SteveR
Signifer
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018
Messages: 369
|
 Posté le: Mer Nov 03, 2021 7:28 pm Sujet du message: Minimum required allied troops |
 |
Allied Corps on page 87
To figure allowed troops you divide minimums and maximums in two and round down.
However if the original list specifies a single unit is required (eg 1-3) it still stays a minimum of 1. Fair enough.
Except that the third bullet has me flummoxed and I think I have been reading it wrong. It reads "Allied corps must contain all troops with a minimum of 2 or more. Those with a minimum of 1 are optional but must be taken before taking any troops with a minim of zero."
Is that optional "minimum of 1" referring to the original list or the list after being divided by 2?
For example - an allied list specifies 2-4 of a given unit type. Which means the player can take 1-2 as an ally. Is he required to take at least one?
Or is the only time you have an "optional minimum" is if the original list specified a minimum of 1? |
|
KevinD
Légat
Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021
Messages: 647
Localisation: Texas
|
| Posté le: Mer Nov 03, 2021 8:03 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| SteveR a écrit: | Allied Corps on page 87
To figure allowed troops you divide minimums and maximums in two and round down.
However if the original list specifies a single unit is required (eg 1-3) it still stays a minimum of 1. Fair enough.
Except that the third bullet has me flummoxed and I think I have been reading it wrong. It reads "Allied corps must contain all troops with a minimum of 2 or more. Those with a minimum of 1 are optional but must be taken before taking any troops with a minim of zero."
Is that optional "minimum of 1" referring to the original list or the list after being divided by 2?
For example - an allied list specifies 2-4 of a given unit type. Which means the player can take 1-2 as an ally. Is he required to take at least one?
Or is the only time you have an "optional minimum" is if the original list specified a minimum of 1? |
After the division by two. This is very clear after you read the example (and work out the math) on the bottom right of page 87 where you are not required to take troop types (noblemen or warriors) that have a minimum of one after dividing by two but not before. |
|
SteveR
Signifer
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018
Messages: 369
|
| Posté le: Mer Nov 03, 2021 8:41 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Yes that is clear.
I was reviewing a list I made some months ago and was concerned I had made a mistake. Teach me to not play a game in over a month.
Appreciated |
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1236
Localisation: London
|
| Posté le: Mer Nov 03, 2021 10:31 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Allied units that are 4-x must be taken.Â
Allied units that are 1 or 2-x  are optional, but must be taken before taking any units that are 0-x (which are also optional) |
|
Black Prince
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 17 Oct 2016
Messages: 299
|
| Posté le: Ven Nov 05, 2021 12:43 am Sujet du message: |
|
| Thanks for the input. Where possible I have always avoided mediocre troops, I will re-evaluate and try then out in some test games before a comp. |
|
KevinD
Légat
Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021
Messages: 647
Localisation: Texas
|
| Posté le: Ven Nov 05, 2021 5:25 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Black Prince a écrit: | | Thanks for the input. Where possible I have always avoided mediocre troops, I will re-evaluate and try then out in some test games before a comp. |
I think you meant to reply to your other thread on MI Sw or Levy…
But, since we’re here….
Because of the way the point system works, with additions or subtractions that are generally +/- 2 point for Elite or Mediocre (rather than +/- a percentage of the base troop cost type) Mediocre is usually a comparatively better deal for low cost troops (MI Sw, LMI Javelinmen, MC, LC, maybe Sp…) than more expensive troops. (Because of how it affects high die rolls mediocre is a pretty bad deal for troops on whom you plan to rely on for their shooting such as Bowmen). (You get 50% more MI Sw as Mediocre but only 33% more for HI Sw for example.)
The converse is true for Elite, they become a better deal for expensive melee troops such as HKn Impact as compared to say MI Sw. However if their principal role is to shoot (rather than be shot at or melee) then the benefit to being Elite is less impressive because Elite shooters don’t do much more damage (on average) than Ordinary. (Elite LC or LI might be an exception as they are only paying +1 and their resilience to return fire or the occasional melee is of benefit - especially if your tactics tend to confuse LC for shock troops….)
Where all you want is a dude to have a ZOC, fill gaps that open up and generally buy you time for your elite shock troops to win before they are swamped, then being Mediocre is much more cost effective saving your points for the actual fighting force that will deliver you a victory.
The other factor is that (at the margins) better players (or those fielding more articulated armies) will get more value out of a mix of Elite, Ordinary and Mediocre than will less skilled players as better players have a better ability to foresee and influence where Elites can make the greatest contribution and Mediocre to suffer less than will less skilled players. Less skilled players in general due better by presenting a uniform fighting power to across their front so a more skilled opponent can pick and choose which bits of his army to target. |
|
FAQ
Rechercher
Liste des Membres
Groupes d'utilisateurs
S'enregistrer
Profil
Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés
Connexion
