Slitherine

Should the foot warrior BG size be 6-9 (or 8-12 even), rather than 8-9? Reason I ask is the minimum total bases after 638 AD is 12, it don't make sense...

peterrjohnston wrote:Should the foot warrior BG size be 6-9 (or 8-12 even), rather than 8-9? Reason I ask is the minimum total bases after 638 AD is 12, it don't make sense...

Nope, it should be 8-9, the minimum is the odd thing here - although by taking 16 you will have met the minimum so who cares.

nikgaukroger wrote: Nope, it should be 8-9, the minimum is the odd thing here - although by taking 16 you will have met the minimum so who cares.

My point, why not have made the minimum 16? Pah, list writers, useless

peterrjohnston wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: Nope, it should be 8-9, the minimum is the odd thing here - although by taking 16 you will have met the minimum so who cares.

My point, why not have made the minimum 16? Pah, list writers, useless

I would have said lazy and arrogant myself

Let's not forget spineless...

Muppets the lot of them !

Don't forget:
anti-dromedarians
Anti-non-english
Anti-people their empire looked down on.
oh and if PB was here.
They are Tournament Tigers

The numbers given in the list are actually correct and make sense when you consider the fact that the foot warriors can be deployed as either all Off Spear BGs or mixed Off Spear/Bow BGs.
If you are taking a mixed BG, the BG size is 9 (6 Spear and 3 Bow) and the minimum number of spearmen from 638 AD is 12, giving you 2 BGs. If you are taking them as all Spear, then the BG size is 8 and two BGs give you 16 which is greater than the minimum.