Slitherine

Right, I'm getting old (grey hair and all that), am still recovering from last nights bloodbath with my politically incorrect Woodland Indians and am having a bit of a moment while looking at the Gallic and Galatian List.

It says the usual in the blurb about allies, "but the troops in the contingent are deducted from the minima and maxima in the main list." Seems straightforward enough.
The Gauls have to have a compulsory allied commander, which is fair enough I suppose, but in both the main list and the ally list in the "total bases" column, 4 bases of protected cavalry are compulsory.
So, if the ally has the compulsory 4 bases of protected cavalry, the C-in-C doesn't have to have any protected cavalry, but has to have 4 bases of something, chariots or armoured cavalry instead. Is that correct?

Correct. He could have protected cavalry as well. But must have something that's half decent

Right, I'm getting old (grey hair and all that),

Like most of us on here!

4 bases of protected cavalry are compulsory

Only from 300 BC

So, if the ally has the compulsory 4 bases of protected cavalry, the C-in-C doesn't have to have any protected cavalry, but has to have 4 bases of something, chariots or armoured cavalry instead. Is that correct?

I don't believe so - no. The minimum of 4 Chariots or cavalry are fielded by the ally - so the C-in-C can field 0-20 - depending upon how many other allies are fielded of course.

Agree with Pete, except the getting old bits

still recovering from last nights bloodbath with my politically incorrect Woodland Indians

Brian?

Yep.
Good, at least I won't have to buy and paint more cavalry. The eyesight is going as well.

Caliph wrote:Yep.
Good, at least I won't have to buy and paint more cavalry. The eyesight is going as well.

As well as the mind... You keep confusing those redskins with a decent army...

petedalby wrote:I don't believe so - no. The minimum of 4 Chariots or cavalry are fielded by the ally - so the C-in-C can field 0-20 - depending upon how many other allies are fielded of course.

Not sure about this - the list notes say that the bases fielded by the ally deduct from the minima and maxima from the main list. ASthe protected cavalry have a minima and maxima, does this mean just the protected cavalry minima and maxima (4-24) or the overarching minima and maxima (also 4-24)?

Could be interpreted both ways. Be interested what a definitive ruling on this is.

That's it, your not list checking a competition again

dave_r wrote:

petedalby wrote:I don't believe so - no. The minimum of 4 Chariots or cavalry are fielded by the ally - so the C-in-C can field 0-20 - depending upon how many other allies are fielded of course.

Not sure about this - the list notes say that the bases fielded by the ally deduct from the minima and maxima from the main list. ASthe protected cavalry have a minima and maxima, does this mean just the protected cavalry minima and maxima (4-24) or the overarching minima and maxima (also 4-24)?

Could be interpreted both ways. Be interested what a definitive ruling on this is.

What Pete said is right.

philqw78 wrote:That's it, your not list checking a competition again

How is that punishment?

dave_r wrote: As well as the mind... You keep confusing those redskins with a decent army...

[/quote]

But it is a good army, it's challenging and fun to use.

hazelbark wrote:

philqw78 wrote:That's it, your not list checking a competition again

How is that punishment?

Because allowing him to do it sends him on another power trip Dan. However he did lose his game against us at Godendag this weekend

philqw78 wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

philqw78 wrote:That's it, your not list checking a competition again

How is that punishment?

Because allowing him to do it sends him on another power trip Dan. However he did lose his game against us at Godendag this weekend

That was a draw - 9-11.

However, we did completely smash the eventual winners of the tournament 11-9. Considering they got 67 points from the other three games (including 22 if you?) Then we didn't do too badly.

dave_r wrote: That was a draw - 9-11.
However, we did completely smash the eventual winners of the tournament 11-9. Then we didn't do too badly.

Ah the Geordie drawmeister at work.

hazelbark wrote:

dave_r wrote: That was a draw - 9-11.
However, we did completely smash the eventual winners of the tournament 11-9. Then we didn't do too badly.

Ah the Geordie drawmeister at work.

Well, using Hittite against four pike armies I think we did pretty well. I particularly liked it when our average light chariots ran over the superior pike

So who did win and when will you post the results?

And are light chariots the new anti-Han weapon?

petedalby wrote:So who did win and when will you post the results?

And are light chariots the new anti-Han weapon?

Paul and Steve from Plymouth won.
Dave R & B second
Me and Ian third

There were no Han so we won't know.

Light chariots were only anti pike because of Dave's ridiculously lucky, as usual, dice.
His army relied on the light chariots for a very threatening skirmish force, his heavy chariots ran away from us and I assume all the other pike until some holes were made. Dave's main advantage against most of the others was his mass of MF. However we could match him on that, even better him. But trying to beat 8's with and IC and rear support is a long drag.

petedalby wrote:So who did win and when will you post the results?

And are light chariots the new anti-Han weapon?

Back home on Thursday, will post full results then.

1. Steve Brown and Paul Bartlett. Pikey army
2. Dave Ruddock and David Bannister. Hittite

Aside from the gratuitous but correct Ruddock 2nd place jab.

I would suggest that a well written after action report of the battle and details would promote interest and showcase version 3.