DBMM Forum
General Category => Rules Questions => Topic started by: landmeister on November 07, 2008, 07:26:48 PM
-
Dear all,
Can a Viking ally counting as a subgeneral in the Pre-feudal Scott list join its baggage into the army baggage? If I understand correctly it is an ally, so it can't, but it is treated as a sub-general in this list, so it could? ??? :-\
Any help?
-
Good question and I don't think it is covered by hte rules.
The section on baggage says that "an ally's must.....remain with him as command baggage.", and IIRC the reason for the Viking being a sub-general is that PB thinks they never deserted in battle.
If I was umpiring a competition I think I'd not allow you to join it as army baggage, on the basis that he's still an allied contingent and not really integrated into the army in the same manner as the locals - he's only a subbie so that he has no chance of deserting.
-
I agree with Mike that it isn't covered by the rules, and I also agree with his comments.
He is still an allied contingent, so the baggage has to stay with him. He is still an "ally", but you treat him as a sub-general for PIPs, etc, and you pay for him as a sub-general.
For example in the Norse-Irish list, the Ostmen and Viking allies are listed as "allies", but paid for as subs. At Clontarf the Vikings ran back to their boats, so you could say their camp was not with the Irish.
Hope this helps,
G^is,
JohnG
-
Ok. Thank you very much.
-
Hello
If you were the commander of say an Anglo-Danish army would you want to brigade your camp with Vikings ? They may not change sides but there would be some serious pilfering, all that ale, wine, food stuffs and loot. Should place the other baggage as far away as possible from those light fingered northeners ( and not near a water feature either ). ;D
William
-
Does this quote from the front of the lists change anything?
"In most cases foreign allied contingents are specified by reference to their own list. Each such allied contingent must include a single general, who (unless exceptional reliability causes them to be specified in the employing army?s list as sub-generals) are ally-generals."
-
Does this quote from the front of the lists change anything?
"In most cases foreign allied contingents are specified by reference to their own list. Each such allied contingent must include a single general, who (unless exceptional reliability causes them to be specified in the employing army?s list as sub-generals) are ally-generals."
I think it doesn't, I'm afraid :-[. This tells you that it is specified as a sub-general, but, simultanoeusly, it is still an allied contingent! :-\ So can or cannot join its command Bge into the army Bge? ???
-
I think it does change things. If you meet the definition of the exception listed (i.e. "unless exceptional reliability causes them to be specified in the employing army's list as sub-generals") then you aren't, according to the lists, an ally general. Hence such a general can, if you so choose, contribute to army baggage. To me the exception is clearly defined and as such it appears you conform to the exception. Any other opinions / interpretations?
-
Do anyone know the lits' author? I know that Phil is just confirming other's lists. Is this the case? ??? Maybe the author could help us...
-
This is from the list header: "DBMM Army Lists Book 2 ? Phil Barker. As of 15/11/08" and this is the 3rd line down: "COMPILED AND EDITED BY PHIL BARKER"
Andrew
-
Well, so maybe you're right. Weird :-\
-
I don't think it changes things.
Yes you'er a sub-general and not an ally general, but you are still an ally, and it is still an allied command.
Certainly it could be explicitly stated, but I see nothing in there that changes my opinion above.
-
What about this from page 14 of the rules : "A general commanding a contingent sent by another nation is always an ally general." That seems pretty clear, and it tends to support the consensus. However, it sounds like it is directly in conflict with the statement I quoted earlier from the lists.
Someone earlier stated that such a general can participate in the PIP allocation process. Further down page 14 it states : "A regular C-in-C's formal command structure allows him to make a plan and give his regular subordinate generals orders to implement it. This is simulated by recording at the end of initial deployment which of all his non-allied regular commands will always be allocated the highest PIP score, which the next highest, and which the lowest." I don't have the list to hand - I would have thought the Viking was irregular rather than regular so this may not be an option, or an issue. Are there any cases where such an allied sub general is a regular general? And if so, what is the view on PIP sharing / allocation etc.
IMO the two sentences in the paragraph immediately above possibly contradict each other (but only if you had access to a regular ally general - if not then this point may be mute). As stated by Mike the general is a sub-general but the command is still an allied command (as is the case for compiling army baggage). Further, page 26 states : "lrregular and allied generals' commands are each allocated a different colour dice at the start of the game" - so it appears such generals cannot participate in the PIP allocation process.
Going back to Baggage - the full rule states : "Each general has 0-2 elements. An ally's must, and other general's can, remain with him as Command Baggage". So if the general is a sub-general why can't he have army baggage? Baggage is per general, not per command.
Andrew
-
I think there is a bit of confusion because the term "ally" or "ally general" is sometimes used to mean "the general of an allied contingent" and sometimes to mean the troop-type "ally general", which is a kind of general that can be potentially unreliable and costs less points than a normal general.
In some cases the general of an allied contingent has the troop type "sub-general". This means he will not be unreliable and costs the same as a normal sub-general.
In my opinion, unreliability and related matters apply only to the troop type ally general. All other references to "ally" or "ally general" are to the general of an allied contingent, however he is classed.
Allied contingents are "foreign" and not part of the main army, so it makes sense that their camp should be separate from the main camp and not able to be included as army baggage. In real life, the ally is sending a contingent of troops with their own logistic support, and would not expect to contribute to, or draw from, the main army's logistic support.
Ally generals can be regular, e.g. Roman allies for various client states. If the general of a specified allied contingent is regular and is defined in the army list as a subgeneral, I would not allow him to be included in dice assignments because he is still an ally general in the sense of "general of an allied contingent".
You sometimes might get regular subgenerals of other nationalities in the main army list, but whose contingents are not described as "allies" in the list. In those cases I would include them in dice assignments. An example would be a Khitan sub-general in the DBM book 4 Mongol Conqest list if I remember correctly.
I think the above principles give a reasonably historical result.
-
I take the same stance as Lawrence - "ally" and "allied" have, unfortunately, 2 meanings.
One is as part of a definition of a particular troop type - the ally general.
but another is as part of a definition of a "foreign" contingent in an army - an allied contingent, it a contingent from an ally. The corollory is that this contingent is from an ally. This is the "common or garden" meaning of ally - the definition of a particular type of general is a technical one that applies only when specifically talking about a general.
the rules say that an allied contingent must be commanded by an ally general - but then the lists have a couple of exceptions where they are commanded by a sub-general!
However the allied contingent remains and allied contingent, IMO, whoever commands it, and the general can be accurately described as "an ally".
In this context the comment that an ally's baggage must remain with him includes an ally sub-general.
And as mentioned above IMO the sub-general classification is only to reflect increased reliability and nothing else.
However I shall mention it on hte list and see what happens! ;)
-
One quick reply:
For what it's worth, I recently had to rule on a DBM list converted
from the new Book 3, in which the player wanted to add some of the
main list troops into the Viking ally, on the basis that it is run by
a sub-general, not an ally.
In my view, you treat the Viking allies (and others using the same
principle) as allies for all purposes except that the general is
treated as a subbie and paid for as such. Otherwise you open a large
can of worms.
I think it's pretty clear that it's an external ally command, but
there's a special rule that applies only in relation to its general.
Tim Child
-
Understood regarding the ally/allied command, but the rules are quite clear about allocation of army baggage to regular sub-generals (not commands or contingents). Again, this is a non-issue for an irregular sub-general but there is still room for a differing interpretation with a regular general classified as a sub-general.
Cheers
Andrew
-
There's no difference between baggage allocations for regular or irregular sub generals that I'm aware of.
Would you would support the viking sub-ally-general being allwoed to command non viking troops too?
-
Hi Mike - my bad with the regular thingy. That was a hangover from the PIP allocation.
On a full reading of the Baggage rules (which I should have done first time) : "Each general has 0-2 elements. An ally's must, and other general's can, remain with him as Command Baggage. All other baggage is held in common as Army Baggage. Each non-allied command without command baggage shares the effects of Army Baggage and it deploys in I of them."
So my (deliberate) interpretation of this is that a sub-general can contribute to army baggage, but only non-allied commands get the benefit of army baggage. Why anyone would do this is beyond me, so I believe this is effectively a dead issue.
So I stand (happily) corrected. Sorry about dragging it out!!
Cheers
Andrew