List Errata
Moderators: terrys, hammy, philqw78, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8814
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: List Errata
Your new ally numbers restriction would be a bit odd for Gatae allied with other Thracians
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: List Errata
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.Your new ally numbers restriction would be a bit odd for Gatae allied with 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.
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8814
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: List Errata
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
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, 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: List Errata
Each allied commander will have at least 1 BG of 4 cavalry and 1 BG of 8 infantry.And other Thracians with 2 allied commanders?
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!!
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.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
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.
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8814
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Ancient British
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
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, 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: List Errata
0-2 subs
1-3 allies
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
"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
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8814
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: List Errata
So Cassivellaunus must have at least 12 allied Average MF Impact foot then instead of the previous 0
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: List Errata
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
"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
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8814
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: List Errata
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
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, 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!
-
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am
Re: List Errata
If you had Caledonians with a British Ally: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
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.
-
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am
Re: List Errata
I take a Getae ally and decided on 8 LH Bowphilqw78 wrote:Your new ally numbers restriction would be a bit odd for Gatae allied with other Thracians
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.
-
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am
Re: List Errata
Yes I agree, I think we probably missed the asterisk off of the ally. Terry?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 ...
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8814
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: List Errata
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?
What about the wars within Britain?
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!
-
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3002
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Re: List Errata
Brexit ?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?
http://www.madaxeman.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8814
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: List Errata
Definitely compulsory allies in the Brexit campaign, even natural enemies are fighting together
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: List Errata
It would be more sensible to put the asterisk on the allied commanders rather than in the allied list.Yes I agree, I think we probably missed the asterisk off of the ally. Terry?
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.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: List Errata
terrys wrote:It would be more sensible to put the asterisk on the allied commanders rather than in the allied list.Yes I agree, I think we probably missed the asterisk off of the ally. Terry?
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
"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
Re: List Errata
Not if we made the selection of an allied general *1-3 He'd then ignore the minimum requirementIt isn't an "if" he takes an allied general, one is compulsory in the list.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: List Errata
Ah, sorry - managed to miss that bitterrys wrote:Not if we made the selection of an allied general *1-3 He'd then ignore the minimum requirementIt isn't an "if" he takes an allied general, one is compulsory in the list.
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
"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