DBMM Forum
Armies => Book 2 => Topic started by: Barritus on February 22, 2009, 11:05:51 AM
-
I don't know whether these have been noted anywhere, so I thought I'd mention them.
1. Hellenistic Greek: The list says Athenian and Achaian C-in-Cs and ally generals can be upgraded to Kn (F). But the list doesn't provide for ally-generals any more - they should be sub-generals.
2. Chiang and Ti: Is the Inert C-in-C compulsory in the time he's available?
3. Patrician Roman: Is it intended that Patrician Roman armies based in Spain can't get any mounted whatsoever? Or was it simply left off the list by mistake?
-
I have another suspicion, but I am not sure:
Book 2, L27 (Pyrrhos of Epeiros) has 4 Galleys. Crews can be Italian forces which fought for Pyrrhos (PsS, Ax, Sp). Strangely the Italiot hoplites may me Sp(I) or Pk(I). But as galley crew they are allowed only as Sp. So if the assumption is true that all Italiot foot can crew the galleys then the crew list must read [Ps(S), Ax, Sp, Pk(I)] or [Italiot foot].
-
Bithynian: When do Heraclian allies change from using the Later Hoplite Greek list to using the Hellenistic Greek list? The changeover isn't mentioned in the Bithynian, Later Hoplite Greek or Hellenistic Greek lists. However, it's important as some time during the period in which the changeover occurs, the Bithynians also change to getting regular generals. That is, the list might allow for irregular Bithynians with Hellenistic Greek allies, or regular Bithynians with LHG allies, or neither (if the changeover occurs in the same year as the Bithynian change).
Patrician Roman/Sub-Roman British: If you provide SRB allies for a Patrician Roman army (the Riothamus option), how is the SRB contingent chosen? Is the SRB allowed the full number of "Britannia Prima" elements (the Kn (X), the Kn (F), the Bd (O) etc) even though they're optional? A strict reading of the list rules would seem to limit Riothamus to his Bd (I/O) comitatus, the LH (I) and the Sp (I), which removes any colour available with the Riothamus option.
-
Another SRB erratum...possibly.
The list allows FW as a permitted terrain type before 600AD. The list notes (second last paragraph) say that the FW is either Hadrian's Wall or earthworks such as Wansdyke.
I note that both those are in Britain. But the list makes no geographic distinction, suggesting that FW could be used with Armorican options, which doesn't seem quite right. Or is there evidence of such features in Brittany too?
So should the FW be limited to "Only in Britain"?
-
Possibly, although I suspect that someone from Brittany will now pop up with an example of a earthwork there as well :)
-
More of a clarification than an erratum...
In the Jewish Revolt list, it says that Zealot ally generals can only command Zealots, and must command them all.
Does this mean the ally minimums rule applies to them? That is, if you take two Zealot ally generals, must each command at least a quarter of the minimums of all compulsory troop types? For example, must each general take at least 3 Wb and 2 Bw?
-
Yes, they'd have to each command the some of the zealot compulsories.
(You do not however have to have any Bw - you can take all the zealot archers ares Ps.)
-
Ptolemaics: If you take an army in the year 274BC, you can field both the Asiatic and African elephants. I'm sure this isn't intended.
-
LIR and Patrician Roman,change "Numidian Allies" to "Later Moorish Allies".Due to date used.
LES
-
LIR and Patrician Roman,change "Numidian Allies" to "Later Moorish Allies".Due to date used.
LES
I have a vague memory that I asked about this before Book 2 was published, and was told that The Powers That Be decided the Numidian list provided a more accurate contingent for the Romans than the Moorish list.
-
Possibly, although I suspect that someone from Brittany will now pop up with an example of a earthwork there as well :)
I've recently fought Riothamus against the Visigoths. It's an interesting matchup that looks very hairy for the SRB when the troops go down on the table (Kn(F) and Wb(O) vs Sp(I) and mntd Bd(O), gulp), but can be made to work with some dice-luck. :o) I decided against including a portable Hadrian's Wall in the army-list!
Tim Child
-
LIR and Patrician Roman,change "Numidian Allies" to "Later Moorish Allies".Due to date used.
LES
I have a vague memory that I asked about this before Book 2 was published, and was told that The Powers That Be decided the Numidian list provided a more accurate contingent for the Romans than the Moorish list.
Having searched my email archives, I find several people who've said on the DBMMlist that it ought be Later Moorish, and none who's argued that Numidian/Early Moorish is preferable.
-
I have a vague memory that I asked about this before Book 2 was published, and was told that The Powers That Be decided the Numidian list provided a more accurate contingent for the Romans than the Moorish list.
Is it specified that you can a Numidian ally outside of its list date,in either list?
LES
-
Palmyran
Caravan Guards Irr Cm (O) should be 5 AP not 6 AP.
LES
-
I have a vague memory that I asked about this before Book 2 was published, and was told that The Powers That Be decided the Numidian list provided a more accurate contingent for the Romans than the Moorish list.
Is it specified that you can a Numidian ally outside of its list date,in either list?
LES
The Numidian list says it can be ised from 390 BC to provide allied contingents - it doesn't specify an end date :-\
However, it looks like the only reason for it not being changed is that it whad already gone to the printers.
-
Galatians - list 30:
1. The number of Cv (I) mounted attendants is in proportion to the number of "Cv (O)" in the list. Which Cv (O) are counted? Galatian Cv obviously, but what about the Cv (O) chariots and the Cv (O) Thessalian and Aenianians?
2. The number of Thessalian and Aeinianian followers is in proportion to the "leader and nobles". As the Greek ally general is optional, if you were to assign the Greek nobles and followers to a Galatian command, would you count the Galatian general as a "leader" for the purposes of calculating the number of available followers?
-
Early Armenia and Gordyene: Aggression for both these armies is 1, except for a period in the 1st century BC when it's 3. However, as that period corresponds to the empire of Tigranes of Armenia, should Gordyene retain Ag 1 throughout?
-
During that period Gordyene should probably only be an ally of Armenia - after all its king is one of Tigranes' poodles - "accompanied by 4 panting subservient kings on foot" .
They offered their support to Luculllus but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of what he received if they gave any manpower - seems more like supplies and money. Soon after, the Romans handed Gordyene back to Tigranes.
-
Alexandrian Imperial: Okay, another case of not necessarily an errata but desire for clarification...
If the army is commanded by the King or the Regent, you get 4 to 8 Pk (S), the Hypaspists/Argyraspids. From 324BC to 323BC you can regrade 1/2 to 3/4 of them to a mix of Bw (X) and Bw (S). So, if I've got this right, no matter how many you get, you've always got to have some of them unconverted as Pk (S). But pike are best in four ranks, so in order to have four pike, you have to buy all eight elements, then convert only half of them to the Bw (X/S) combo. Otherwise you're left with a remnant of pike elements, which are a bit on the vulnerable side.
-
That would appear to be correct.
It's even worse in DBMM 2, where you, if led by Big Al himself, you must have 2 Pk (S) and one Bw (X/S) DBE.
-
DBMM 2?
What do you mean?
DBMM 200?
-
Meant DBMM 200, yes. Dunno what happened to the zeroes.
-
- Classical Indian, Mauryan options: The list says that you can upgrade "All or None" of the Bge to Regular @ +1AP. What about the Bge (S) element? Does it have to be upgraded too? If so, the upgrade cost is wrong. If not, the "All or None" requirement is wrong. Which is it?
-
- Classical Indian, Mauryan options: The list says that you can upgrade "All or None" of the Bge to Regular @ +1AP. What about the Bge (S) element? Does it have to be upgraded too? If so, the upgrade cost is wrong. If not, the "All or None" requirement is wrong. Which is it?
FWIW, when this was raised on the Yahoo list a while ago, Duncan Head opined that the upgrade shouldn't apply to the Bge (S).
-
Another presumed erratum for the SRBs:
The Strathclyde option for the army allows you to upgrade 1 Bge (O) or (F) to (S) as praying monks. I assume now that V2 separates Bge (S) from the 0-2 Bge elements per command that the Strathclyders should be allowed one element of spiritual sustenance in addition to the two elements of physical sustenance per command.
-
Chiang and Ti: Not so much an erratum as a clarification...
The main list provides for Ax (O) and Ax (S). If using the Former Chin option, you can convert some of the Ti troops to Chinese, including optionally classifying some as Ax (O)
The main list provides archers which can be Bw (I) or Ps (O). If Ps (O), they are specified as being able to support Ax.
Does this mean the Ti archers can support Chinese Ax (O)? Logically I'd say no, but the wording suggests yes.
-
Three Kingdoms and Western Ts'in Chinese: How was the cost of the Temporary Towers calculated?
The list says they cost 12AP, which appears to be 2AP for a TF section +1AP for being the outside wall of a raised tower, all multiplied by 4 for the 4 walls.
The problems:
1. The +1 cost applies only to PF and isn't available to TF.
2. A gatway isn't included in the cost, although the second last sentence of the first paragraph of Fortifications on p 11 says:An isolated tower must have 1 gateway.
There's nothing there to indicate the requirement applies only to PF towers.
-
Marian Roman: The restrictions on the generals are a bit on the vague side, to the extent that it's possible to assemble some fairly unhistorical combinations. For example, Julius Caesar is available as a Brilliant General from 58BC to 45BC, with no geographic restrictions. This means that it's possible to field a Marian Roman army with JC in charge and with Later Pre-Islamic Arab allies, even though they're only available until 53BC, at a time we know JC was in Gaul.
Now I realise that tightening this up might be impractical, but I thought it worth mentioning in case someone felt it was important enough to pursue.
-
Paekche and Kaya Korean: Under the Japanese Kofun Culture allies section, there's an entry for Uji nobles, toneri and yatsuko retainers as Irr Pk (X). The problem is the number:
1 to 2-3 Bw (S)
Based on looking at the Pre-Samurai Japanese list, it should probably read "1-2 per 3".
Interestingly, though, the Pk (X) numbers in the allies to the Paekche list are based on Bw (S) numbers, while in the PSJ list, the Pk (X) numbers are based on the total number of Bw.
-
Another issue of clarification, and again for my old mates the Sub Roman British.
Armoricans prior to 580 can have Frankish and Alan allies. The Frankish allies are the Early Frankish list, and are available from 485. But the Early Frankish list ends in 496, so presumably these allies are available only from 485 to 496. Or should the option of Middle Frankish be available from 496 to 580?
-
A few more issues which cropped up as I searched for the perfect army...
List 5, Later Hoplite Greek: The list notes say (top of page 9): "Any army can include troops of minor states."
Obviously this means Hoplites, as there's an entry under hoplites for "minor mainland state or states". But if I have a Thessalian or Chalkidian army, and can get 8-36 hoplites, can I get another 8-36 minor state allied hoplites?
Presumably this means Javelinmen, as there's an entry under that for "any other state". But if I have an army that isn't Aitolian, Thessalian, Akarnanian, Phokian or Chalkidian, do I get the option of 4-12 Ps (I) twice over - once for my major state and a second time for minor state allies?
And presumably this means Cavalry, as there's another entry under that for "Any other mainland or Ionian state". And so again, if I field an army which isn't one otherwise catered for in the cavalry options (thus using 0, or 2-6 Cv (I)) do I get that option twice over - once for my major state and a second time for minor state allies?
List 40, Numidian or Early Moorish: A couple of questions relating to the combined Pompeian Roman and Numidian army in 46BC:
- What does "replace" mean in the entry relating to Numidian cavalry being replaced by Gallic and German cavalry? Does it mean there are no Numidian cavalry at all, only the 4-6 Reg Cv (O)? Or does it mean "upgrade"? After all, the term in the previous line (for generals) is "replace all", making it clear you can't add a Numidian ally general to the 2-3 Roman generals.
- Does this army count as an "Other" army for the purpose of access to elephants? (If so, it'd be the only Roman army I know of which can field more than one elephant.)
List 49, Marian Roman: A follow up to the post above about Julius Caesar's access to allies outside where we know he operated at various times...
Between 49BC and 46BC you can use Numidian allies, and the notes point out that Numidian allies would be Juba, while Moorish allies would represent Bogud. However, there's no clear restriction about which Roman generals can use which Numidian/Early Moorish allies. Likewise, the Numidian and Early Moorish list notes say that Juba I supported the Pompeian army in Africa, but doesn't set any limits on who he can be an ally for.
So, from what I can see, it would be perfectly acceptable to field a Marian Roman army led by Lepidus with Numidian allies selected from the Juba I options, meaning he could field an elephant and a Cv (O) in addition to the LH, the javelinmen and the imitation legionaries. In other words, a Roman army led by a Caesarian general with allies historically aligned with Caesar's enemies.
List 68, Pictish: This list allows Scots-Irish allies between 364 and 368. The Scots-Irish list allows CuChulain as a Brilliant sub-general as late as 368. I assume this means that if I field a Pictish army with Scots-Irish allies, it would be acceptable to have that allied contingent led by CuChulain.
-
A couple of questions about list 20, Ptolemaic:
- What sort of fighting crew do Trieres get? The Penteres get Reg Ax, but there's nothing written against the smaller galleys.
- There are three options available "after 215BC": regrading Galatians to Irr Bd (I), Cretan or Pisidian Irr Ps (S), and replacing Pk (I) phalangites with Nubian axemen. As Galatians aren't available after 54BC, does this mean the other two options should be restricted to the same year limit, or are they available all the way to 30BC? (The Ptolemaic army of 53BC-30BC looks interesting - if an opponent doesn't pay attention to the year of your army they could get a major surprise!)
-
list 20, Ptolemaic:
if an opponent doesn't pay attention to the year of your army they could get a major surprise!)
Take it you mean 274 BC ? :D
LES
-
list 20, Ptolemaic:
if an opponent doesn't pay attention to the year of your army they could get a major surprise!)
Take it you mean 274 BC ? :D
LES
Well, that's one case.
But I was thinking that an army of 53BC-30BC can have 0-10 Bd (O) and 0-8 Bd (I), and possibly 0-4 Bd (F), and need not have any Pk. It's almost like a poor man's Marian Roman army, but with Kn (F) SBWs, low aggression and compulsory water features.
-
List 23, LPIA: Aside from the comment in the notes about nomad allied contingents not being able to include non-nomads, are there any limits on the inclusion of nomads in non-nomad armies or vice versa?
-
- There are three options available "after 215BC": regrading Galatians to Irr Bd (I), Cretan or Pisidian Irr Ps (S), and replacing Pk (I) phalangites with Nubian axemen. As Galatians aren't available after 54BC, does this mean the other two options should be restricted to the same year limit, or are they available all the way to 30BC?
The later, I presume.
-
List 23, LPIA: are there any limits on the inclusion of nomads in non-nomad armies or vice versa?
Can you use Yemen Ax(O) in a Nomad list?
LES
-
Hun allies in a Patrician Roman army...
If I read it right, if I take a Western Patrician Roman army in Gaul or Italy between 433 and 439, I can have a brilliant general for both the Romans (Aetius) and the Huns (Attila):
Aetius is available from 427 to 454;
Hun allies are available from 423 to 439; and
Attila is available from 433 to 453.
Is this intended/should it be allowed?
Would you do it? :-)
(Note similarity to possible double brilliance with HYW English under Talbot plus Early Burgundian allies under Phillippe le Bon.)
-
Hun allies in a Patrician Roman army...
If I read it right, if I take a Western Patrician Roman army in Gaul or Italy between 433 and 439, I can have a brilliant general for both the Romans (Aetius) and the Huns (Attila):
Aetius is available from 427 to 454;
Hun allies are available from 423 to 439; and
Attila is available from 433 to 453.
Is this intended/should it be allowed?
Would you do it? :-)
(Note similarity to possible double brilliance with HYW English under Talbot plus Early Burgundian allies under Phillippe le Bon.)
Although there is nothing to prevent you doing this, most list checkers will not allow these combinations in competition games if there is no historical evidence of it ever happening. The issue with Aetius and Attila is a bit more complex as there was the potential for them to have teamed up as Aetius knew Attila personally and was with the Huns for awhile.
There is a similar issue with the Later Visigothic list where they can take Early Byzantines as an Ally and the time frame of that combination falls in with the Brilliant Bellisarius option. Although the Early Byzantines did support the Later Visigoths in a campaign Bellisarius was not present. However, as the rules currently stand there is no rule that states you cannot take Bellisarius, only a moral one suggesting you should not!
-
Another errata for Book 2 is within the list notes of List 70, Burgundians and Limogantes. It states that the Limogantes were destroyed by Constantine, when in fact it was Constantius II who dealt with them, Constantine being dead for twenty years by that time!
-
Although there is nothing to prevent you doing this, most list checkers will not allow these combinations in competition games if there is no historical evidence of it ever happening.
That's interesting. I've never known a list checker to make such a ruling. Is that because Aussie list checkers don't know or don't care? :-)
The issue with Aetius and Attila is a bit more complex as there was the potential for them to have teamed up as Aetius knew Attila personally and was with the Huns for awhile.
That's partly why I'm interested that list checkers would take issue with such matters. To me it seems to be going beyond what the list allows. (Whether that's right or wrong is another matter entirely.)
There is a similar issue with the Later Visigothic list where they can take Early Byzantines as an Ally and the time frame of that combination falls in with the Brilliant Bellisarius option. Although the Early Byzantines did support the Later Visigoths in a campaign Bellisarius was not present. However, as the rules currently stand there is no rule that states you cannot take Bellisarius, only a moral one suggesting you should not!
True. And the same applies to the Marian Romans, as I've mentioned earlier in this list - the list doesn't stop Julius Caesar from using Asian or African allies during the time we know he was in Gaul. Likewise, it's possible to have Lepidus in command of an army with Numidian allies drawn from the Pompeian-Numidian version of the Numidian list.
I think these sorts of issues should be clarified, whether list by list, or by a general ruling.
-
A general ruling would have to be: if it's not explicitly disallowed, it's legit. You can't require listcheckers to be conversant with every bit of mil hist.
-
Following on from the LHG comment I made above, what's the score with mercenary armies: can they use minor state troops too? And whether or not they can use minor state troops, can they use triremes?
I suppose I find it hard to believe that a bunch of mercenaries could acquire naval assets...
-
Chiang and Ti: Not so much an erratum as a clarification...
The main list provides for Ax (O) and Ax (S). If using the Former Chin option, you can convert some of the Ti troops to Chinese, including optionally classifying some as Ax (O)
The main list provides archers which can be Bw (I) or Ps (O). If Ps (O), they are specified as being able to support Ax.
Does this mean the Ti archers can support Chinese Ax (O)? Logically I'd say no, but the wording suggests yes.
A couple of other Chiang and Ti questions:
- The Ax (S) armoured tribal infantry are available at the rate of 1-2 per 2 Ax (O). Is this Chiang and Ti Ax (O) only, or should we also count the Chinese Ax (O) available to the Former Ch'in army?
- Chiang and Ti Ps (O) in a Hsiung-Nu army can't support C&T Ax, even though they can in the main C&T list. Should they be able to do so?
-
The Bosporans (list 2/25) can get Art (F) 40 years before the Early Imperial Romans. I'm assuming this is a holdover from DBM, as the EIRs in DBM got Art (F) from the start of the list, about 60 years before the Bosporans!
-
Campanians etc: How would you calculate the relative proportions of Leves, Hastati, Principes and Triarii in a post-275BC Campanian army?
After all, from 340BC, your Roman style foot are a quarter of each of the above. But from 275BC, Triarii reduce to 1 per 4-6 Bd, which means the Leves, Hastati and Principes can't each be a quarter of the total number of foot...
= = = =
Later Hoplite Greek: In the list of armies allowed foreign allies, Ephesus is listed as a "minor Ionian state". On that basis, what hoplites does it get? A minor state's 0, or 8-36 Irr Sp (O) or an Ionian state's 8-36 Reg Sp (I)?
-
The 0 or 8-36 Irr Sp (O) is for minor mainland states. Ephesus isn't "mainland" in the sense of this list (see first line of list notes).
Re the Campanians, it seems fairly clear to me - first you buy your romanized foot in quartets, then you remove some of the Triarii. You have to think of the lines as applying sequentially.
-
The 0 or 8-36 Irr Sp (O) is for minor mainland states. Ephesus isn't "mainland" in the sense of this list (see first line of list notes).
Ah, good point, thank you.
Re the Campanians, it seems fairly clear to me - first you buy your romanized foot in quartets, then you remove some of the Triarii. You have to think of the lines as applying sequentially.
Yes, that's a perfectly sensible approach, and really the only one. My main concern is that sequential application is really only implied rather than specified.
In any case I can't see it materially affecting games that often - I don't think I've ever heard of anyone taking a Campanian army to a competition, regardless of the rules...
-
One which i thought was odd when checking lists for Rollcall, Mid Imp Roman should the Praetorians be included in the number of blades for taking artillery ? :-\
LES
-
The list seems clear enough they should. Whether that's historically appropriate I don't know.
-
The list seems clear enough they should. Whether that's historically appropriate I don't know.
RAW yes,but should be brought up when Bk2 gets a make over . :)
LES
-
One which i thought was odd when checking lists for Rollcall, Mid Imp Roman should the Praetorians be included in the number of blades for taking artillery ? :-\
LES
Other lists allow you to use a variety of blades to trigger the number needed. For example, the Late Roman list states you can take 1 x Legionarii Archers (Ps(O)) per 2 x Bd(O), as the generals can all deploy as Bd(O), if deployed as Bd(O) they count towards this restriction.
-
Armenian II/28 can have Sarmatian II/26 or Alan II/58 allies in 35 AD. The Alan list doesn't start until 50 AD - one or other of the lists should mention that they are allowed as an ally earlier.
-
Middle Imperial Roman- All references to 'Visigoth' should be replaced by either 'Goths' or 'Tervingi'. Visigoths appeared towards the end of the Late Roman period.
Not sure why the Middle Imperial Roman's get a better selection of barbarian options than the Late Romans do?
-
Can the 'Old Mercenary' Peltasts support Thessalian Cavalry or are they restricted to the Greek Mercenary cavalry ?"
-
Seems clear enough to me they can only support mercenary CvI, not Thessalian CvO.
(Note that the CvI cannot be supported if you, for reasons of stark insanity, declare them to be allied rather than mercenary.)
-
Thanks - that's what I thought (re the Greek Peltasts) but I wanted a second opinion. It does mean I can organise my army more effectively :-) (I hope!)
-
List 72: Early Frankish, Alamanni, Quadi, Suevi, Rugian or Turcilingi.
Problem 1: In 419 the Suevi can have Patrician Roman allies. According to the notes, "a Roman ally contingent cannot include mounted troops". But if you look at the Patrician Roman list, its generals must be mounted: Cv (O), Kn (F) or LH (S). This is obviously a fossil, as in DBM the allies were Late Imperial Romans, who could have Bd (O) or Ax (S) generals, and for the DBMM lists the start date of the Patrician Roman army has been brought forward from 425 to 408.
Problem 2: The Suevi option starts in 406 and ends in 584. Suevi can use Quadi options. But the Quadi option ends prior to 406. Perhaps the words "...even after the end of the Quadi..." could be added to the sentence "Suevi can use Quadi options..." to remove any doubt.
-
List 62: Abyssinian and Horn of Africa: The notes say that a Muslim ally-general cannot command Ethiopians. However, the only troops defined as 'Ethiopian' are the Bd (F) Sarawit and the Hd (O) camp artisans. Does this mean all other troops in the army can be classified as Muslim if desired (and thus be commanded by a Muslim ally general)?
As there are apparently no restrictions on Ethiopians commanding Muslims, does this mean a post-1285 Ethiopian army can include Muslim Cv (O) (as long as no generals are so upgraded) and Bd (X) Muslim dembus wielders?
Also, Bw (I) can be upgraded to Bw (O) as Muslim archers. Does this mean Bw (I) aren't Muslims?
Finally, what's the distinction between Abyssinians/Ethiopians and Axumites/Solomonids? I get the impression the Solomonid dynasty replaced the Axumite dynasty in 970, and that Solomonids are not Muslim, but these points are far from clear in the list notes.
-
List 42 - Tamil Indian and Sinhalese: What is the date range of the Sinhalese? Can they be fielded prior to 300AD to use the Wb (F)?
Do the Pallavas or Cholas count as Sinhalese? (I suspect probably not but the list doesn't specifically say.)
Can the Sinhalese take Chavers?
-
List 24- Hittite Empire. This has Home Climate as 'Cool'. It should be 'Warm' as Anatolia rarely goes below the mid to high 50's F in the winter and snow only appears on the mountains (I recently went on holiday to Kusadasi which is in Anatolia, now part of modern Turkey. The locals waxed lyrical about their mild winter climate).
-
List 37 - Parthian: The list notes refer to the Seleucid allies as being the army of Antigonos Sidetes. His name is actually Antiochus Sidetes.
-
List 62: Abyssinian and Horn of Africa: The notes say that a Muslim ally-general cannot command Ethiopians. However, the only troops defined as 'Ethiopian' are the Bd (F) Sarawit and the Hd (O) camp artisans. Does this mean all other troops in the army can be classified as Muslim if desired (and thus be commanded by a Muslim ally general)?
I believe so. It certainly would make no sense if Muslim generals couldn't command horsemen and tribal levies.
As there are apparently no restrictions on Ethiopians commanding Muslims, does this mean a post-1285 Ethiopian army can include Muslim Cv (O) (as long as no generals are so upgraded) and Bd (X) Muslim dembus wielders?
Near as I can tell, yes.
Also, Bw (I) can be upgraded to Bw (O) as Muslim archers. Does this mean Bw (I) aren't Muslims?
The most natural reading would seem to be that Bw (I) can't be Muslims, but it really could be clearer. Whether a Muslim ally-gen can command non-Muslim, non-Ethiopian Bw (I) - they could be still-pagan Somalis, frex - is anyone's guess.
Finally, what's the distinction between Abyssinians/Ethiopians and Axumites/Solomonids? I get the impression the Solomonid dynasty replaced the Axumite dynasty in 970, and that Solomonids are not Muslim, but these points are far from clear in the list notes.
For list purposes, Abyssinians and Ethiopians are the same thing, and Solomonids are non-Muslim (specifically Christian).
"Axumite" (a/k/a "Aksumite") properly refers to the capital (Axum/Aksum) or the kingdom rather than the ruling dynasty. It declined in the tenth century (the list chosing 970 as the end date - probably as good as any), to be replaced by various Christian, pagan, and Muslim statelets, among which that of the "Solomonid" - claiming descent from Solomon and the Queen of Sheba - dynasty gained preeminence in the 13th century.
The dynasty stuck around (with some interruptions) until 1974 when it's last reigning member, Haile Selassie, was deposed.
-
List 23 - Later Pre-Islamic Arab:
Can nomad LPIA armies include non-nomad elements?
Can non-nomad LPIA armies include nomad elements?
-
List 23 - Later Pre-Islamic Arab:
Can nomad LPIA armies include non-nomad elements?
Can non-nomad LPIA armies include nomad elements?
Yes,
Yes,
Only allied contingents are limited.
I personally feel that we should have required commands to be nomad or non nomad, but that's not how it came out.
Tom..
-
List 24- Hittite Empire. This has Home Climate as 'Cool'. It should be 'Warm' as Anatolia rarely goes below the mid to high 50's F in the winter and snow only appears on the mountains (I recently went on holiday to Kusadasi which is in Anatolia, now part of modern Turkey. The locals waxed lyrical about their mild winter climate).
Kusadasi is on the coast, Hattusas is on an inland plataeu, so the climate of the one isn't a good guide to that of the other. Ankara, also on the plateau, has almost as cold winters as Stockholm.
The rulebook specifies "Cool" climate as applying to the central Anatolian highlands - this affects a few other lists besides the Hittites. I think Phil got this one right.
-
Not so much errata as questions...
1. Should the climate of the Indo-Greek army be Dry? If they were based in India, why not Tropical?
2. Parthians can have Seleucid allies who are stated in the list notes as deserting. But according to the rules allied commands with regular generals can't desert. Should this deserve some sort of exception? (Note that the Neo-Babylonians at different times can have Arab allies who count as of the same nation and as of a different nation.)
-
1. Should the climate of the Indo-Greek army be Dry? If they were based in India, why not Tropical?
We-ell, bits of India are quite dry, and Arab Indian list, also set in the Indus valley, is likewise Dry, as is the "Desert Rajput" version of Hindu Indian. But I know too little of the extent of the Indo-Greek kingdom(s) and the (paleo-)climate of the Indus valley region to have any very firm opinion.
I do note that yet another Indus valley list, the Melukhkhan or Pre-Vedic Indian one, is Tropical.
2. Parthians can have Seleucid allies who are stated in the list notes as deserting. But according to the rules allied commands with regular generals can't desert. Should this deserve some sort of exception? (Note that the Neo-Babylonians at different times can have Arab allies who count as of the same nation and as of a different nation.)
I could certainly see a case for an exception here, but don't much like to advocate additional list-specific exceptions.
-
This was apparently never replied to:
List 42 - Tamil Indian and Sinhalese: What is the date range of the Sinhalese? Can they be fielded prior to 300AD to use the Wb (F)?
Yes. The 2.x DBA list had an explicit pre-300 AD Sinhalese variant with Wb, so it's even intended! The total date range is 175 BC to AD 1515 (note that the Tamils are only covered until 1370, at which point they all praise their new Telugu overlords (Vijayanagar version of 3/10 Hindu Indian)).
Do the Pallavas or Cholas count as Sinhalese? (I suspect probably not but the list doesn't specifically say.)
No.
Can the Sinhalese take Chavers?
By RAW, yes, though I disclaim all knowledge as to intent or historical justification.
-
Late Achaemenid Persians: The notes say that Bessos's army of 329BC can't have Cretans, Indians or scythed chariots. Seeing as Cretans are only available before 332BC, and Indians are only available in 331BC, why are they singled out for exclusion?
-
Fossil.
-
The Alexandrian Macedonian army allows you to regrade (some of) your Reg Pk (O) as Reg Ax (O).
Should this be allowed for the Pk (O) generals as well?
-
Probably not. Forced-marching mountain columns were usually led by Alex himself with some Companions.
-
Quick question
Planning on playing Polybians against Seleucids tomorrow and figured 190BC the best date historically
I note at Magnesia the Romans were allied with Pergamon
In the list in bk 2 however you cant get a Pergamene ally until after 171BC
Is this an errata? Certainly seems like it as it looks to me should read after 191BC!
-
Quick question
Planning on playing Polybians against Seleucids tomorrow and figured 190BC the best date historically
I note at Magnesia the Romans were allied with Pergamon
In the list in bk 2 however you cant get a Pergamene ally until after 171BC
Is this an errata? Certainly seems like it as it looks to me should read after 191BC!
Yes, it may well be a mistake.
I checked the first edition list books and in that book the Pergamene allies were available from 198BC. In fact everything currently available from 171BC was previously available from 198BC except the Macedonian volunteers.
It's not something I'd noticed before, and I don't know why it changed.