Author Topic: Some Book 2 errata  (Read 23798 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Valentinian Victor

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #60 on: December 10, 2012, 02:27:21 PM »
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).

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #61 on: December 15, 2012, 12:43:10 PM »
List 37 - Parthian: The list notes refer to the Seleucid allies as being the army of Antigonos Sidetes. His name is actually Antiochus Sidetes.

Orcoteuthis

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #62 on: December 22, 2012, 07:37:27 PM »
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #63 on: January 23, 2013, 12:50:37 PM »
List 23 - Later Pre-Islamic Arab:

Can nomad LPIA armies include non-nomad elements?

Can non-nomad LPIA armies include nomad elements?

tadamson

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #64 on: January 23, 2013, 05:47:53 PM »
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..

Orcoteuthis

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #65 on: February 19, 2013, 07:22:56 AM »
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.

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #66 on: August 05, 2013, 01:28:06 PM »
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.)

Orcoteuthis

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #67 on: August 07, 2013, 06:07:38 PM »
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.
Quote
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.

Orcoteuthis

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #68 on: November 27, 2013, 09:36:53 PM »
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)).
Quote
Do the Pallavas or Cholas count as Sinhalese? (I suspect probably not but the list doesn't specifically say.)
No.
Quote
Can the Sinhalese take Chavers?
By RAW, yes, though I disclaim all knowledge as to intent or historical justification.

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #69 on: December 30, 2013, 10:45:11 AM »
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?

Duncan Head

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #70 on: December 30, 2013, 10:09:55 PM »
Fossil.

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #71 on: May 07, 2015, 01:04:07 PM »
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?

Duncan Head

  • Guest
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #72 on: May 07, 2015, 07:18:17 PM »
Probably not. Forced-marching mountain columns were usually led by Alex himself with some Companions.

Toady

  • Hd(I)
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #73 on: September 01, 2021, 03:46:25 AM »
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!

Barritus

  • Kn(S)
  • *****
  • Posts: 654
    • View Profile
Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Reply #74 on: September 01, 2021, 10:25:54 AM »
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.