Author Topic: Some Book 2 errata  (Read 23795 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #30 on: October 13, 2011, 03:29:17 PM »
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.

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #31 on: October 16, 2011, 01:29:31 PM »
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!)

LAP1964

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2011, 02:24:30 PM »
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

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #33 on: October 18, 2011, 10:34:06 AM »
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.

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #34 on: November 01, 2011, 12:13:15 PM »
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?

Orcoteuthis

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #35 on: November 04, 2011, 07:19:30 AM »

- 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.

LAP1964

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2011, 12:01:37 PM »
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
« Last Edit: November 13, 2011, 01:58:01 PM by LAP1964 »

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #37 on: November 13, 2011, 01:14:54 PM »
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.)

Valentinian Victor

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #38 on: November 14, 2011, 12:26:09 PM »
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!

Valentinian Victor

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #39 on: November 14, 2011, 12:28:10 PM »
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!

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #40 on: November 15, 2011, 02:58:09 AM »
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? :-)

Quote
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.)

Quote
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.

Orcoteuthis

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #41 on: November 18, 2011, 09:32:39 AM »
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.


Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #42 on: December 06, 2011, 01:02:12 PM »
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...

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #43 on: February 10, 2012, 12:05:20 PM »
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?

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #44 on: February 10, 2012, 12:40:00 PM »
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!