Slitherine

Hi All,
I'm thrashing over in my mind the decision to build a Later Carthaginian Army as my next exercise in madness. I am wondering to what extent the Special Campaign options are accepted in general and whether or not in tournaments(not that I get the chance to play in many due to family and money )

Robkhan

I have played the Hannibal in Italy in both themed and open events.
The tournaments in the States accept them, and I know the Tim Porter has taken Hannibal in Italy to the World team tournament.
He has a very nice report on his web page about their adventures.
Good luck with them !

Assuming you mean the "Hannibal in Italy" section in the army lists, etc. - yes all competitions accept them.

Thanks Furry_Pal and Graham, now the next step is to convince "The Trouble.....".
Cheers
Robkhan

So... You take 'Carthaginian - Hannibal in Italy' to a comp. You're put up against 'Early Hoplite Greek'. When you declare armies, what do you declare? Carthaginian, or Carthaginian - Hannibal in Italy ?

I fully understand the issue, and this is what lead to my question in the first place. But what about Numidians vs Bactrian Greek? Is this allowed along with a Hannibal in Italy army vs whoever from whereever and whenever?????? In one tournament I played my MRR against a great big line of Indian Elephants - just as historically non-sensical - but that is what even themed tournaments produce.
Robkhan

So... You take 'Carthaginian - Hannibal in Italy' to a comp. You're put up against 'Early Hoplite Greek'. When you declare armies, what do you declare? Carthaginian, or Carthaginian - Hannibal in Italy ?

The norm in the UK at competitions is to be open and honest - so it would be 'Carthaginian - Hannibal in Italy' - with an army date as well if appropriate.

Furry_Pal wrote:I have played the Hannibal in Italy in both themed and open events.
The tournaments in the States accept them, and I know the Tim Porter has taken Hannibal in Italy to the World team tournament.
He has a very nice report on his web page about their adventures.
Good luck with them !

http://www.madaxeman.com/reports/ITC_Lisbon_2012_1.php - not sure if you'll want to take the army after this though...

petedalby wrote:

So... You take 'Carthaginian - Hannibal in Italy' to a comp. You're put up against 'Early Hoplite Greek'. When you declare armies, what do you declare? Carthaginian, or Carthaginian - Hannibal in Italy ?

The norm in the UK at competitions is to be open and honest - so it would be 'Carthaginian - Hannibal in Italy' - with an army date as well if appropriate.

Not trying to be argumentative, so if it seems I am I apologise... if you were to take an 'Ancient British' army, with Roman Allies, do you say 'Ancient British' or 'Ancient British with Roman Allies'?

Not trying to be argumentative, so if it seems I am I apologise... if you were to take an 'Ancient British' army, with Roman Allies, do you say 'Ancient British' or 'Ancient British with Roman Allies'?

No apology necessary. My expectation would be 'Ancient British' - but when any allied troops are deployed on table they would be declared as Allies.

In a competition earlier this year for example I played Yuan Chinese. I declared the date as 1299 so that my opponents would know my list could have Superior Mongol Cav and Handgunners.

Always best to be open and honest in my view. Trying to do anything that could be perceived as underhand just sows seeds of distrust that might spoil the game later.

It is normal in UK to state list title, date used and any sub list/tribe/king/campaign used.

So is you were using Early Successor you would say which Successor at which date, unless you only used troops that they all could use. On the understanding that your enemy should be able to know which troops you can select from, but not your actual selection.

Otherwise I could (or maybe would) just say I had a Roman army and deploy Post Latin Byzantine

petedalby wrote:

Not trying to be argumentative, so if it seems I am I apologise... if you were to take an 'Ancient British' army, with Roman Allies, do you say 'Ancient British' or 'Ancient British with Roman Allies'?

No apology necessary. My expectation would be 'Ancient British' - but when any allied troops are deployed on table they would be declared as Allies.

In a competition earlier this year for example I played Yuan Chinese. I declared the date as 1299 so that my opponents would know my list could have Superior Mongol Cav and Handgunners.

Always best to be open and honest in my view. Trying to do anything that could be perceived as underhand just sows seeds of distrust that might spoil the game later.

Sure, but in the case of the Carthaginians, aren't you saying the same thing by saying "Later Carthaginian - 210 B.C.?

I do have to admit, that there seems (seemed?? I haven't played realistically in over 3 years, and am playing probably my first game in a year next weekend at Melee) a bit more 'trickery' is used in Australian comps... but then "I come from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not believe the army in front of you"

But in all seriousness, it may just be a few definite people, but it seems (in my experience) that all sorts of trickery is used to try to throw people off the scent. For example, using a "Viking Army" and having next to zero heavy foot - that sort of thing (more in DBM than in FoG:AM - but similar trickery still happens).

Often what I say to people when I sit down to an unfamiliar list is "so, if I knew your list backwards, what kind of troops could you have?" Most people are fairly forthcoming.

philqw78 wrote:Otherwise I could (or maybe would) just say I had a Roman army and deploy Post Latin Byzantine

No, I don't think that's the same thing. I think saying "Later Ptolemaic from Rise of Rome <insert date>" gives a clear understanding of what you are running... or possibly running. Saying you're running "Later Carthaginian from Rise of Rome dated 210B.C." gives a wider range than other years, but as soon as you throw a +3 for your initiative it starts to narrow things down.

I wouldn't get my knickers in a twist about it, but I can see either side of the argument.

Sure, but in the case of the Carthaginians, aren't you saying the same thing by saying "Later Carthaginian - 210 B.C.?

No - because that would suggest to me that it is a Later Carthaginian army fighting in say Spain, without Hannibal.

I don't have extensive experience of playing guys from Oz but the ones I have met have seem to play the same as we do.

The furthest I'd go to throw an opponent off the scent would be to pick a date which allowed a specific option or ally in the list without having chosen that.

Like I said - open and honest is best.

ravenflight wrote:

petedalby wrote:

So... You take 'Carthaginian - Hannibal in Italy' to a comp. You're put up against 'Early Hoplite Greek'. When you declare armies, what do you declare? Carthaginian, or Carthaginian - Hannibal in Italy ?

The norm in the UK at competitions is to be open and honest - so it would be 'Carthaginian - Hannibal in Italy' - with an army date as well if appropriate.

Not trying to be argumentative, so if it seems I am I apologise... if you were to take an 'Ancient British' army, with Roman Allies, do you say 'Ancient British' or 'Ancient British with Roman Allies'?

Hello Ravenflight I think this is an issue of what the convention is. In UK competitions, the convention is that you say which army list your main army is drawn from (this is always displayed when the draw is made) and what year and/or special campaigns it is. These latter two are sometimes also displayed when the draw is made. It may be that the convention is different in Oz. Allies are never declared prior to the battle, nor are the specific troops you are using.

So in your example, I'd declare Ancient British and a date, but I wouldn't declare the Roman ally until it's first Battle group is deployed at which point I'd say "HF, superior, armoured" etc and say the name of the list that the ally comes from. I think there is a version of the Brits that are all chariots and skirmishers. I seem to remember it has a particular campaign name. If so, i'd say that if using it.

If there's any rationale behind this convention it's that the opponent would know they were in Italy, and what the date is, so they'd know they are up against hannibal's veteran army. But they wouldn't necessarily know his exact troop mix, or if he'd persuaded an ally to join him.

Thanks for the responses Guys. It opened an issue I had never thought of, but for me it is not an issue. I am happy to give all the info once I have my opponent, we are setting up and during the game. The army list should state if it is a special campaign or normal list. The game is there to be enjoyed by both sides, win lose or draw.

I am going to annoy you all by asking for confirmation of what is probably obvious, but I am good at getting things wrong from time to time, as well as throwing 3's.

If I take Hannibal In Italy the ALL in upgrades means I can't have a combination of both upgraded and non upgraded. But I can still choose between the min. and max. number of bases. Is this right?

With the Special Campaign army I am still required to take the min. Core troops. Is this right?

Cheers
Robkhan

Yes I believe you're right. Don't remember it 100% but there's something like average spearmen in the main list who are something like 8-16 bases. And in the campaign specific section they are an ALL upgrade to superior armoured or some such. That means that you can have 8-16 bases but they all have to be superior armoured, none can be average.

I thin what it's trying to represent is that the army was in the field for so long that tehy improved in quality and got better armour (perhaps captured stuff from the Romans?)

Thanks Graham - they can have 6-8 per BG with a max of 18.The cute thing is the Gauls become drilled, but somehow still average. It seems that they were always at the peak of their learning curve, but others not. Even Hannibal couldn't get anything across to them apart from a little squarebashing!
Cheers
Rob