Slitherine

My group has been debating this and I could not find an answer in the forums...of course I might be asking the wrong questions.

Anyway, this question is about the "Eternal Empire" Later Byzantine army. Now before I begin, in the back of the army book "Eternal Empire" on page 70 it says "Allied contingents can only be used if specified in the army list. Most allied contingents have their own allied contingent list, to which they must conform unless the main army's list specifies otherwise".

Being new to the game and understanding a great deal of the rules but not everything this last statement is a bit ambiguous and could have been clarified with a specific example.

For the Later Byzantines there is a large list of Allies. I am going with a Central army for this example. Further down there is a "late Byzantine allies" troop list.

I hope everyone understands my confusion when I ask, if I pick Mongol Tatar allies which are available to the central army, do I use the "Late Byzantine Allies troop list" below the ally list or do I open up the "Swords and Scimitars: The Crusades" codex and use the "Ilkhanid Mongol" list?

The way I interpret page 70 (and I certainly hope I am wrong), is that any ally I use, I must pick the troops from the "Late Byzantine Allies" troop list on page 22 of "Eternal Empire". Why I am confused, is every troop on the "Late Byzantine Allies" list is generically listed as Byzantine lancers, irregular horse archers, regular archers, and irregular archers. In other army ally lists, the lists actually say the allies name.
If I am allowed to pick allied BGs from "Swords and Scimitars: The Crusades" then what is the point of the "Late Byzantine Allies" army list?

To rephrase the major question, when using the Late Byzantine Army, can I have troops from the "Swords and Scimitars: The Crusades" codex as long as they are listed as "allies"?

Lastly, what is the general rule, if any, about using allied troops?

The "Late Byzantine allies" list is not for use by the Byzantines themselves, but for making Byzantine ally contingents to use with other armies that have Late Byzantine allies listed in their main list. (e.g. The Latin Greece list in Swords and Scimitars). (However, an Epirot Byzantine army can have a Byzantine (Central) ally contingent drawn from the Late Byzantine allies list.)

Similarly you pick the Mongol allies for the Byzantine army from the "Tartar allies" list in Eternal Empire, Serbian allies from the "Later Serbian allies" list in Eternal Empire, and so on and so forth. Sometimes the lists are in another book.

Some lists have internal ally commanders, who do use the ally list belonging to the same army. However, all foreign ally contingents use the allies list under their own main list, not the one belonging to the list they are allied to.

The statement on P.70 does not contradict any of this, though you are not the first person to read it the way you have.

Thanks for the quick response and the answer which makes sense but I didn't expect it. Granted, there are a large number of rules (why I like the game) so I could have easily overlooked the rule. Is there a specific page number I can show my group that states what you just said?
Thanks again.

johnnyspys wrote:Thanks for the quick response and the answer which makes sense but I didn't expect it. Granted, there are a large number of rules (why I like the game) so I could have easily overlooked the rule. Is there a specific page number I can show my group that states what you just said?

I suppose we didn't put in a specific rule that says this, because it seemed obvious. (And this was probably, if we are being honest, because we were used to a similar format in the DBM lists. I can see how it would be less obvious to players coming from a different background, for which I apologise.).

The rule you quoted is, in fact, the nearest thing to a rule saying it. I am afraid you are misreading it.

I think you are reading

"Most allied contingents have their own allied contingent list, to which they must conform unless the main army's list specifies otherwise".

as if it said

"Most main lists have their own allied contingent list, to which all ally contingents used with them must conform unless the main army's list specifies otherwise".

It doesn't in fact say or mean that.

It means that, for example, a Later Serbian ally contingent must conform to the "Later Serbian allies" list.

So, for example, a Later Serbian ally contingent in a Late Byzantine army conforms to the "Later Serbian allies" list.

Again thanks for the quick replies. Yes I have never played DBM nor watched it till a week ago and decided FOG was a better rule set for me. I just got into historical armies because of some friends who are rather laid back compared to other ancient players I have met in the past. I have played other miniature games but nothing quite like DBM or other ancients rules. If I ever seem snarky I am not...I love the rules and think for a first edition they are awesome. Of course more examples towards the back would have been helpful, but then again you could have added 40 pages of examples and made the book too expensive. I also at times hate Forums because it is difficult to convey attitudes even with emoticons. So I really appreciate this forum because most everyone is extremely polite, there is a lack of rules lawyers, and my answers have always come very quickly.

My DBM and DBMM friends have problems with FOG rules at times because they get the various rule sets mixed up (even beyond DBM)...the other day people were rolling initiative every turn...for example, so one person said I could have anyone from the Later Ottoman Turks. I did assume that this rule book was written for experienced players in mind. Overall, I think the rulebook is awesome, but there are maybe a few dozen small examples of where an outsider might need clarifications to completely understand a given rule.

For example, testing to regain cohesion level to "steady" from disrupted is under debate in my group. I interpret the rules as all one needs is a leader in line of command in order to make a test. Of course one needs to pay attention to the rules about not being engaged in close combat, not having just dropped cohesion the same turn you are trying to move to steady, and having a proper commander (non allied if regular troops). However, most of the DBM crowd thinks line of command means a leader has to be attached to the Battleline or some think attached to the specific battle group.

If I am wrong in the interpretation that the leader just needs to be in "sight" (four or eight depending on the leader type), then I am confused because on page 29 the text reads The C-in-C and subordinate commanders are in line of command for all battle groups in the main army", yet the confusion lies on page 110 where it states "a commander can attempt to bolster or rally a battle group that he is with" (with as in attached to the battle group? there is no rule that explains "he is with"...he is with could mean BG, Battleline, or on the field....trust me this is not obvious to new players)...but later states only a commander in line of command can bolster or rally a battle group" which then confuses me further.
The problem as I see it is not that it is poor writing but that the language is non specific enough that DBM people may interpret the rule one way, while new gamers like me will interpret it another.

Ok since I have you hear one last question.
I can only field four generals and I must have an allied general to command my allies. It seems obvious but I will ask none the less...Am I correct in believing a Mongolian general cannot command Turks for instance? The example would be having a mixed allied army with Mongolian and Turks with one allied general.

However, would it be possible to field an allied general with a mix of Later Ottoman Turks and Anatolian Turcoman Allies?

Again thanks for the help.

johnnyspys wrote:For example, testing to regain cohesion level to "steady" from disrupted is under debate in my group. I interpret the rules as all one needs is a leader in line of command in order to make a test. Of course one needs to pay attention to the rules about not being engaged in close combat, not having just dropped cohesion the same turn you are trying to move to steady, and having a proper commander (non allied if regular troops). However, most of the DBM crowd thinks line of command means a leader has to be attached to the Battleline or some think attached to the specific battle group.

If I am wrong in the interpretation that the leader just needs to be in "sight" (four or eight depending on the leader type), then I am confused because on page 29 the text reads The C-in-C and subordinate commanders are in line of command for all battle groups in the main army", yet the confusion lies on page 110 where it states "a commander can attempt to bolster or rally a battle group that he is with" (with as in attached to the battle group? there is no rule that explains "he is with"...he is with could mean BG, Battleline, or on the field....trust me this is not obvious to new players)...but later states only a commander in line of command can bolster or rally a battle group" which then confuses me further.
The problem as I see it is not that it is poor writing but that the language is non specific enough that DBM people may interpret the rule one way, while new gamers like me will interpret it another.

The commander has to be with the battle group to bolster it. He also has to be in "line of command" - this is defined in the Glossary. A Turkish ally commander, for example, is not "in line of command" for the other troops in a Byzantine army. "Line of command" is not the same thing as "command range", which is also defined in the glossary.

I can only field four generals and I must have an allied general to command my allies. It seems obvious but I will ask none the less...Am I correct in believing a Mongolian general cannot command Turks for instance? The example would be having a mixed allied army with Mongolian and Turks with one allied general.

However, would it be possible to field an allied general with a mix of Later Ottoman Turks and Anatolian Turcoman Allies?

No, each allied contingent must have its own general. So you could have a Mongol ally contingent with its own ally commander and a Turkish ally general with its own ally commander (assuming the list allows both at the same time), and then you could have a C-in-C and one sub-commander for the main army.

The Mongol general would only be "in line of command" for the Mongol (Tatar) troops. The Turkish ally general would only be "in line of command" for the Turkish. The Byxantine generals would both be "in line of command" for all of the Byzantine troops, but not for the Mongol or Turkish troops.

johnnyspys wrote: For example, testing to regain cohesion level to "steady" from disrupted is under debate in my group. I interpret the rules as all one needs is a leader in line of command in order to make a test. Of course one needs to pay attention to the rules about not being engaged in close combat, not having just dropped cohesion the same turn you are trying to move to steady, and having a proper commander (non allied if regular troops). However, most of the DBM crowd thinks line of command means a leader has to be attached to the Battleline or some think attached to the specific battle group.

Hope I haven't misread your post but I'd just point out that a BG can be bolstered if it is in close combat - assuming it hasn't dropped that bound, etc. A commander in close combat can only bolster the BG he is with, however.

Again thanks for the quick reply. Here is where I got confused...I understood line of command definition, but there are statements like "each commander can only attempt to bolster or rally one battle group in each joint action phase". Should this not be obvious if a commander must be attached to a battle group in order to Bolster? Then it states "when attempting to bolster or rally a battle group only the commander with the battle group can apply his modifiers". Because of this sentence I thought this indicated that a commander could be in line of command with his command range, or at least attached to the battle, instead of having to be attached to the specific battle group.

A commander can influence a cohesion test if he is in line of command if the battle group is not in close combat according to page 113. So if a commander can influence a test and give a +1 to cohesion tests due to arrows, I thought it meant he could also influence a bolster of a BG that is not in close combat since it is a cohesion test as well? Further on page 99 it says "a commander who is fighting in the front rank can only influence the complex move tests or cohesion tests of teh battle group he is with. He cannot affect those of other friendly battle groups". Again I took this to mean a commander could allow for a cohesion test of a BG not in close combat. Does this make any sense?

So to clarify what you are saying is in order to bolster, the commander must be attached to the battle group (he can be moved during joint action) as long as the BG has not dropped a level this turn. The individual roles for a cohesion test applying all the modifiers (including getting a +1 for having a leader attached, and another +1 if the leader is IC).

nikgaukroger wrote:

johnnyspys wrote: For example, testing to regain cohesion level to "steady" from disrupted is under debate in my group. I interpret the rules as all one needs is a leader in line of command in order to make a test. Of course one needs to pay attention to the rules about not being engaged in close combat, not having just dropped cohesion the same turn you are trying to move to steady, and having a proper commander (non allied if regular troops). However, most of the DBM crowd thinks line of command means a leader has to be attached to the Battleline or some think attached to the specific battle group.

Hope I haven't misread your post but I'd just point out that a BG can be bolstered if it is in close combat - assuming it hasn't dropped that bound, etc. A commander in close combat can only bolster the BG he is with, however.

johnnyspys wrote:Again thanks for the quick reply. Here is where I got confused...I understood line of command definition, but there are statements like "each commander can only attempt to blster or rally one battle group in each joint action phase". Should this not be obvious if a commander must be attached to a battle group in order to Bolster? Then it states "when attempting to bolster or rally a battle group only the commander with the battle group can apply his modifiers". Because of this sentence I thought this indicated that a commander could be in line of command with his command range, or at least attached to the battle, instead of having to be attached to the specific battle group.

A commander can influence a cohesion test if he is in line of command if the battle group is not in close combat according to page 113. So if a commander can influence a test and give a +1 to cohesion tests due to arrows, I thought it meant he could also influence a bolster of a BG that is not in close combat since it is a cohesion test as well? Does this make any sense?

I can see where you are getting confused. A bolster is indeed a cohesion test, however, it is a special sub-set of cohesion tests which requires the commander to actually be physically with the BG.

So to clarify what you are saying is in order to bolster, the commander must be attached to the battle group (he can be moved during joint action) as long as the BG has not dropped a level this turn. The individual roles for a cohesion test applying all the modifiers (including getting a +1 for having a leader attached, and another +1 if the leader is IC).

I think you've got it - we'll have to call you Eliza Doolittle now

Sorry can you tell I edit academic books and journals as part of my job requirements....so I tend to over analyze everything...not to mention not having a background in DBM my analysis has no basis other than grammatical hints.....lol

At the end of the day I just want to learn the rules correctly so when I play in a tournament I don't feel like an idiot...I may look and act like one...but I won't feel like one....

nikgaukroger wrote:

johnnyspys wrote:Again thanks for the quick reply. Here is where I got confused...I understood line of command definition, but there are statements like "each commander can only attempt to blster or rally one battle group in each joint action phase". Should this not be obvious if a commander must be attached to a battle group in order to Bolster? Then it states "when attempting to bolster or rally a battle group only the commander with the battle group can apply his modifiers". Because of this sentence I thought this indicated that a commander could be in line of command with his command range, or at least attached to the battle, instead of having to be attached to the specific battle group.

A commander can influence a cohesion test if he is in line of command if the battle group is not in close combat according to page 113. So if a commander can influence a test and give a +1 to cohesion tests due to arrows, I thought it meant he could also influence a bolster of a BG that is not in close combat since it is a cohesion test as well? Does this make any sense?

I can see where you are getting confused. A bolster is indeed a cohesion test, however, it is a special sub-set of cohesion tests which requires the commander to actually be physically with the BG.

So to clarify what you are saying is in order to bolster, the commander must be attached to the battle group (he can be moved during joint action) as long as the BG has not dropped a level this turn. The individual roles for a cohesion test applying all the modifiers (including getting a +1 for having a leader attached, and another +1 if the leader is IC).

I think you have it - we'll have to call you Eliza Doolittle now

johnnyspys wrote:Again thanks for the quick reply. Here is where I got confused...I understood line of command definition, but there are statements like "each commander can only attempt to bolster or rally one battle group in each joint action phase". Should this not be obvious if a commander must be attached to a battle group in order to Bolster?

Yes. Strictly speaking, that statement is redundant. But if it wasn't there, someone would probably try to bolster one BG, then move to another and bolster that. (Even though the sequence of play wouldn't in fact permit this).

It is a problem. Sometimes we put in redundant stuff to make certain things crystal clear to the less analytical/logical. Then the more analytical/logical people look for arcane meaning in the apparently redundant text. It's a dilemma that is, I think, unsolveable.

I completely agree...again thanks for the help.

rbodleyscott wrote:

johnnyspys wrote:Again thanks for the quick reply. Here is where I got confused...I understood line of command definition, but there are statements like "each commander can only attempt to bolster or rally one battle group in each joint action phase". Should this not be obvious if a commander must be attached to a battle group in order to Bolster?

Yes. Strictly speaking, that statement is redundant. But if it wasn't there, someone would probably try to bolster one BG, then move to another and bolster that. (Even though the sequence of play wouldn't in fact permit this).

It is a problem. Sometimes we put in redundant stuff to make certain things crystal clear to the less analytical/logical. Then the more analytical/logical people look for arcane meaning in the apparently redundant text. It's a dilemma that is, I think, unsolveable.

rbodleyscott wrote: It's a dilemma that is, I think, unsolveable.

Sadly true. Now here's my list for 47 more clarifications.

In the vein of clarifications and making things easy to understand, I recall someone was talking about doing a Youtube video how-to-play Q&A walkthrough/talkthrough of an actual game?

Mike

MikeK wrote:In the vein of clarifications and making things easy to understand, I recall someone was talking about doing a Youtube video how-to-play Q&A walkthrough/talkthrough of an actual game?

Mike

The Germans already have a text and static picture voersion of this (in German) at
http://www.tiny-soldiers.com/tabletop-w ... emo-spiel/

lawrenceg wrote:The Germans already have a text and static picture voersion of this (in German) at
http://www.tiny-soldiers.com/tabletop-w ... emo-spiel/

Nicely done with Teutonic thoroughness. I wonder if they'd host a translation if someone with the requisite linguistic skills could create one.

Mike