Mixed Battle Groups

AlanCutner · Post by **AlanCutner** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:59 pm

At the club yesterday I took a Warring States army with mixed battle groups of MF heavy weapon and MF archers. I wanted the HW bases as armoured and the archers as Protected. There was objection to this, it being claimed that troops in a BG must all be the same armour class.

Page 157 of the lists (Book 11) was quoted 'All the bases in a battle group must have the same armour level, but different battle groups can have different armour levels'. But I always thought this page was part of an example army list, not rules applying geerally.

And.....
Page 22 of the rules states 'Except where the list specifies mixed battle groups, they must also be of the same armour class'. This suggest a Warring States mixed BG can have different armour classes.

What is the correct interpretation?

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:02 pm

Principate Romans have BGs with 4 HF armoured + 2 LF unprotected

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Read page 155 of Empires of the Dragon and you question will be answered by a section that explains all. It is the same section that appears in all the list books BTW - Appendix 1, the section headed "Battle Groups".

In short you are wrong, all the bases in the BGs in question have to be all Armoured or all Protected.

Blathergut - LF are specifically excepted in the section I refer to.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:31 pm

kind of goes back to the old can I make my rear stands of pikes poor questions from way back. A BG has to have the same training and armour class, unless as was pointed out they are lights. Was it a point cost you were looking at?
Guess you will have to armour your archers after all , which is a good thing if you take a lot of casualties and they end up in the front rank, thats when I like to see the unarmoured lights step up to the front of the legion.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:08 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:Read page 155 of Empires of the Dragon and you question will be answered by a section that explains all. It is the same section that appears in all the list books BTW - Appendix 1, the section headed "Battle Groups".

In short you are wrong, all the bases in the BGs in question have to be all Armoured or all Protected.

Blathergut - LF are specifically excepted in the section I refer to.

What about the Later Polish list from Infernal Umpire?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:13 pm

dave_r wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Read page 155 of Empires of the Dragon and you question will be answered by a section that explains all. It is the same section that appears in all the list books BTW - Appendix 1, the section headed "Battle Groups".

In short you are wrong, all the bases in the BGs in question have to be all Armoured or all Protected.

Blathergut - LF are specifically excepted in the section I refer to.
What about the Later Polish list from Infernal Umpire?

What about you actually read the Appendix in question? It explains in terms even you can't mis-interpret

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:37 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
dave_r wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Read page 155 of Empires of the Dragon and you question will be answered by a section that explains all. It is the same section that appears in all the list books BTW - Appendix 1, the section headed "Battle Groups".

In short you are wrong, all the bases in the BGs in question have to be all Armoured or all Protected.

Blathergut - LF are specifically excepted in the section I refer to.
What about the Later Polish list from Infernal Umpire?
What about you actually read the Appendix in question? It explains in terms even you can't mis-interpret

Erm, on this occasion I did - the relevant entry would be:

"Unles specifically stated otherwise in an army list, all troops in a battle group must be of the same armour class. When a choice of armour class is given in a list, this allows battlegroups to differ from each other, it does not permit variety within a battle group"

I even checked the errata

I assumed this meant there would be a list note under "building a customised list using our army point", bit. Which it isn't.

Is the fact it is in the army list enough?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:02 pm

Can we have the monkeys please ...

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:27 pm

dave_r wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:
dave_r wrote: What about the Later Polish list from Infernal Umpire?
What about you actually read the Appendix in question? It explains in terms even you can't mis-interpret
Erm, on this occasion I did - the relevant entry would be:

"Unles specifically stated otherwise in an army list, all troops in a battle group must be of the same armour class. When a choice of armour class is given in a list, this allows battlegroups to differ from each other, it does not permit variety within a battle group"

I even checked the errata

I assumed this meant there would be a list note under "building a customised list using our army point", bit. Which it isn't.

Is the fact it is in the army list enough?

I would note that reading further in the same appendix, there is an explicit example using a mixed BG of heavily armoured knights and cavalry from one of the Polish lists. Seems like that should clearly indicate the correct answer.

Chris

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:53 pm

I suspect that the key phrase is "When a choice of armour class is given in a list, this allows battlegroups to differ from each other, it does not permit variety within a battle group"

In the Polish list the knights have to be heavily armoured and the cavalry have to be armoured. There is no choice so mixed armour is OK.
The same for light foot in mixed BGs, there is no choice of armour.

If troops are armoured or protected then there is a choice so you cannot have variety in a BG.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:54 pm

Actually, I suspect it is the page long explanation on the following page which explains it....

Otherwise the fact that the Cavalry can be Armoured or Protected (i.e. giving you an option) blows your argument out of the water

Do you want 15 minutes or the full half-hour?

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:58 pm

dave_r wrote:Actually, I suspect it is the page long explanation on the following page which explains it....

Otherwise the fact that the Cavalry can be Armoured or Protected (i.e. giving you an option) blows your argument out of the water

Do you want 15 minutes or the full half-hour?

Well there you go, it serves me right for not bothering to go upstairs to the games room to check my book. If the cavalry can be protected or armoured it would IMO definitley need further explanation.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:23 pm

hammy wrote:
dave_r wrote:Actually, I suspect it is the page long explanation on the following page which explains it....

Otherwise the fact that the Cavalry can be Armoured or Protected (i.e. giving you an option) blows your argument out of the water

Do you want 15 minutes or the full half-hour?
Well there you go, it serves me right for not bothering to go upstairs to the games room to check my book. If the cavalry can be protected or armoured it would IMO definitley need further explanation.

Nope, this is still the bit that explains it

"Actually, I suspect it is the page long explanation on the following page which explains it...."