Gallic allied contingents

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:34 pm

In the Gallic list in RoR, an allied contingent can have 0-4 LF with javelins

These are deducted from the maxima and minima in the main list

In the main list you can have 6-8 LF with javelins

So, if you take one ally with 4 LF javelinmen, that seems to mean you then HAVE to take a 2nd ally contingent, also with 4 javelinmen, as otherwise it becomes impossible to fulfil the minima for javelinmen in the main list (you are 2 short of the required 6) without exceeding the maxima (of

as there is a mandatory unit size for LF javelins in the main list of "6-8"?

WhiteKnight · Post by **WhiteKnight** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:39 pm

Have I understood? If you take an allied force with 0-4 javelinmen, can the other compulsory javelinmen not be in a BG the "main force"?

Martin

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:41 pm

madaxeman wrote:In the Gallic list in RoR,

Chickening out of the Brits are we?

Well spotted though.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:55 pm

WhiteKnight wrote:Have I understood? If you take an allied force with 0-4 javelinmen, can the other compulsory javelinmen not be in a BG the "main force"?

Martin

Tim's point it that if you take 4 for the ally you have a maximum of 4 left for the main army and you cannot have that as the BG size is 6-8.

WhiteKnight · Post by **WhiteKnight** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:08 pm

ah yes...just looked at the list!

Another minor erratum, then? Amend the javelins total bases allowed to read "6-10", so a force without allies could only have one BG of these troops but if an ally is chosen, youu can have a BG of 6 and an allied one of 4?

Martin

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:56 pm

Or you could take 2 allies, with 1x4 Bg of LF in each.

Pete

WhiteKnight · Post by **WhiteKnight** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:26 pm

Seems a bit tough to be forced to take two ally-commanders! Doubt if that's what the list designers intended?

Martin

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:08 pm

The effect is having just 1 big BG for the main army or one small one per allied contingent - maybe that is what was intended.

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:54 pm

MikeK wrote:The effect is having just 1 big BG for the main army or one small one per allied contingent - maybe that is what was intended.

It's actually one big BG in the main list, or 2 ally contingents both with a small BG each. If only one ally turns up he can't recruit any jls men, but if two do, both can somehow find 4 each.

Sort of a Gallic version of top trumps.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:20 am

The writers probably thought too much about allying with another nation.

WhiteKnight · Post by **WhiteKnight** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:27 pm

Maybe the writers can add to the thread now and tell us what was intended and the reasoning behind it OR just acknowledge a small error and produce a correction?

Martin

Polkovnik · Post by **Polkovnik** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:12 pm

They did, here :
viewtopic.php?t=8698&highlight=gallic

WhiteKnight · Post by **WhiteKnight** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:34 pm

Right! That's that then! Still wonder if it was an oversight and no-one had spotted it by the time of publication!

What, as they say, is the historical justification?

Martin

Gallic allied contingents

Gallic allied contingents

Re: Gallic allied contingents