Page 1 of 1
Gallic allied contingents
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:34 pm
by madaxeman
In the Gallic list in RoR, an allied contingent can have 0-4 LF with javelins
These are deducted from the maxima and minima in the main list
In the main list you can have 6-8 LF with javelins
So, if you take one ally with 4 LF javelinmen, that seems to mean you then HAVE to take a 2nd ally contingent, also with 4 javelinmen, as otherwise it becomes impossible to fulfil the minima for javelinmen in the main list (you are 2 short of the required 6) without exceeding the maxima (of
as there is a mandatory unit size for LF javelins in the main list of "6-8"?
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:39 pm
by WhiteKnight
Have I understood? If you take an allied force with 0-4 javelinmen, can the other compulsory javelinmen not be in a BG the "main force"?
Martin
Re: Gallic allied contingents
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:41 pm
by nikgaukroger
madaxeman wrote:In the Gallic list in RoR,
Chickening out of the Brits are we?
Well spotted though.
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:55 pm
by nikgaukroger
WhiteKnight wrote:Have I understood? If you take an allied force with 0-4 javelinmen, can the other compulsory javelinmen not be in a BG the "main force"?
Martin
Tim's point it that if you take 4 for the ally you have a maximum of 4 left for the main army and you cannot have that as the BG size is 6-8.
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:08 pm
by WhiteKnight
ah yes...just looked at the list!
Another minor erratum, then? Amend the javelins total bases allowed to read "6-10", so a force without allies could only have one BG of these troops but if an ally is chosen, youu can have a BG of 6 and an allied one of 4?
Martin
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:56 pm
by petedalby
Or you could take 2 allies, with 1x4 Bg of LF in each.
Pete
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:26 pm
by WhiteKnight
Seems a bit tough to be forced to take two ally-commanders! Doubt if that's what the list designers intended?
Martin
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:08 pm
by SirGarnet
The effect is having just 1 big BG for the main army or one small one per allied contingent - maybe that is what was intended.
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:54 pm
by madaxeman
MikeK wrote:The effect is having just 1 big BG for the main army or one small one per allied contingent - maybe that is what was intended.
It's actually one big BG in the main list, or 2 ally contingents both with a small BG each. If only one ally turns up he can't recruit any jls men, but if two do, both can somehow find 4 each.
Sort of a Gallic version of top trumps.
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:20 am
by philqw78
The writers probably thought too much about allying with another nation.
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:27 pm
by WhiteKnight
Maybe the writers can add to the thread now and tell us what was intended and the reasoning behind it OR just acknowledge a small error and produce a correction?
Martin
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:12 pm
by Polkovnik
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:34 pm
by WhiteKnight
Right! That's that then! Still wonder if it was an oversight and no-one had spotted it by the time of publication!
What, as they say, is the historical justification?
Martin