Mid republic roman BG's

[philqw78]

It is the only list out of all the books that the rule's author had to elaborate on due to its complexity:

True but that relates to the proportions that the different types of BG must be fielded in. Nothing to do with the point in question here, which is hastati & principes being combined into one BG.

Which they may be or may not be. Which your answer did nothing to help with.

[expendablecinc]

But then I've never read all the rules. They are pretty dull.

I've never read the rules at all. I thought that was what Hammy was for.

The rule for base removal has been questioned by many people both on this forum and at most clubs. So giff has a very valid question. There is no reason to shoot people down just because they do not immediatly understand all the rules. if the rules were always clear there would be no need for this forum.

It wasn't the question that was the issue - it was the tone of the post. It's the attitude of "I don't understand it so it must be poorly written".

And there was no indication from his post that he had actually even read the rules on base removal.

I read nothing of this described tone in the original post. If only Graham had replied before you sank the boot in for asking.

[philqw78]

Not that these apply here anyway, because the BGs in question do not have different armour clases.

They can be either Protected or Armoured. But a more experienced player would know that this mix could not be in the same battle group. Though it could be different battle groups in the same army. Have you not read the army lists?

[giff]

Fellows,
Let me start by saying that after a quick review of the MRR army list I spotted something that had been stareing me right in the face. Page 9 of the rise of rome book. I was giving the Hastati the protected and the principes armored. That's was what was throwing me , The formation is all the same figure. I was placing to much on what they look like (my hastati have only the little breast plate and the principes have chainmail I was overthinking it) it was only after reading the posts on this thread that it clicked.
To everyone I will say I am sorry(except for one of ya). You see none of my gaming buddies want to play this game so I have been reading,painting and trying to teach myself this game all by myself. Its kind of like reading a mannal on car repair. Till you work on a car, they're just words on a page. AND yes I stick by my claim that the rules are sometimes a little muddy to me. So I have to come here to fourm to ask questions and bounce things of other people, and the last thing I will put up with is someone being rude to me. Again, to almost all of you I am sorry, it just sounded like something my ex-wife would of said. and I kinda lost my head.
In the words of my favorite cowboy, Woodrow F. Call: I won't tolerate rudeness in a man!
Thanks again

[Polkovnik]

I've never read the rules at all. I thought that was what Hammy was for.

The rule for base removal has been questioned by many people both on this forum and at most clubs. So giff has a very valid question. There is no reason to shoot people down just because they do not immediatly understand all the rules. if the rules were always clear there would be no need for this forum.

It wasn't the question that was the issue - it was the tone of the post. It's the attitude of "I don't understand it so it must be poorly written".

And there was no indication from his post that he had actually even read the rules on base removal.

I read nothing of this described tone in the original post. If only Graham had replied before you sank the boot in for asking.

It wasn't in the original post. It was the third post in this thread, here he said: "the rules are muddy on some of these little points". I asked him to quote the so-called "muddy" rules so they could be explained. And I thought that maybe he hadn't read all the relevant rules, such as base removal and possibly the list notes explaining how each line of the army list book works.
I fail to see how that can be construed as ""sinking the boot in".

[Polkovnik]

Not that these apply here anyway, because the BGs in question do not have different armour clases.

They can be either Protected or Armoured.

Yes, I know, but that's irrelevant here. I was talking about different armour classes within the same BG.

But a more experienced player would know that this mix could not be in the same battle group.

Or anyone who read the notes on how to use the army lists, where it clearly states that you cannot have a mix of different armour classes within the same BG unless stated specifically in the army list.

Have you not read the army lists?

Yes, I have, thank you. Why do you ask ?

[giff]

Not that these apply here anyway, because the BGs in question do not have different armour clases.

They can be either Protected or Armoured.

Yes, I know, but that's irrelevant here. I was talking about different armour classes within the same BG.

But a more experienced player would know that this mix could not be in the same battle group.

Or anyone who read the notes on how to use the army lists, where it clearly states that you cannot have a mix of different armour classes within the same BG unless stated in the specific list notes for that army.

Have you not read the army lists?

Yes, I have, thank you. Why do you ask ?

Ok Guys no one cares anymore I get it , lets move on. I asked a dumb question. I wont do it again. gosh maybe I'll get into toy trains

[Rekila]

Not so , the list, strict as they are,do give more possibilities that it seems at first look. For my MRR (1000pt) I have 6 BG of protected and 6 of armoured. You can call them Hastati/principes or Allied/roman. I also have 12 Bases of triarii to be combined on 3BG of 4b or 6 of 2b. So you can deploy an early army with a front of 10 BG with a strong center of 6 armoured BG supported by 3 BG of 4b of triairi, and 3BG on a 2/1 formation of allied on each flank. Or a more classical formation of 12 BG with 2b triarii in support or even a deep one with 6 hastati in front, 6 principes on second line and the triarii on his place (3º line).

[Polkovnik]

I asked a dumb question. I wont do it again.

No you didn't. There's nothing wrong with not understanding something, and nothing wrong with asking questions on here. That's what this forum is for.

[Polkovnik]

Fellows,
Let me start by saying that after a quick review of the MRR army list I spotted something that had been stareing me right in the face.

So not "muddy" then ?

To everyone I will say I am sorry(except for one of ya).

What are you apologising for ? There's no need to apologise for asking a question about the rules. If, however you are apologising for the rude and uncalled for personal attack you made, surely you should not exclude the target of that attack from the apology ?

AND yes I stick by my claim that the rules are sometimes a little muddy to me.

Which has a very different implication to what you first said.
"The rules are muddy" - implies there is a problem with the way the rules are written
"The rules are muddy to me" - implies the difficulty is with your understanding the rules - which there is nothing wrong with, especially if you are trying to learn the game on your own. It's not a simple game and lots of people have difficulty understanding parts of it.

In the words of my favorite cowboy, Woodrow F. Call: I won't tolerate rudeness in a man!

Well I asked if you'd read the rules fully. I thought you may have missed the rules on base removal or the notes at the end of the army list books on how the lists work. You called me a "stunted little man with few friends." Who is the one being rude ?

[kal5056]

Could the moderator please delete this string?

I feel it has reached a point of being totally non-productive.

Giff...Please contniue to post any questions you may have.
Polk...As previously ststed it is probably best if you leave Giff's posts for others to respond to.

If you two guys ever end up in the same town at a game I will buy a round to sit face to face and settle this.

One of the unfortunate things about forums like this is that our intention in wording is often mistaken leading to dust up's such as this.
I predict that you 2 would have a fine time across a table from each other and would hate for Giff or any toher new players be put off by this thread.

Thank You
Gino
SMAC

[giff]

Polk wrote Or is it just that you haven't actually read the rules fully ?

Now I am sorry but this seems a little sarcastic.

The post about the rules being a little muddy was most just banter, Polk should not take very little quip written on the fourm so serious. I dont get Futbol either.

On a side note I have been Gaming since the mid-80's and have played all the games, everything from Sword and the Flame to 40k to Flames of war but this is my first Ancients game and I Know nothing about it

[mbsparta]

I actually like the way FoG portrays (or doesn't) the Roman Manipular formations. I had a collection of MRR with units of Hastati and units of Principes. Now, assuming you armor them the same, then they simply are the same. So it doesn't matter if you mix and match the indivdual stands of models or not. There is a very good explaination on how to model the manipular legion in the files.

Mike B