DBMM Forum
General Category => Rules Questions => Topic started by: Valentinian Victor on February 09, 2009, 08:38:43 AM
-
Can someone clear up my confusion with this question please.
Some lists allow you to take allies who have Brilliant/Inert C-in-C's during the time period your allowed to have those allies i.e. Later Visigothic can have Early Byzantine allies during the time frame Belisarius is around.
In this example could I take Belisarius as the Ally general for the Later Visigothic?
-
Can someone clear up my confusion with this question please.
Some lists allow you to take allies who have Brilliant/Inert C-in-C's during the time period your allowed to have those allies i.e. Later Visigothic can have Early Byzantine allies during the time frame Belisarius is around.
In this example could I take Belisarius as the Ally general for the Later Visigothic?
I'd say yes, based on the following reasons:
1. There is at least one case where it is specifically forbidden - Early Armenian allies for the Mithradatic army can't be led by Inert Tigranes. If not forbidden, it should be automatically available.
2. There's no geographical limitation on Belisarius's use. By contrast, for example, Inert Lepidus couldn't command Marian Roman allies in a Later Judean army as he was only active in Italy and North Africa. But Julius Caesar could command Marian Roman allies, as there are no geographical limits on his use.
Having said that, I'd much prefer to use Belisarius in charge of an Early Byzantine army than as an ally in a Later Visigothic army, because he has so many more options in that position.
-
It does give the Later Visigoth's a novel dimention, being then able to field an army with Irr Wb(O), Kn(F), Cv(O), Bw(I) and Reg Cv(S)!
-
Yeah! Ypu're right. No I will look for armies with brilliant allies ;D
Has anyone tested them? Does it worth the price paid?
-
Considering that as they are allies then they don't cost as many AP's as a sub-gen, then I think they are well worth the cost!
-
;) Yes but one way to look at this is an inert ally ( that someone not a millon miles away used ), depending on the type of troops he commands it can be very effective.
-
Remember hte EXTRA cost for a brilliant general is +25 AP's whether he is the CinC, a sub or an ally.
Off the top of my head as an ally his 2 brilliant strokes are limited to doubling his PIPs, +2 in combat, adding 1 to his dice to arrive from a flank march.
-
Remember hte EXTRA cost for a brilliant general is +25 AP's whether he is the CinC, a sub or an ally.
Off the top of my head as an ally his 2 brilliant strokes are limited to doubling his PIPs, +2 in combat, adding 1 to his dice to arrive from a flank march.
I've used a brilliant sub general and the +1 for arriving from a flank march was pretty handy. The army was set up with that in mind, though.
If your ally has a lot of Cv(S) you might be better off with them front and centre from the start, and probably another two Cv(S) would be a better use of 25 points than the brilliance.
-
Yeah! You're right. Now I will look for armies with brilliant allies ;D
Remember, a brilliant ally will be unreliable as often as any other ally. Very annoying to spend the points on brilliance and not be able to use it because he's hanging out for higher wages, or whatever...
Has anyone tested them? Does it worth the price paid?
I'd prefer to use a brilliant C-in-C. As Mike implies, they have far more options for making use of their brilliance (Change Deployment stratagem, regular C-in-Cs can double the PIPs of other generals, for two examples). Read my account of the games I played at Cancon this year. The key for me was being able, in my first bound, to double the PIPs of a general who got the highest of five PIP dice. The three times I did it, the C-in-C and his 8 Cv (S) had 12 PIPs plus the general's PIP to move with.
-
Remember, a brilliant ally will be unreliable as often as any other ally. Very annoying to spend the points on brilliance and not be able to use it because he's hanging out for higher wages, or whatever...
Ooops, you're right! :P
I'd prefer to use a brilliant C-in-C. As Mike implies, they have far more options for making use of their brilliance (Change Deployment stratagem, regular C-in-Cs can double the PIPs of other generals, for two examples). Read my account of the games I played at Cancon this year. The key for me was being able, in my first bound, to double the PIPs of a general who got the highest of five PIP dice. The three times I did it, the C-in-C and his 8 Cv (S) had 12 PIPs plus the general's PIP to move with.
I see. I think I agree. Brilliant allies are not so keen. ;D
-
Remember, a brilliant ally will be unreliable as often as any other ally. Very annoying to spend the points on brilliance and not be able to use it because he's hanging out for higher wages, or whatever...
I agree but is it slightly easier to make him reliable ( C IN C spends 3 pips the previous turn and all the brilliant ally has to do is double a 3 or roll a 5 or 6 )? ;) or it his pip dice rather than pip score, if it is then it should it should probably read raw or unadjusted pip dice.
William
-
Unfortunately hte wording is not clear - the required score has to be on the allies "PIP dice" - but elsewhere in the rules there are a couple of specific mentions of "raw PIP score" (eg Brilliant & inert effects on PIPs on page 26).
Is the difference significant?
I would say no - the PIP dice is what you roll IMO - however many PIPs you then get is not the same thing & I see no reason why "Brilliance" (or inertness for that matter - it cuts both ways!) would affect reliability.
1 for the comentary & rules issues list!
-
Having an Ally General who brings with him Reg Cv(S) could make all the difference to an army like the Later Visigothic who are stuck with Irr Cv(O) and Kn(F)
-
Having an Ally General who brings with him Reg Cv(S) could make all the difference to an army like the Later Visigothic who are stuck with Irr Cv(O) and Kn(F)
Quite right. But he doesn't have to be Brilliant. As Lawrence says, the 25 points might be better spent on 2 Reg Cv (S) (and the Scouts stratagem).
Having said all that, I came third in a small DBM competition (335 point armies) with Later Visigothic army which didn't use Byzantine allies. The C-in-C dismounted to lead a centre command of massed Wb (O) plus a couple of Ps (O). One sub-general commanded all the Kn (F) and some Bw (I), while the other sub-general commanded all the Cv (O) and the Sp (I) + Ps (O) Romans. I beat Libyan Egyptians, lost to Fatimids, beat Beja, drew with Incas, beat Middle Imperial Romans, and lost to Italian Condotta.
On a side note, I see the Byzantine allies for the Visigoths are available from 550 to 554. These years straddle the general upgrade to the Byzantine mounted from LH (S)/Cv (O) to Cv (S)/Cv (O).
-
I've been thinking about this some more.
A Brilliant Ally Gen would never be unreliable as long as he flank marched, therefore, in the Later Visigothic case it would be an idea to always use the Brilliant ally gens command to flank march, not a bad idea considering that the comman could have 6+ CV(S) in it!
-
I've been thinking about this some more.
A Brilliant Ally Gen would never be unreliable as long as he flank marched, therefore, in the Later Visigothic case it would be an idea to always use the Brilliant ally gens command to flank march, not a bad idea considering that the comman could have 6+ CV(S) in it!
A briiliant flank marching general can be unreliable if delayed battle is used ( well sounds like a good idea of not using it if you flank march a brilliant ally. ).
;D William
-
I've been thinking about this some more.
A Brilliant Ally Gen would never be unreliable as long as he flank marched, therefore, in the Later Visigothic case it would be an idea to always use the Brilliant ally gens command to flank march, not a bad idea considering that the comman could have 6+ CV(S) in it!
It's true that he would never be unreliable if flank marched, but that's not the only part of the equation to look at. A Brilliant Reg Cv (S) ally general plus 6 Reg Cv (S) is already over 100 AP, which is a lot of AP to have off table at the start of the game. To improve his chance of arriving you might want to buy the Flank Attack stratagem, which means you can only have one other stratagem each game. Then there are going to be the games where you really don't want to flank march (say, waterway on one flank and difficult hills on the other), meaning you're risking his unreliability.
It's not a bad trick, and might work well once or twice, but it seems to make your army into a one-trick pony. Once opponents work out the trick, you're in trouble. For example, with the Nikephorian Byzantine army I used at Cancon, I'd be doing my utmost to swamp your on-table troops before your flank march arrived.
A briiliant flank marching general can be unreliable if delayed battle is used ( well sounds like a good idea of not using it if you flank march a brilliant ally. ).
;D William
Pardon? Where do you get the idea that Delay Battle can make a flank marching ally unreliable?
-
I've been thinking about this some more.
A Brilliant Ally Gen would never be unreliable as long as he flank marched, therefore, in the Later Visigothic case it would be an idea to always use the Brilliant ally gens command to flank march, not a bad idea considering that the comman could have 6+ CV(S) in it!
It's true that he would never be unreliable if flank marched, but that's not the only part of the equation to look at. A Brilliant Reg Cv (S) ally general plus 6 Reg Cv (S) is already over 100 AP, which is a lot of AP to have off table at the start of the game. To improve his chance of arriving you might want to buy the Flank Attack stratagem, which means you can only have one other stratagem each game. Then there are going to be the games where you really don't want to flank march (say, waterway on one flank and difficult hills on the other), meaning you're risking his unreliability.
It's not a bad trick, and might work well once or twice, but it seems to make your army into a one-trick pony. Once opponents work out the trick, you're in trouble. For example, with the Nikephorian Byzantine army I used at Cancon, I'd be doing my utmost to swamp your on-table troops before your flank march arrived.
A briiliant flank marching general can be unreliable if delayed battle is used ( well sounds like a good idea of not using it if you flank march a brilliant ally. ).
;D William
Pardon? Where do you get the idea that Delay Battle can make a flank marching ally unreliable?
Would there be any benefit in putting the Brilliant Ally Gen in ambush, would that prevent him being unreliable?
-
A briiliant flank marching general can be unreliable if delayed battle is used ( well sounds like a good idea of not using it if you flank march a brilliant ally. ).
;D William
Pardon? Where do you get the idea that Delay Battle can make a flank marching ally unreliable?
:-[ Sorry sir, always getting my delayed arrivals/ delaying battles mixed ( swore I had read some where that if delayed start was used that the reliability of a flanking ally was not decided till his first PIP dice after arrival.
Please put me back to Hd.
My only excuse ( and this did happen to me ) is that a delayed ally can be unreliable and it's nearly impossible to get him reliable ( his off table so can not even spend pips to get him back on side { to far away }.
Sorry again
William
-
:-[ Sorry sir, always getting my delayed arrivals/ delaying battles mixed ( swore I had read some where that if delayed start was used that the reliability of a flanking ally was not decided till his first PIP dice after arrival.
Hey, don't misunderstand me. I wasn't chiding you. Remember, this is DBMM we're discussing. I was thinking more along the lines of, "Oh my God, something else I've missed!" ;-)
The business about the reliability of a flank-marching ally is described as follows: "His reliability will not be established until his first PIP dice of the battle or he arrives from a flank march." I can see how you might read those two tests together as one.
Please put me back to Hd.
My only excuse ( and this did happen to me ) is that a delayed ally can be unreliable...
You learn something new every day. That was something I hadn't noticed before. Never been an issue for me, though. I've never got the hang of Delayed Commands, and my opponents have only used them a couple of times - with sub-generals.
...and it's nearly impossible to get him reliable ( his off table so can not even spend pips to get him back on side { to far away }.
Er, now I think I'm worried again. Looking at the Unreliable Ally rules on page 14, I don't see how distance is ever an issue, except that if the command is off-table enemy can't ever approach within 240 paces. So the way I read it, an unreliable delayed command isn't much harder to make reliable than an on-board one.
-
Would there be any benefit in putting the Brilliant Ally Gen in ambush, would that prevent him being unreliable?
No benefit at all.
The only ally who can avoid being unreliable is one on a flank march - see Unreliable Allies on page 14.
Now, normally, if enemy move within 240 paces of unreliable troops, the unreliable command becomes reliable. But this doesn't apply if the enemy move within 240 paces of troops in ambush (see the first dot point in Unreliable Allies). So if you had the entire ally command in ambush, and it was unreliable, your opponent could march straight past it without knowing, and your unreliable lads wouldn't do a thing. And do you want to know the really annoying thing about it? If you get your C-in-C to spend the 3 PIPs to make an activation attempt, your opponent will know your ally isn't flank marching, meaning he may well suspect the ally command is in ambush (obviously it could also be a Delayed Command, if you're into that sort of thing).
-
Would there be any benefit in putting the Brilliant Ally Gen in ambush, would that prevent him being unreliable?
No benefit at all.
The only ally who can avoid being unreliable is one on a flank march - see Unreliable Allies on page 14.
Now, normally, if enemy move within 240 paces of unreliable troops, the unreliable command becomes reliable. But this doesn't apply if the enemy move within 240 paces of troops in ambush (see the first dot point in Unreliable Allies). So if you had the entire ally command in ambush, and it was unreliable, your opponent could march straight past it without knowing, and your unreliable lads wouldn't do a thing. And do you want to know the really annoying thing about it? If you get your C-in-C to spend the 3 PIPs to make an activation attempt, your opponent will know your ally isn't flank marching, meaning he may well suspect the ally command is in ambush (obviously it could also be a Delayed Command, if you're into that sort of thing).
Ah, but all you had to do is to move just one of those elements hidden in ambush a few millimeters backwards and then the whole command would become reliable if the element was then within 240 paces.
I've just realised that Book 2 list 82 Patrician Roman allows you to have a Brilliant C-in-C with a Brilliant ally-gen (Aetius and Attila)
-
Ah, but all you had to do is to move just one of those elements hidden in ambush a few millimeters backwards and then the whole command would become reliable if the element was then within 240 paces.
*golf clap* You sneaky so-and-so! Yes, that would work. However, I suspect it would be a very rare occurrence.
I've just realised that Book 2 list 82 Patrician Roman allows you to have a Brilliant C-in-C with a Brilliant ally-gen (Aetius and Attila)
Hoo, what a combination. But it'd be a very small army!
-
Very true. I always like to have a command that makes sense used as a flank-march, especially with an infantry-based army like the Visigoths (get in behind the oppo., so that he can't run away if you start to win!)
Personally, I'd go with the ally-command if you like the options it gives and live with the fact that 1 in 6 times it'll be unreliable! That's why you pay less for AGs. When you don't FM with him, stick the command somewhere where it'll be useful even if unreliable:-
1. Up front and in the middle is good for making it very difficult for the enemy to avoid approaching it and thereby activating the unreliable troops.
2. Holding a refused flank is also handy, as it can be difficult to get around them without, again, activating them. The advantage of Reg Cv(S) is that they'll manoeuvre backwards at 1 PIP a time, so you can deploy forward in the hope of being reliable but can back-peddle to counter enemy that try to get behind them if they turn out unhappy (remember that you can still move if unreliable, as long as you don't get closer than 800p to enemy)
I speak as an inveterate SRB-user, with 2-3 compulsory AGs (albeit usually internal ones).
Tim Child
-
Hi
A flank marching ally can be unreliable in that he simply doesn?t turn up.
The chances of him not arriving are reasonably high.
See the attached diagram to compare the chances of a flank march not arriving after x bounds.
The red lines shows the chances for an ally.
The chance of him not turning up for 12 bounds is 11%.
For a normal flank march the value would be 2% (blue line).
neil fox
-
Er, now I think I'm worried again. Looking at the Unreliable Ally rules on page 14, I don't see how distance is ever an issue, except that if the command is off-table enemy can't ever approach within 240 paces. So the way I read it, an unreliable delayed command isn't much harder to make reliable than an on-board one.
Blast! something else have been getting wrong!
William
-
Hi
A flank marching ally can be unreliable in that he simply doesn?t turn up.
The chances of him not arriving are reasonably high.
See the attached diagram to compare the chances of a flank march not arriving after x bounds.
The red lines shows the chances for an ally.
The chance of him not turning up for 12 bounds is 11%.
For a normal flank march the value would be 2% (blue line).
neil fox
Is it not after 8 bounds a flank marching command does not come on and counts as lost?
-
Is it not after 8 bounds a flank marching command does not come on and counts as lost?
No.
If you read Arrival of Delayed or Flank Marching Commands on page 31 you'll find no reference to stopping dicing for a command's arrival. If you read Victory & Defeat on page 43 you'll see that commands which have failed to arrive after the 8th bound count as lost, but that doesn't mean you stop dicing for their arrival.
So if you have a command flank marching, and it hasn't arrived by the 8th bound, it counts as lost. But if it later turns up, it no longer counts as lost, and your effective losses decrease.
-
Is it not after 8 bounds a flank marching command does not come on and counts as lost?
No.
If you read Arrival of Delayed or Flank Marching Commands on page 31 you'll find no reference to stopping dicing for a command's arrival. If you read Victory & Defeat on page 43 you'll see that commands which have failed to arrive after the 8th bound count as lost, but that doesn't mean you stop dicing for their arrival.
So if you have a command flank marching, and it hasn't arrived by the 8th bound, it counts as lost. But if it later turns up, it no longer counts as lost, and your effective losses decrease.
Errrrr....I'm a bit confused here.
If the command becomes lost as a result of not arriving by the 8th bound, then surely it fullfills the criteria for it to become a shattered command as per page 43 i.e. it will have lost more than half its ME considering every single element in its command will immediately be considered lost, therefore shattered, then it no longer has a die roll.
From what other people have told me, and what I've seen played on the table, if a command does not arrive after the 8th bound its gone forever, never to be seen again during that battle.
-
Errrrr....I'm a bit confused here.
If the command becomes lost as a result of not arriving by the 8th bound, then surely it fullfills the criteria for it to become a shattered command as per page 43 i.e. it will have lost more than half its ME considering every single element in its command will immediately be considered lost, therefore shattered, then it no longer has a die roll.
From what other people have told me, and what I've seen played on the table, if a command does not arrive after the 8th bound its gone forever, never to be seen again during that battle.
You're right that a command becomes shattered if it's lost more than half its ME.
But if you look at Lost and/or Destroyed Elements on page 42, you'll find no reference to troops which haven't arrived. In other words, troops which haven't arrived yet do not count as lost. (Edit to add - I just realised this appears to contradict what I said in my post above. This post should be considered definitive quoting of the rules, while the post above should be read as colloquial interpretation.)
Now go to Victory & Defeat on page 43: "When at the end of either side's bound an army's cumulative losses in ME, plus the ME of any command that have failed to arrive after its 8th bound, is more than half the army's original ME, that army is defeated..." (my emphasis). Note that lost elements and elements which have failed to arrive are specified separately.
You might also like to read the thread "My Sub-Roman British v Tim's Khmer" in the Battle Reports section, in which this matter is discussed.
-
I really think this also needs looking at by Phil when he is looking at the rules again. My belief, shared by others, is that elements that are lost remain lost and therefore any command that does not arrive by the eighth bound is lost and its elements are lost as well. It wont affect the army much other than to lower the ME level for the army as a whole to break.
-
Hi
I completely agree with Barritus.
If a flank march takes a long time to arrive, the army is depressed and thinks they are not coming.
If they do arrive a bound later everyone is happy again.
P43 "Victory and Defeat"
The rules are clear: if the lost elements plus the late elements add up to > 50% of the ME, the army breaks. The late elements are late and not lost.
neil fox
-
I really think this also needs looking at by Phil when he is looking at the rules again. My belief, shared by others, is that elements that are lost remain lost...
No argument with you there.
...and therefore any command that does not arrive by the eighth bound is lost and its elements are lost as well.
But I disagree with you here. Your "therefore" isn't in the rules. "Haven't arrived" <> "lost".
-
Yes - exactly.
there is NOTHING in the rules to say that flank marching elements that have not arrived by T8 are lost.
the only flank marchers that ever count as lost are Baggage and elements that lack PIPs to arrive of a driven back unsuccessful flank march (see pg 31)
-
It would appear I was suffering a 'senior moment' and read too much into one sentence in the rule book.
Please accept my apologies folks.
-
Don't worry about it. We've all had experiences like this. It's the nature of the rules as they're currently written.