Attached divisions - minimums/maximums

[KeefM]

Just two quick questions of interpretation:

When attached Divisions are used the rules in the army list books seem clear enough but I would like to know how to interpret the maximums.

1. Is it correct that In the case of artillery, 1/3 of of 2 is 2/3; therefore the minimum rounds up to 1 = half a unit = a compulsory unit is required in the attached Division and the list maximums then apply ?

2. In the case of artillery where the minimum is 0, the maximums get halved; so in the specifc case where the maximum then drops from 2 to 1, does this mean no unit could be included in an attached Division ?

[BrettPT]

Yes to both, in my view

- unless of course some specific rule in a list says otherwise. ie a Guard division attached to an 1812 French Infantry Corps can ignore all minima, as can a Reserve cavalry division attached to the same Corps (the Horse Artillery minima can be ignored as well as this unit falls under the "Core Cavalry" block of troops). I'm not sure whether the maxima should be halved in these circumstances or not...

Cheers
Brett

[KeefM]

That all sounds very sensible IMHO . . . so, the general spirit of zero minimums should cause halved maximums for all units/troops whose minimums are waived too !

[shadowdragon]

Yes to both, in my view

- unless of course some specific rule in a list says otherwise. ie a Guard division attached to an 1812 French Infantry Corps can ignore all minima, as can a Reserve cavalry division attached to the same Corps (the Horse Artillery minima can be ignored as well as this unit falls under the "Core Cavalry" block of troops). I'm not sure whether the maxima should be halved in these circumstances or not...

Cheers
Brett

See Terry's comment in this thread

viewtopic.php?f=188&t=36561

"For artillery a minimum of 2 rounds to 0, a minimum of 3 rounds to 2."

[KeefM]

Perfect - many thanks !!

[Blathergut]

Yes to both, in my view

- unless of course some specific rule in a list says otherwise. ie a Guard division attached to an 1812 French Infantry Corps can ignore all minima, as can a Reserve cavalry division attached to the same Corps (the Horse Artillery minima can be ignored as well as this unit falls under the "Core Cavalry" block of troops). I'm not sure whether the maxima should be halved in these circumstances or not...

Cheers
Brett

Was there ever an answer to this? Should maxima be halved in these circumstances?

[deadtorius]

For what it's worth the rules seem to imply you can't take most optional units, unless infantry and cavalry are maximum 8 or more, and 4 or more for artillery. Then you can grab 1 small unit.
my own Houghton was this was kind of like the Fog A/M lists where only core units could be used as an allied force, auxiliary forces could not be taken. Core troops are always available and numerous in any given corps, optional troops may not even be present or in such small numbers their parent corps may not be willing to lend them out. Half ing the max of optional units forces players to draw almost exclusively from the core units part of the list but in a way it also makes the most sense.

That was my take on it from what the rules implied, although I think it should have been written more like: core units reduced to zero keep their maximum number of units. All optional units halve their maximums.

[Blathergut]

See clarification here:

http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=188&t=55481

Basically, you divide the minimums by 3 so you don't have to take a full corps worth of troops. You keep the maximums and can have that many.

See the errata clarification in the E&E errata.

[MDH]

For what it's worth the rules seem to imply you can't take most optional units, unless infantry and cavalry are maximum 8 or more, and 4 or more for artillery. Then you can grab 1 small unit.
my own Houghton was this was kind of like the Fog A/M lists where only core units could be used as an allied force, auxiliary forces could not be taken. Core troops are always available and numerous in any given corps, optional troops may not even be present or in such small numbers their parent corps may not be willing to lend them out. Half ing the max of optional units forces players to draw almost exclusively from the core units part of the list but in a way it also makes the most sense.

That was my take on it from what the rules implied, although I think it should have been written more like: core units reduced to zero keep their maximum number of units. All optional units halve their maximums.

Not sure that was quite our aim. The notion of import/export Divisions was comparatively late in the development .It is the straitjacket of standard points games and single Corps actions that creates a pressure on the use of optional units when importing/exporting not any specific intention on our part to treat them a la FOG(AM) allies.

But we did not want by accident to create a kind of free for all whereby the basic Corps structures could be essentially overridden by the back door hence the original divide the maxima by 2.

This was partly motivated, for me by the experience of past Nap rules systems where you could pretty much please yourself what you used your points for. I recall facing an Austrian army with more Tyrolean jaegers than ever existed at any one time in the whole Austrian army, or multiple clones of the 95th and 60th rifles with the British , and Old Guard heavy or horse artillery attached to French line formations and no brigade let alone divisional structures at all - much less Corps level . Another factor was not rendering obsolete the many types of figures and units folk would already have had in their collections by overly constraining them to the main lists.

Once you get into multi Corps points based games a lot of these issues tend to fade away and you can usually have the full range pretty much of what was in a given campaign or year. You can actually find you have too much choice!

[deadtorius]

So you should just drop the whole 1/2 max thing then as it doesn't appear to work as intended, or work at all by the sounds of it.

This brings up a different question.page 40 of Triumph, Russia 1812 list, Special rules 1st bullet after troops who are reformed. Foot guards, shock cavalry, and Opolchenie may not be in the same division as each other.
Maybe I have been doing it wrong but in this list there are Opolchenie but no guards and no Shock cavalry. How could they possibly ever end up in the same division? I thought if you pulled a force from another list, even if the same nationality, it had to form a separate division with its own commander. The Opolchenie restriction seems to imply I could grab Guard from the Guard list as individual units and spread them about divisions made from the Army of the West 1812 list.

So which is correct, the allied list has to form its own separate division or you can just pull in individual units and spread them about the main lists divisions?

[MDH]

So you should just drop the whole 1/2 max thing then as it doesn't appear to work as intended, or work at all by the sounds of it.

This brings up a different question.page 40 of Triumph, Russia 1812 list, Special rules 1st bullet after troops who are reformed. Foot guards, shock cavalry, and Opolchenie may not be in the same division as each other.
Maybe I have been doing it wrong but in this list there are Opolchenie but no guards and no Shock cavalry. How could they possibly ever end up in the same division? I thought if you pulled a force from another list, even if the same nationality, it had to form a separate division with its own commander. The Opolchenie restriction seems to imply I could grab Guard from the Guard list as individual units and spread them about divisions made from the Army of the West 1812 list.

So which is correct, the allied list has to form its own separate division or you can just pull in individual units and spread them about the main lists divisions?

The amendment does drop the 1/2 max thing. Yes that stipulation for the list is otiose- must have been written before we decided to have separate lists for Russian Cavalry and Guards and had a generic list for all types so that those mixes needed to be prevented . It certainly implies nothing about the distribution of imported units .

It is without effect and states needlessly what is plainly true. It has ceased to be, is deceased, has turned up its toes - not even pining for the fjords ( see M Python). You are not a lawyer specialising in contract law by any chance are you....? Should we ever meet I'll buy you pint for creative loophole gazing!

[Blathergut]

He has been known to instinctively answer to the name 'Cicero.'

[MDH]

He has been known to instinctively answer to the name 'Cicero.'

Given his reported tendency to kill your commanders with his d rolls maybe he will come to the same end as Cicero - hands nailed to the senate doors?

[deadtorius]

Im innocent I tell youse. The only reason I have such a high kill ratio of enemy commanders is their rash nature to decide to join many many fights. If they would just stand back they would remain alive like the Austrians. Cant kill them if they don't run into battle all the time.

[MDH]

Im innocent I tell youse. The only reason I have such a high kill ratio of enemy commanders is their rash nature to decide to join many many fights. If they would just stand back they would remain alive like the Austrians. Cant kill them if they don't run into battle all the time.

They just run in front of your brave soldiers guns!

[deadtorius]

you bet they do, some kind of crazy French elan and for the hounour of dying for the Emperor or something... I still think I should be able to kill Froggie commanders on any die roll other than 1 They are like lemmings anyway in our games, always rushing off en masse to get themselves killed.

[MDH]

you bet they do, some kind of crazy French elan and for the hounour of dying for the Emperor or something... I still think I should be able to kill Froggie commanders on any die roll other than 1 They are like lemmings anyway in our games, always rushing off en masse to get themselves killed.

I might be dying for a pint but never for an Emperor - such thoughts would certainly peeve the emperor ( you see what I did there ).

I must be getting desperate for a game - nothing all year and another week to go