|
Art De La Guerre
Bienvenue sur le forum de discussion de la règle de jeu l'Art De La Guerre
|
Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules question V4
Auteur |
Message |
A4
Auxiliaire
Inscrit le: 08 Oct 2014 Messages: 78
|
Posté le: Dim Oct 29, 2023 2:29 pm Sujet du message: Internal Allies |
|
Are internal allies treated exactly like external allies?
Looking at the Germans (list 91).
1. Tencteri are allowed 0-2 light cavalry. If internal allies are treated just like external allies, a German army wd be limited to a single LH, unless under a Tencteri CnC.
2. Germans are allowed 0-2 light infantry bow. If internal allies are treated just like external allies, a non-Tencteri CNC cd field both and his Tencteri ally cd field an additional one - giving a total of three. Ie an allied LF bow wd no more bust the overall list limits than a light infantryman in (say) a Gallic ally's command would.
Both assumptions would have to be correct if internal allies were treated exactly like external ones, but the second looks odder than the first and I should like to check.
Alan |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
KevinD
Légat
Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021 Messages: 500
Localisation: Texas
|
Posté le: Dim Oct 29, 2023 6:35 pm Sujet du message: |
|
In this case I’d say yes since they are listed separately like all other allies under “Note†(or Batavian Revolt)..
In addition to the points you mention above a German ally must field an additional 4-12 Warriors (in addition to the main army’s 8-24).
Furthermore, since you are only allowed one ally, you can’t also bring Sarmatians or Gallic allies. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
![](images/avatars/51426646859c6e9eab18f8.gif)
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015 Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
|
Posté le: Lun Oct 30, 2023 5:22 pm Sujet du message: |
|
I "think" that the list requires the CinC to command troops from one tribe (where these are specified in the list). So, the 6-24 warriors can be Batavians for example, represented by MI impetuous.
the list may also include those units that are generic eg German horsemen.
Should the player wish to include members of a different tribe eg Tencteri, these are treated as "allies" (from this list) and need a separate corps and corps commander -
 the player may have ONE such “internal†ally if needed.
As usual the player may only take one "external ally" (List #77 Sarmatian)Â
Dernière édition par Ramses II le Mar Oct 31, 2023 1:09 pm; édité 2 fois |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
KevinD
Légat
Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021 Messages: 500
Localisation: Texas
|
Posté le: Lun Oct 30, 2023 5:32 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Thanks for checking into this, Ramses. Allowing two would seem to require an explicit exemption or clarification from the top right of p 86 which says “One sub-commander can be an ally taken from another list…†Lists in a similar boat might be #60 and #61 (Classical and Hellenistic Greeks). |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
![](images/avatars/51426646859c6e9eab18f8.gif)
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015 Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
|
Posté le: Lun Oct 30, 2023 5:39 pm Sujet du message: |
|
See below
Dernière édition par Ramses II le Mar Oct 31, 2023 1:08 pm; édité 1 fois |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
![](images/avatars/51426646859c6e9eab18f8.gif)
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015 Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
|
Posté le: Mar Oct 31, 2023 1:05 pm Sujet du message: |
|
I have rechecked P87, which states Citation: | ALLIED CORPS
One of the army’s corps can be fielded as an allied corps from another list depending on the available allies. Sometimes it is possible to have an ally from the same list but from a different option. | ( my emphasis )
So basically you may only have a single Ally irrespective of whether it is internal or external to the list. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Mark G Fry
Signifer
![](images/avatars/202314664365bfc8f8719eb.jpg)
Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017 Messages: 325
Localisation: Bristol, UK
|
Posté le: Mar Oct 31, 2023 4:58 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Ramses II a écrit: | I "think" that the list requires the CinC to command troops from one tribe (where these are specified in the list). So, the 6-24 warriors can be Batavians for example, represented by MI impetuous.
the list may also include those units that are generic eg German horsemen.
Should the player wish to include members of a different tribe eg Tencteri, these are treated as "allies" (from this list) and need a separate corps and corps commander -
 the player may have ONE such “internal†ally if needed.
As usual the player may only take one "external ally" (List #77 Sarmatian)Â |
Surely, the CinC's 2 corps must include a minimum of 8 warriors in his overall commands, as the army list states 8-24 are required/available? Which must be Medium swordsmen impetuous if Batavian or Churusci or Heavy swordsmen impetuous, if others tribes.
The 3rd allied Corps must contain at least 4 warriors - which could also be either Medium or Heavy swordsmen impetuous, depending upon which tribe they represent.
However, as I understand it, you cannot have more than 24 'warriors' of either type in total in the army, regardless of taking an allied contingent. So taking the allied corps does not increase the overall numbers of specific units available, above those already in the list.
So, if you wanted to field the 2 x Tencteri Light Cavalry Javelins, you'd have to make the CinC a Tencteri commander - who would have to have at least 8 Warrior Heavy swordsmen impetuous, of which 4 could be upgraded to elite. You could then add a Chatti allied commander (for example, if you wanted) who must take at least 4 Warrior Heavy swordsmen impetuous (of which 4 could be upgraded to elite). However, only 6 German horsemen Medium Cavalry can be taken, in total, in the army - but for every 1 x Medium Cavalry taken in the allied contingent, 2 are deducted from the overall total of 0-6 that is available (if that makes sense?).
Cheers
Mark
Dernière édition par Mark G Fry le Mar Oct 31, 2023 5:11 pm; édité 1 fois |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Mark G Fry
Signifer
![](images/avatars/202314664365bfc8f8719eb.jpg)
Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017 Messages: 325
Localisation: Bristol, UK
|
Posté le: Mar Oct 31, 2023 5:08 pm Sujet du message: |
|
KevinD a écrit: |
In addition to the points you mention above a German ally must field an additional 4-12 Warriors (in addition to the main army’s 8-24).
|
I am not convinced you are right here Kevin. Where does it say that the internal allied contingent increases the overall total of troops available ... I have checked and cannot find it?
My understanding is that the allied contingent must take its units from the overall total in the list.
So in the German #91 list there are 0-2 Light Infantry Bow. If I take both of these units in my core army - there are none available for an allied contingent to select. I dont think they have 0-1 Light Infantry bow available.
This would stop an army fielding 9 Medium Cavalry for example (6 in the core army + another 3 in the allied contingent).
I might be wrong here, but I suspect that this is to avoid situations where the added number of allied units greatly increases the overall total available, although that should also be applied to upgrades as well - but that is specifically covered in the German list as the allied contingents are named. Where there might be an issue would be if you fielded an 'Other German tribes' core army, with another differently named 'Other German tribes' allied corps - as you could buy 2 more elite upgrades for your 'warriors' than the list allows.
But I suspect I/we are dancing on the head of a pin here
However, it would be good to get it clarified. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
![](images/avatars/51426646859c6e9eab18f8.gif)
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015 Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
|
Posté le: Mar Oct 31, 2023 9:46 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Mark, if all the units are taken from list #91, then I believe the army must comply with minimums and maximums, while the individual corps and ‘internal’ ally must only comply with the list requirements on tribes.Â
I do not think the individual corps of different tribes are required to comply with the army min / max |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Mark G Fry
Signifer
![](images/avatars/202314664365bfc8f8719eb.jpg)
Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017 Messages: 325
Localisation: Bristol, UK
|
Posté le: Mar Oct 31, 2023 11:05 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Ramses II a écrit: | Mark, if all the units are taken from list #91, then I believe the army must comply with minimums and maximums, while the individual corps and ‘internal’ ally must only comply with the list requirements on tribes.Â
I do not think the individual corps of different tribes are required to comply with the army min / max |
Why not (please expand?) ... there is nothing in the rules wording about allied contingents that states that the internal allied contingent increases the numbers of units available in the list. I can see the logic, as an 'external' allied contingent can be picked from half the full list of that other army, but with internal allies that doesn't appear to be covered.
But just so I am sure I understand what you are saying and taking the German list as an example.
If there are 0-6 German horsemen (Medium Cavalry) available, then that means that if I take all 6 in my main 2 corps there are '0' left for the allied corps or are you saying that they can now choose another 0-3 in my allied corps?
Alternatively, if I take 3 x Medium Cavalry in my allied corps, which is the maximum I am allowed as an allied corps, are you saying that I can take a further 3 in my main 2 corps or am I entitled to take the full 6 or am I entitled to take '0' as the allied corps used up all 0-6 options to get to its +3 allowance?
It's an interesting way of looking at it, as it increases the list size significantly and can add considerably to certain troop types.
The Classical Greek is another list that can have an Internal Allie and there, if we follow this approach, the number of hoplites or more specifically the number of light troops (Peltasts and Light Foot) can be increased significantly.
Maybe it doesn't matter, as there are actually very few lists which allow an internal allied corps (I can only think of 3 off the top of my head - Classical Greeks, Ancient Spaniards and German) but there is nothing covering this specifically in the rules, and whilst what you say Ramses might be what should happen, it is not clear, and not specified.
Many thanks
Mark |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
![](images/avatars/51426646859c6e9eab18f8.gif)
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015 Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
|
Posté le: Mar Oct 31, 2023 11:59 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Mark, I think you are misunderstanding my reply.Â
I am suggesting that a German army as a whole must comply with the usual min/max rules as well as the list’s ‘tribal’ requirements. But the min/max rules do not apply to an allied tribe from the same list.Â
So it could have the following:-
Corps 1 (Batavian)
6x MI impetuous swordÂ
Other units
Corps 2 (Batavian)
German horsemen, LI etc
Corps 3 (Tencteri - allies)
LC javelin
2x HI impetuous (other tribes)
Other units etc
Here the army complies with the requirement for 8x impetuous infantry which are spread over two corps. However, to get the LC, the player is forced to use a Tencteri ‘Allied’ corps, which may also include some impetuous infantry.Â
Note there may only be a maximum of 6x German horsemen in the entire list, irrespective of how they are distributed to the separate corps. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
kevinj
Signifer
Inscrit le: 07 Fév 2017 Messages: 324
Localisation: Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK
|
Posté le: Mer Nov 01, 2023 8:33 am Sujet du message: |
|
Citation: | But the min/max rules do not apply to an allied tribe from the same list. |
I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion. The rules for an allied corps on page 87 do not differentiate between allies from the same or a different list, they just state how the allied corps may be made up. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
![](images/avatars/51426646859c6e9eab18f8.gif)
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015 Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
|
Posté le: Mer Nov 01, 2023 9:44 am Sujet du message: |
|
Ahh Kevin, I think I understand where you are coming from. You are quoting P87 “Allied corpsâ€, and suggesting that an ‘internal ally’ taken from the same list must comply with these rules as well.Â
I am suggesting that the 1st bpt of this list supersedes that page, merely making such a commander unreliable.Â
Citation: | Each army corps may have a different origin (Batavian, Chatti ...). Each corps of a different origin than the commander in chief is considered as an allied army corps | Otherwise the section on the “Batavian revolt†in 69AD doesn’t make sense; for example you would never be able to take any integrated artillery
And if it does supercede p87, then my original view still stands, that this list along with #60 and #61 may have two such ‘internal’ allies.Â
I will check with El Creator, as I know this has been discussed separately. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Mark G Fry
Signifer
![](images/avatars/202314664365bfc8f8719eb.jpg)
Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017 Messages: 325
Localisation: Bristol, UK
|
Posté le: Mer Nov 01, 2023 5:04 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Ramses II a écrit: | Mark, I think you are misunderstanding my reply.Â
I am suggesting that a German army as a whole must comply with the usual min/max rules as well as the list’s ‘tribal’ requirements. But the min/max rules do not apply to an allied tribe from the same list.Â
So it could have the following:-
Corps 1 (Batavian)
6x MI impetuous swordÂ
Other units
Corps 2 (Batavian)
German horsemen, LI etc
Corps 3 (Tencteri - allies)
LC javelin
2x HI impetuous (other tribes)
Other units etc
Here the army complies with the requirement for 8x impetuous infantry which are spread over two corps. However, to get the LC, the player is forced to use a Tencteri ‘Allied’ corps, which may also include some impetuous infantry.Â
Note there may only be a maximum of 6x German horsemen in the entire list, irrespective of how they are distributed to the separate corps. |
Many thanks ... that is helpful. The minimum of 8 'warrior' impetuous swordsmen across both the main army and the internal allied contingent is an interesting interpretation, but I can see the logic to that.
Kind regards
Mark |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Mark G Fry
Signifer
![](images/avatars/202314664365bfc8f8719eb.jpg)
Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017 Messages: 325
Localisation: Bristol, UK
|
Posté le: Mer Nov 01, 2023 5:07 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Ramses II a écrit: | Ahh Kevin, I think I understand where you are coming from. You are quoting P87 “Allied corpsâ€, and suggesting that an ‘internal ally’ taken from the same list must comply with these rules as well.Â
I am suggesting that the 1st bpt of this list supersedes that page, merely making such a commander unreliable.Â
Citation: | Each army corps may have a different origin (Batavian, Chatti ...). Each corps of a different origin than the commander in chief is considered as an allied army corps | Otherwise the section on the “Batavian revolt†in 69AD doesn’t make sense; for example you would never be able to take any integrated artillery
And if it does supercede p87, then my original view still stands, that this list along with #60 and #61 may have two such ‘internal’ allies.Â
I will check with El Creator, as I know this has been discussed separately. |
This approach makes sense, as you have other lists where an allied contingent, rather than the reference to another separate army list, is specified within the main list. Such as the allied German contingent in the Gallic list, for example. As you say Rameses, if you divide the units available in such integral lists by 50% you end up not being able to take a number of the options - as is the case with the Batavian Revolt light artillery example you give.
Two internal allies makes sense historically in certain circumstances - especially with the Greek, Spanish and German lists, and maybe other similar 'confederation' type lists - the most notable being the 'famous' Dark-Age Scots-Irish, Pictish, Saxon confederation against the Britons (not that I am 100% certain who was actually allied to who in that instance - my memory is hazy on the subject)
It makes sense.
Thanks
Mark |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|
Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules question V4
![Répondre au sujet](templates/subSilver/images/lang_french/reply.gif) |
Toutes les heures sont au format GMT |
|
Vous ne pouvez pas poster de nouveaux sujets dans ce forum Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum Vous ne pouvez pas éditer vos messages dans ce forum Vous ne pouvez pas supprimer vos messages dans ce forum Vous ne pouvez pas voter dans les sondages de ce forum
|
|