago Ancient British couldn't have any ally even if they wanted one and now you must have one.
What about the wars within Britain?
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2856
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: List Errata

Post by madaxeman » Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:41 am

philqw78 wrote:I still can't see that historical research has changed so much that 10 years ago Ancient British couldn't have any ally even if they wanted one and now you must have one.
What about the wars within Britain?
Brexit ?
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8508
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: List Errata

Post by philqw78 » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:16 am

Definitely compulsory allies in the Brexit campaign, even natural enemies are fighting together
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: List Errata

Post by terrys » Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:02 pm

Yes I agree, I think we probably missed the asterisk off of the ally. Terry?
It would be more sensible to put the asterisk on the allied commanders rather than in the allied list.
That would leave Cassivellaunus with no compulsory warriors.
If he took an allied general it would seem reasonable that the Ally would have control over his own troops.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10243
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: List Errata

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:07 pm

terrys wrote:
Yes I agree, I think we probably missed the asterisk off of the ally. Terry?
It would be more sensible to put the asterisk on the allied commanders rather than in the allied list.
That would leave Cassivellaunus with no compulsory warriors.
If he took an allied general it would seem reasonable that the Ally would have control over his own troops.

It isn't an "if" he takes an allied general, one is compulsory in the list.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: List Errata

Post by terrys » Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:22 pm

It isn't an "if" he takes an allied general, one is compulsory in the list.
Not if we made the selection of an allied general *1-3 He'd then ignore the minimum requirement

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10243
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: List Errata

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:39 pm

terrys wrote:
It isn't an "if" he takes an allied general, one is compulsory in the list.
Not if we made the selection of an allied general *1-3 He'd then ignore the minimum requirement
Ah, sorry - managed to miss that bit :oops:

It would indeed :)
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”