Alex Mac Dismounting Pike

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:28 am

If you have a 12 base BG of Pike in the Alex MAc army, then dismount them as 2x 6 MF - what happens to the army break point? And can Terry's program cope?
I dont want to mess up the draw at Roll Call by doing something annoying (like taking 3 x 12 Bgs of pike and dismounting them as 6 x6 MF)

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:19 am

Check the FoG errata - IIRC there is information in there to help you ...

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 1:06 pm

Plus you can only have 16 bases of MF foot companions.

Pete

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 1:12 pm

Although I'd missed the bit about the Hypaspists being a max of 8 - d'oh!!

Pete

andy63 · Post by **andy63** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:07 pm

petedalby wrote:Although I'd missed the bit about the Hypaspists being a max of 8 - d'oh!!

Pete

I also believe the foot companions can only be in BG`s of 8 if you want them to be MF not 12`s!

Andy.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 4:20 pm

That'll save you at least one incorrect list Andy!

Pete

andy63 · Post by **andy63** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 4:56 pm

Tell me about it just recieve first two lists for roll call and both wrong. I hope this is not going to be a trend.

Andy.

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:05 pm

hey, I was going by the book, didnt realise there was an errata changing it totally.

p45 - foot companions listed ast HR pikemen can be deployed as MF. A Bg of 12 HF becomes 2 Bg of 6 mf....

The max'es on MF companions dont seem to be relevant. It looks like you can take your 36 HF pike (though in bgs of 8 based on the errata, so make that 32), pay for them as MF, then 'dismount' at deployment when the terrain is horrible.

or am i talking bolox

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:20 am

The latter I'm afraid Paul - only 16 bases of foot companions can be deployed as MF.

It's in the Optional Troops bit of the list, between Bactrian LH and Mercenary Hoplites.

And now amended by the errata as Nik's pointed out.

Pete

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:09 pm

ahhh, missed the 'regrade' bit in the new entry.

doh

truly talking bolox

at least the hypaspists can still be MF superior off Spear

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:34 pm

at least the hypaspists can still be MF superior off Spear

They can - but the date restriction means no Eastern LH, Ellies or Indians.

Pete

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:11 pm

Those nasty list writers putting in restrictions

Actually I didn't want the MF Off Sp option in there but you can thank Richard for putting his foot down and keeping them

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:04 pm

I still think its a bloody good list.
I am very tempted to take it and see if the all troops must be armoured theory holds any water

durrati · Post by **durrati** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:10 am

There is not a 'all troops must be armoured' theory. Have seen it argued that all troops you rely on to do the neccesary in close combat should be armoured, which makes sense to me.

The fact that you can not get armoured pikes I believe to be a design decision, as armoured pikes would be to powerful. If anything this would be evidence in favour of the theory. Or the full statement should be 'all troops that you want to hand out a slap in combat should be armoured if at all possible for them to be as effective as possible, unless they are pike because you are not allowed them armoured as they would be over effective'.

The theory applying to armies that you are designing for competition purposes of course, if designing armies to fit historical prototypes you would want to have them armoured if that is your reading of the evidence for them troops in that army at that date.