Art De La Guerre

[A4]

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

[KevinD]

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.

[Ramses II]

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) 

[KevinD]

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).

[Ramses II]

See below

[Ramses II]

I have rechecked P87, which states

[Mark G Fry]

[Mark G Fry]

[Ramses II]

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. 

I do not think the individual corps of different tribes are required to comply with the army min / max

[Mark G Fry]

[Ramses II]

Mark, I think you are misunderstanding my reply. 

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. 

So it could have the following:-

Corps 1 (Batavian)
6x MI impetuous sword 
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. 

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. 

[kevinj]

[Ramses II]

Ahh Kevin, I think I understand where you are coming from. You are quoting P87 “Allied corps”, and suggesting that an ‘internal ally’ taken from the same list must comply with these rules as well. 

I am suggesting that the 1st bpt of this list supersedes that page, merely making such a commander unreliable. 

[Mark G Fry]

[Mark G Fry]