Slitherine

a while ago there was some discussion on the percentage of Core troops in an Army list............... I am looking at entering Roll Call and maybe Britcon.......... I have had a quick look at the rules for both of these but did not notice any mention of Core troop percentages............

So question is................... are there ny core troop percentages for these comps and are the cost of generals included in any core troop allowance ?

gerry

I think the conclusion was that they were not going to use "% core troops" explicitly. There would just be some compulsory troops in each army list. The issue was how many AP would be used up in taking the minimum compulsory troops. Whatever the result was, it is built into the army lists, so the lists are all you need.

There is no limit to what you can pick other than the minimums in the lists so for example Alexandrian Macedonian has to have:

6 bases of cavalry (you can choose which from the list)
4 bases of thracian etc. light horse
6 bases of hypaspists
12 bases of phalangites
6 bases of javelinmen
and 4 bases of light foot archer or slingers.

Beyond that it's up to you.

I find the core troops thing a little odd when you have choices that are 0-X for example Prodomoi in the Alex Maced list. Why would they be considered core troops when they are not compulsory? Surely if a choice is a 0-X they are optional?

malekithau wrote:I find the core troops thing a little odd when you have choices that are 0-X for example Prodomoi in the Alex Maced list. Why would they be considered core troops when they are not compulsory? Surely if a choice is a 0-X they are optional?

The core troops section is a concept thing. They are the typical troops of the army. While typical, they may not have been present at every battle.

Thus they are a guide to those who want to field a typical army rather than minimaxing.

Conceivably, some tournaments might be run in which armies are only allowed core troops. (Admittedly the max points might not work out enough for some armies)

I see now Richard but as that is not explained anywhere that I can see perhaps I missed it early in the testing phase. It always struck me as a bit odd.