Gallic Cavalry
Moderators: terrys, hammy, philqw78, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
Gallic Cavalry
Right, I'm getting old (grey hair and all that), am still recovering from last nights bloodbath with my politically incorrect Woodland Indians and am having a bit of a moment while looking at the Gallic and Galatian List.
It says the usual in the blurb about allies, "but the troops in the contingent are deducted from the minima and maxima in the main list." Seems straightforward enough.
The Gauls have to have a compulsory allied commander, which is fair enough I suppose, but in both the main list and the ally list in the "total bases" column, 4 bases of protected cavalry are compulsory.
So, if the ally has the compulsory 4 bases of protected cavalry, the C-in-C doesn't have to have any protected cavalry, but has to have 4 bases of something, chariots or armoured cavalry instead. Is that correct?
It says the usual in the blurb about allies, "but the troops in the contingent are deducted from the minima and maxima in the main list." Seems straightforward enough.
The Gauls have to have a compulsory allied commander, which is fair enough I suppose, but in both the main list and the ally list in the "total bases" column, 4 bases of protected cavalry are compulsory.
So, if the ally has the compulsory 4 bases of protected cavalry, the C-in-C doesn't have to have any protected cavalry, but has to have 4 bases of something, chariots or armoured cavalry instead. Is that correct?
Re: Gallic Cavalry
Correct. He could have protected cavalry as well. But must have something that's half decent
Evaluator of Supremacy
-
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3101
- Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
- Location: Fareham, UK
Re: Gallic Cavalry
Right, I'm getting old (grey hair and all that),
Like most of us on here!
4 bases of protected cavalry are compulsory
Only from 300 BC
I don't believe so - no. The minimum of 4 Chariots or cavalry are fielded by the ally - so the C-in-C can field 0-20 - depending upon how many other allies are fielded of course.So, if the ally has the compulsory 4 bases of protected cavalry, the C-in-C doesn't have to have any protected cavalry, but has to have 4 bases of something, chariots or armoured cavalry instead. Is that correct?
Pete
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8814
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: Gallic Cavalry
Agree with Pete, except the getting old bits
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
-
- Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm
Re: Gallic Cavalry
Brian?still recovering from last nights bloodbath with my politically incorrect Woodland Indians
Re: Gallic Cavalry
Yep.
Good, at least I won't have to buy and paint more cavalry. The eyesight is going as well.
Good, at least I won't have to buy and paint more cavalry. The eyesight is going as well.
Re: Gallic Cavalry
As well as the mind... You keep confusing those redskins with a decent army...Caliph wrote:Yep.
Good, at least I won't have to buy and paint more cavalry. The eyesight is going as well.
Evaluator of Supremacy
Re: Gallic Cavalry
Not sure about this - the list notes say that the bases fielded by the ally deduct from the minima and maxima from the main list. ASthe protected cavalry have a minima and maxima, does this mean just the protected cavalry minima and maxima (4-24) or the overarching minima and maxima (also 4-24)?petedalby wrote:I don't believe so - no. The minimum of 4 Chariots or cavalry are fielded by the ally - so the C-in-C can field 0-20 - depending upon how many other allies are fielded of course.
Could be interpreted both ways. Be interested what a definitive ruling on this is.
Last edited by dave_r on Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Evaluator of Supremacy
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8814
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: Gallic Cavalry
That's it, your not list checking a competition again
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: Gallic Cavalry
What Pete said is right.dave_r wrote:Not sure about this - the list notes say that the bases fielded by the ally deduct from the minima and maxima from the main list. ASthe protected cavalry have a minima and maxima, does this mean just the protected cavalry minima and maxima (4-24) or the overarching minima and maxima (also 4-24)?petedalby wrote:I don't believe so - no. The minimum of 4 Chariots or cavalry are fielded by the ally - so the C-in-C can field 0-20 - depending upon how many other allies are fielded of course.
Could be interpreted both ways. Be interested what a definitive ruling on this 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
"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
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
Re: Gallic Cavalry
How is that punishment?philqw78 wrote:That's it, your not list checking a competition again
Re: Gallic Cavalry
[/quote]dave_r wrote: As well as the mind... You keep confusing those redskins with a decent army...
But it is a good army, it's challenging and fun to use.
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8814
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: Gallic Cavalry
Because allowing him to do it sends him on another power trip Dan. However he did lose his game against us at Godendag this weekendhazelbark wrote:How is that punishment?philqw78 wrote:That's it, your not list checking a competition again
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
Re: Gallic Cavalry
That was a draw - 9-11.philqw78 wrote:Because allowing him to do it sends him on another power trip Dan. However he did lose his game against us at Godendag this weekendhazelbark wrote:How is that punishment?philqw78 wrote:That's it, your not list checking a competition again
However, we did completely smash the eventual winners of the tournament 11-9. Considering they got 67 points from the other three games (including 22 if you?) Then we didn't do too badly.
Evaluator of Supremacy
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
Re: Gallic Cavalry
Ah the Geordie drawmeister at work.dave_r wrote: That was a draw - 9-11.
However, we did completely smash the eventual winners of the tournament 11-9. Then we didn't do too badly.
Re: Gallic Cavalry
Well, using Hittite against four pike armies I think we did pretty well. I particularly liked it when our average light chariots ran over the superior pikehazelbark wrote:Ah the Geordie drawmeister at work.dave_r wrote: That was a draw - 9-11.
However, we did completely smash the eventual winners of the tournament 11-9. Then we didn't do too badly.
Evaluator of Supremacy
-
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3101
- Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
- Location: Fareham, UK
Re: Gallic Cavalry
So who did win and when will you post the results?
And are light chariots the new anti-Han weapon?
And are light chariots the new anti-Han weapon?
Pete
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8814
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: Gallic Cavalry
Paul and Steve from Plymouth won.petedalby wrote:So who did win and when will you post the results?
And are light chariots the new anti-Han weapon?
Dave R & B second
Me and Ian third
There were no Han so we won't know.
Light chariots were only anti pike because of Dave's ridiculously lucky, as usual, dice.
His army relied on the light chariots for a very threatening skirmish force, his heavy chariots ran away from us and I assume all the other pike until some holes were made. Dave's main advantage against most of the others was his mass of MF. However we could match him on that, even better him. But trying to beat 8's with and IC and rear support is a long drag.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
Re: Gallic Cavalry
Back home on Thursday, will post full results then.petedalby wrote:So who did win and when will you post the results?
And are light chariots the new anti-Han weapon?
1. Steve Brown and Paul Bartlett. Pikey army
2. Dave Ruddock and David Bannister. Hittite
Evaluator of Supremacy
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
Re: Gallic Cavalry
Aside from the gratuitous but correct Ruddock 2nd place jab.
I would suggest that a well written after action report of the battle and details would promote interest and showcase version 3.
I would suggest that a well written after action report of the battle and details would promote interest and showcase version 3.