Slitherine

I guess it is a minor point - but is there any reason that Gallic Hill Tribes can't have "Hills" as a terrain option for home terrain?

Matt

They preferred to holiday in the plains?

Julian

It's a fair point

Alps are for skiing, not for fighting.

And they are mountains not hills.

Its just an oversight I,m sure that Gauls are not allowed "hilly" or even "mountain" (Helvetici?) as a home terrain type...there were various tribes whose home region in the 300bc-100ad period would qualify as such. Everyone should just amend their army lists, I guess, and tournament organisers be willing to accept such lists.

Martin

I second the motion.

Cheers,
Scott

After all, the MF warroirs are listed as "Hill Tribes"


John

I'm at work right now and can't check my army list. I can't believe this. This must be a joke right? Why would you want to have Gaul MF fighting Romans in the flat open? Can someone give an official ruling if this?

The historical evidence strongly suggests that Gauls fought in dense formation. The classification of "Hill Tribes" as MF was largely a bone for those not wishing to rebase their armies.

The vast majority of France (Gaul) is remarkably flat and that is what is represented by the territories list.

It certainly wasn't envisaged as likely that anyone would want to field an entirely "hill tribe" army. A lowland army with "hill tribe" allies come down from the hills would be more likely.

It certainly wasn't envisaged as likely that anyone would want to field an entirely "hill tribe" army. A lowland army with "hill tribe" allies come down from the hills would be more likely.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
, obviously mine are based that way, and I think it's better. The Heavies can't hang heads up with the Romans anyway, so better to use terrain to make something happen. And you can have the Gasetai and Cav cover the open ground. Probably should have limited the amount of Cav / Chariots for a Hill Tribe army.

rbodleyscott wrote:The historical evidence strongly suggests that Gauls fought in dense formation.

I believe that.

rbodleyscott wrote:The classification of "Hill Tribes" as MF was largely a bone for those not wishing to rebase their armies.

If you say so.

rbodleyscott wrote:The vast majority of France (Gaul) is remarkably flat and that is what is represented by the territories list.

Eh? I guess I can believe that the vast majority of France is remarkably flat, but the vast majority of the battles we are interested were surely fought up and down the Rhone Valley as a western border. And it's no doubt more of a challenge to find a place in that region without hills.

Eh? I guess I can believe that the vast majority of France is remarkably flat, but the vast majority of the battles we are interested were surely fought up and down the Rhone Valley as a western border. And it's no doubt more of a challenge to find a place in that region without hills.

And Cisalpine Gaul.

MattDower wrote: And Cisalpine Gaul.

Which is the north Italian plain, pretty flat and where the Romans fought the Gauls for a far longer period than in Transalpine Gaul (i.e., France).

MikeK wrote:

MattDower wrote: And Cisalpine Gaul.

Which is the north Italian plain, pretty flat and where the Romans fought the Gauls for a far longer period than in Transalpine Gaul (i.e., France).

Fair Cop!

Although it does have hills / mountains on all its borders. So allowing to choose between Agricultural and Hills wouldn't be outrageous.

rbodleyscott wrote:The historical evidence strongly suggests that Gauls fought in dense formation. The classification of "Hill Tribes" as MF was largely a bone for those not wishing to rebase their armies.

The vast majority of France (Gaul) is remarkably flat and that is what is represented by the territories list.

It certainly wasn't envisaged as likely that anyone would want to field an entirely "hill tribe" army. A lowland army with "hill tribe" allies come down from the hills would be more likely.

So for those of us who are a little light on the history and use the army lists as a bible, should I edit my Gaul list to remove Hill tribes? I don't care about throwing anyone a bone, I would prefer it to be historic. Well as much as can be expected

So relativelly speaking there are no lowland tribe Gauls or hill tribe Gauls there are just simply Gauls? You build your army and throw in what ever the list will allow of MF and HF?

Brian

BrianC wrote:So for those of us who are a little light on the history and use the army lists as a bible, should I edit my Gaul list to remove Hill tribes? I don't care about throwing anyone a bone, I would prefer it to be historic. Well as much as can be expected

So relativelly speaking there are no lowland tribe Gauls or hill tribe Gauls there are just simply Gauls? You build your army and throw in what ever the list will allow of MF and HF?

That's about the long and short of it. If you are aiming for historical Gallic armies, then you would be looking at infantry warriors that are predominantly HF.

Cheers,
Scott

ars_belli wrote:

BrianC wrote:So for those of us who are a little light on the history and use the army lists as a bible, should I edit my Gaul list to remove Hill tribes? I don't care about throwing anyone a bone, I would prefer it to be historic. Well as much as can be expected

So relativelly speaking there are no lowland tribe Gauls or hill tribe Gauls there are just simply Gauls? You build your army and throw in what ever the list will allow of MF and HF?

That's about the long and short of it. If you are aiming for historical Gallic armies, then you would be looking at infantry warriors that are predominantly HF.

Cheers,
Scott

Hey Scott,

Thanks for the info. I am looking at ordering a book on the Roman Gaul campaign. But will use your advice. I'm looking forward to a Gaul game using 800 points at some time in the future

Brian

ars_belli wrote:
That's about the long and short of it. If you are aiming for historical Gallic armies, then you would be looking at infantry warriors that are predominantly HF.

Cheers,
Scott

Lets get this right - you are suggesting that the Gauls should not be able to field ANY MF?
This would make the Galls quite a very inflexible army under these rules.

Matt

MattDower wrote:

ars_belli wrote:
That's about the long and short of it. If you are aiming for historical Gallic armies, then you would be looking at infantry warriors that are predominantly HF.

Cheers,
Scott

Lets get this right - you are suggesting that the Gauls should not be able to field ANY MF?
This would make the Galls quite a very inflexible army under these rules.

Matt

I think he just meant the majority of the army not the entire foot component. You can still choose as much MF as you like per the minima/maxima. But I can see his logic, especially when you have MF losing to HF in the open.

Brian