Page 1 of 1

Gallic Ally with Javelinmen

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:36 pm
by Polkovnik
If you have a gallic ally in a gallic army it can have 1 BG of 4 bases of javelinmen. This reduces the number of javelinmen you can have in the rest of the army. But the number of javelinmen you can have in the core troops is 6-8 bases in BG size 6-8. So by having the allied javelinmen your maximum is reduced to 4 but the BG size is 6-8, so this does not make sense.

Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:51 am
by ars_belli
You are correct, Polkovnik. In effect, one can only field the 6-8 javelinmen listed in the main Gallic force. The line for javelinmen in the Gallic allies list is superfluous, as currently they cannot be included without breaking the rules for building a customised list given on page 17.

Cheers,
Scott

Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:59 am
by rbodleyscott
ars_belli wrote:You are correct, Polkovnik. In effect, one can only field the 6-8 javelinmen listed in the main Gallic force. The line for javelinmen in the Gallic allies list is superfluous, as currently they cannot be included without breaking the rules for building a customised list given on page 17.
Unless you have 2 Gallic allies, (Assuming the list allows two - I don't have it to hand), or you are using a Gallic ally with a different main army. (Which may not be allowed at present, I forget, but there will be some when the earlier Italian lists get done).

Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:23 pm
by ars_belli
The Gallic list allows for 0-2 Gallic allied commanders, and the troops are deducted from the minima and maxima in the main list, so you could indeed field two allied contingents, each with 4 bases of javelinmen (with 0 then available for the main army). The Early German list in Legions Triumphant allows for a Gallic ally prior to 101 BC, so the javelinmen could also be fielded there. Many thanks for the reminder, Richard! :)

Cheers,
Scott

Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:18 pm
by Polkovnik
OK, so if you have one Gallic ally in a gallic army it can't have any javelinmen then. Thanks for clarifying.