Regular Subordinate Generals

[andrew]

Hi

Page 14 : "A general of the CNC's own nation is usually a subordinate general, but may be specified as an ally general if of doubtful loyalty or politically semi-detached or sharing command."

My questions:
1)  Does this mean I can elect to (in certain circumstances) declare the Regular sub-Generals as Ally sub-Generals? {ok, I'm asking the obvious}
2)  In practical terms do we know what circumstances?
3)  Would the Lysimachos, Seleukos & Kassandros alliance in 301BC per list 2.17 be one such circumstance?
4)  Does this mean I then pay an extra 10 points per Regular Ally General instead of 20 points?
5)  But the Regular CNC would still cost an additional 20 points? {again I suspect this is yes}

The reason I ask is because I'm not overly enamoured with the high/medium/low (or averaging) PIP allocation.  As the game changes you need PIPs elsewhere and the random element of the irregular dice has a certain appeal in that often the big command can get by with 1 or 2 PIPs and the PIP dump command actually needs PIPs on occasion.  For instance, the pike block is often always the PIP dump (well it was in 3.1) but by the time they get into battle you need more PIPs which (according to the law of averages) they simply don't get.  You often need 1 or 2 PIPs just to dress the lines before you can even think about trying to wrap a flank or pull off some fancy manoeuvre.  And often you end up with non-impetutous troops standing around with their pikes up their whatsits.....very frustrating, hence the question!

Cheers
Andrew

[bunwin63]

You can only have what the army lists specify

[andrew]

Hi

The rules don't say 'as specified in the army lists' so what is the point of this sentence in the rules then?  I've learnt not to read anything into the rules but it clearly states "but may be specified as an ally general".  Lysimachos and Seleukos were politically semi-detached so I can't see a problem with this.  But if you know this for a fact based on what you have seen in the other lists, how are we to play the game without a set of book 2 lists?

Andrew

[landmeister]

Hi

The rules don't say 'as specified in the army lists' so what is the point of this sentence in the rules then?  I've learnt not to read anything into the rules but it clearly states "but may be specified as an ally general".  Lysimachos and Seleukos were politically semi-detached so I can't see a problem with this.  But if you know this for a fact based on what you have seen in the other lists, how are we to play the game without a set of book 2 lists?

Andrew

This is because this sentence will appear in the army lists books themselves!  . You must remember what happened to DBM (not DBMM) list books. A lot of applicable rules appeared there and not in the rules set itself. 

[Tim Child]

Hi

how are we to play the game without a set of book 2 lists?

Andrew

The theory is that you use the DBM Book 2 lists and convert them for DBMM, using the Appendices in the back of the rules.

Assuming, from the question, that you don't already have the DBM lists this would appear to be a dastardly plan to get you to buy a copy of the DBM Book 2 lists, and then a copy of the DBMM Book 2 lists as well once these are published (sometime around about June 08, based on current speed dealing with Book 3).  A ploy almost worthy of Games Workshop!

Tim Child
P.S.  For reasons which I need not go into here, I did buy 2 DBM Book 2s.  Sadly, I can't offer to sell either of them to you though, as I'm intending to convert one to DBMM as an interim measure!

[andrew]

Assuming, from the question, that you don't already have the DBM lists this would appear to be a dastardly plan to get you to buy a copy of the DBM Book 2 lists, and then a copy of the DBMM Book 2 lists as well once these are published (sometime around about June 08, based on current speed dealing with Book 3).  A ploy almost worthy of Games Workshop!

A dastardly plan indeed.  I have the DBM book 2 lists (I was referring to the DBMM versions) but it seems odd to me to put out a set of new rules without the new lists.  I appreciate that it is a big task but why not wait and release it all at once?  Was there rush to get the new rules out?  3.1 was pretty stable and playable but is no longer the game du jour.  It just seems half-cocked to me (yes tongue in cheek, and slightly ironic given I have gone off half-cocked with this question).

Yes we have the appendices to alter things (e.g. PsS > PsI, Alexandrian KnF > KnF wedge etc.) but I thought I came up with, in the absence of specific list rules, a good example of politically semi-detached generals and as such I could use regular ally sub-generals......I suppose I will have to wait for the amended Book 2 lists to see if I am proved right or wrong!    Not fussed either way - per my original post I'm not enamoured with the dice allocation aspect (especially for the Pk) so I may have to look at a hairy irregular army of some description......or incorporating plenty of Wb/KnF into a successor army.

Cheers
Andrew