Slitherine

BrianC wrote:
I think he just meant the majority of the army not the entire foot component. You can still choose as much MF as you like per the minima/maxima. But I can see his logic, especially when you have MF losing to HF in the open.

Brian

Well that makes sense, although of course there is no specified minima/maxima - currently, from what I understand, it's all 1 or all the other with the option of an ally with the other type.

If we go down this route we could suggest a separate maximum for MF if we are allowing a player to pick both types.

Matt

MattDower wrote:Lets get this right - you are suggesting that the Gauls should not be able to field ANY MF?
This would make the Galls quite a very inflexible army under these rules.

I am suggesting nothing more than that a Gallic army based on historical documentation, particularly as described by Caesar, would be predominantly (if not entirely) HF.

On the other hand, if I wanted to create a 'flexible' army for tournament competitions, then I would include a "hill tribe" ally with a few BGs of MF. However, I would still field the bulk of the warriors as HF.

Cheers,
Scott

ars_belli wrote: I am suggesting nothing more than that a Gallic army based on historical documentation, particularly as described by Caesar, would be predominantly HF. If you want to create a 'flexible' tournament army, that is a different discussion.

Cheers,
Scott

Not exactly my motivation. Although, that the way the rules and lists work there are many armies which can't hold their own against other "popular" armies. This was also true in DB*

I was trying to quantify what "predominantly" might mean numerically.

Matt

MattDower wrote:I was trying to quantify what "predominantly" might mean numerically.

Historically, it would depend on whether the tribe in question is documented as having deployed in a close-order 'phalanx' (e.g. the Helvetii at Bibracte), or fought in a loose, rapidly moving formation over rough terrain (possibly the Nervii at the Sabis, although personally I think that HF is a better fit for them as well). It is conceivable that infantry warriors in chariot-centered Gallic armies of the 4th century BC could have fought more like MF than HF. In any case, it would be normal for 100% of the infantry warriors to be the same classification. Offhand, I can't think of any historical descriptions of Gauls using 'combined arms' specialized infantry tactics.

Cheers,
Scott