Brilliant/Inert Ally Generals

[Valentinian Victor]

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?

[Barritus]

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.

[Valentinian Victor]

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)!

[landmeister]

Yeah! Ypu're right. No I will look for armies with brilliant allies 

Has anyone tested them? Does it worth the price paid?

[Valentinian Victor]

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!

[william]

  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.

[MikeCampbell]

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.

[LawrenceG]

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.

[Barritus]

Yeah! You're right. Now I will look for armies with brilliant allies 

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.

[landmeister]

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! 

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. 

[william]

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

 

[MikeCampbell]

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!

[Valentinian Victor]

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)

[Barritus]

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).

[Valentinian Victor]

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!