Thats because there is more than 1 allied general allowed in the main listCaledonian wrote:I can confirm for what it's worth , however, that my son used a Gallic army at Britcon with two Gallic allied contingents. I discussed this with the list checker for that competition and he agreed that this was ok
John
can bring two allied nations that are the same?
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8835
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
-
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3070
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am
Having co-authored the Blood and Gold lists I can confirm the approach we took for that book (I suspect others were similar but Richard would know).
There are effectively three levels of allies. The smallest contingents aren't big enough to have their own general, or are sufficiently under the thumb that they served in the main army so appear as a line in the main list.
Up from that is a contingent that gets its own general by specific reference to an ally list. And, to confirm, that means a single ally.
The third situation is where there is strong evidence that more than one allied contingent. And in that case we have explicitly said, for example, 'up to 2 contingents'.
So, for example, a Hatun-Colla army is allowed La Paz auxiliaries, who were under the thumb so appear in the main Hatun-Colla list. They also are allowed Canas allies, so with nothing else specified that means only one Canas ally.
The Aztecs* on the other hand can get Triple Alliance allies (up to 2 contingents) representing the close alliance they had with Tlacopan and Tetzcoco. But they also get Central American allies (up to 2 contingents) to represent the city states also under Aztec hegemony. Of course the "CiC plus 1 to 3 other generals" rule means that not all four allied contingents could be used at once.
Regards
Graham
* I know "Aztec" isn't proper but my partners in crime didn't want me to call them Mexica. The big boy made me do it Miss.
There are effectively three levels of allies. The smallest contingents aren't big enough to have their own general, or are sufficiently under the thumb that they served in the main army so appear as a line in the main list.
Up from that is a contingent that gets its own general by specific reference to an ally list. And, to confirm, that means a single ally.
The third situation is where there is strong evidence that more than one allied contingent. And in that case we have explicitly said, for example, 'up to 2 contingents'.
So, for example, a Hatun-Colla army is allowed La Paz auxiliaries, who were under the thumb so appear in the main Hatun-Colla list. They also are allowed Canas allies, so with nothing else specified that means only one Canas ally.
The Aztecs* on the other hand can get Triple Alliance allies (up to 2 contingents) representing the close alliance they had with Tlacopan and Tetzcoco. But they also get Central American allies (up to 2 contingents) to represent the city states also under Aztec hegemony. Of course the "CiC plus 1 to 3 other generals" rule means that not all four allied contingents could be used at once.
Regards
Graham
* I know "Aztec" isn't proper but my partners in crime didn't want me to call them Mexica. The big boy made me do it Miss.
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
So we can blame you for the super armies that will be unleashed. What is the most interesting troop type you got the authors to approve?grahambriggs wrote:Having co-authored the Blood and Gold lists I can confirm the approach we took for that book (I suspect others were similar but Richard would know).
-
- Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:33 am
-
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5286
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am