Number of Bases Count...???

[Blathergut]

When, for example in the French 1812 Infantry Corps list, a line reads: "If allied troops are used, the number of bases used count towards the minima for French troops in the main list," just what bases are counted towards?

If I take Wurtemburg Line Ave Dr or Poor Dr, do these simply count towards French Line infantry bases? Any? Veteran? Conscripts?

[ravenflight]

When, for example in the French 1812 Infantry Corps list, a line reads: "If allied troops are used, the number of bases used count towards the minima for French troops in the main list," just what bases are counted towards?

If I take Wurtemburg Line Ave Dr or Poor Dr, do these simply count towards French Line infantry bases? Any? Veteran? Conscripts?

I'd say that it counts for your minima... therefore if you need to have 12 bases of French (haven't looked at the list, so don't know what the minima is) and you have 12 bases of Wurtemburgers, then you don't need to take any French what-so-ever. Quality doesn't come into it, just bases.

[Blathergut]

The question comes up because:

a) French Line Infantry: minimum 4 bases veteran/drilled + 12 bases conscript

b) Wurtemberg: 4 bases average + 4 bases poor

So, is it my choice which French minimums are reduced? I'll get rid of 8 bases of conscripts, thank you!

[shadowdragon]

I would only count the allied towards the same troop French troop type. So average vet/drilled allied line inf count towards the French vet/drilled minimum and average conscript allied line inf towards the French average conscript - unless there's an explicit statement saying otherwise.

[Blathergut]

Problem with that is they don't match up always. Likewise, when Guard count towards French minimums, you can't match up like that.

[hazelbark]

I seem to recall the errata or something said like "line replaces line", "light replaces light" So it is not the training etc. Just the basic type.

[MDH]

The main purpose of this kind of stipulation is to avoid making it too hard, or even impossible, to construct a standard game sized army (sized by points) by the imposition of minima and through "imports" the aggregation of too many separate minima. It was not so much about either avoiding or getting round a notion of " historical imbalance" .

Given our criteria of "veteran, drilled and conscript" etc are a purely game construct and are applied to match a game design one should not too dogmatic and " anal" about the exact comparative mix of a historical army corps order of battle - in those terms. There is a quasi historical judgement involved in setting minima and maxima of course but you don't want that to get too much in the way of the game play. The core troop minima sometimes had to be adjusted downwards to meet the needs of the standard game. Maxima were easier to base on historical data.


The idea of a divisional " Import" came relatively late in the day of the rules development as I recall and as we constructed the lists , especially for the " high" period of the First Empire - and we did not always get this right in some lists - but the purpose was pretty straightforward.

[Blathergut]

It's fairly rare in the lists. Was just curious. I'd gone to add in Wurtemburgererers and kinda wondering which French bases to switch. Will just go with Line for Line.

[shadowdragon]

I seem to recall the errata or something said like "line replaces line", "light replaces light" So it is not the training etc. Just the basic type.

Now that you mention it I seem to recall that too but I couldn't find it in a quick search of the various errata.

It's been a while since the last official ones and we have collected a number of these errata/FAQ since then - some buried within posts. A nice weekend job searching through posts and pulling these together in one place.

[shadowdragon]

"Given our criteria of "veteran, drilled and conscript" etc are a purely game construct and are applied to match a game design one should not too dogmatic and " anal" about the exact comparative mix of a historical army corps order of battle - in those terms."

Hardly a question of being dogmatic - just how I understood it baring an explicit statement - whether in the rules, lists, errata, tournament guidelines or mutually agreed beforehand. I've refereed too many games between competitive players to rely on various views on designer intentions.

I'm happy with line for line and light for light.

[MDH]

"Given our criteria of "veteran, drilled and conscript" etc are a purely game construct and are applied to match a game design one should not too dogmatic and " anal" about the exact comparative mix of a historical army corps order of battle - in those terms."

Hardly a question of being dogmatic - just how I understood it baring an explicit statement - whether in the rules, lists, errata, tournament guidelines or mutually agreed beforehand. I've refereed too many games between competitive players to rely on various views on designer intentions.

I'm happy with line for line and light for light.

By "one " I meant us writers ie me No suggestion others were being dogmatic just that we had tried not to be.

[shadowdragon]

"Given our criteria of "veteran, drilled and conscript" etc are a purely game construct and are applied to match a game design one should not too dogmatic and " anal" about the exact comparative mix of a historical army corps order of battle - in those terms."

Hardly a question of being dogmatic - just how I understood it baring an explicit statement - whether in the rules, lists, errata, tournament guidelines or mutually agreed beforehand. I've refereed too many games between competitive players to rely on various views on designer intentions.

I'm happy with line for line and light for light.

By "one " I meant us writers ie me No suggestion others were being dogmatic just that we had tried not to be.

LOL