Baggage for the Befuddled

[MikeCampbell]

The ME's for army baggzage are always shared - regardless of what command it is organised under.  The rules on page 9 (definitions of Bg) and Pg 42 (Morale Equivalents) are pretty clear as I read them.

it's DBR where all the Bg ME's go to a single command!

I have never encountered anyone who thought that army baggage HAD to be in a train command - I can't see anything in the rules that would support such an idea.

There are a couple of advantages to having it in a seperate command and there really isn't much in the way of argument for not doing so:

1/ if it is mobile it gets its own PIPs - not many, but occasinally it might save them, and it can also be kept offtable as a delaryed command to further improve survivability!

2/ in a sperate command its ME's get counted once for each contributing command, PLUS once for itself (see under ME's on pg42) - so the army is slightly bigger as a result - cf if it is a "fighting" command it's ME's get counted once for each contributing command but that's all.

Consider 6 army Bg = 3 ME's, and an army of 3 x 15ME commands.

If you make the Bg a seperate command then the army is (15+3)*3 + 3 = 57 ME's.

If you put the Bg with one of the commands then you get just (15+3)*3 = 54 ME's

[vexillia]

So the rules for [army] baggage are the same as for other troops, except:

1/ it must be "held in common"
2/ it must deploy in 1 of the contributing commands, and
3/ it CAN be in a train command

Other than those it is treated just like any other element when deciding what command to put it in.

Not quite right Mike as you've mixed your "musts" and "cans":

1/ it must be "held in common"
2/ it can deploy in 1 of the contributing commands, or
3/ it can be in a train command and deploy independently of other commands (page 22, para 1).

So the interesting aspect of this is that if you have if you have less than 4 army baggage elements there are two options:

[1] Combine it with enough Art or WWg to make a train command of 4-10 elements.
or
[2] Assign it to a contributing command with enough elements (excluding generals) to take the total to 4 or more. 

In both instances the MEs are shared across the contributing commands but the command element minima are treated differently.  No wonder I was Befuddled. 

[william]

Consider 6 army Bg = 3 ME's, and an army of 3 x 15ME commands.

If you make the Bg a seperate command then the army is (15+3)*3 + 3 = 57 ME's.

If you put the Bg with one of the commands then you get just (15+3)*3 = 54 ME's

  Which means ( just in this example ) that 6 elements of baggage in a three command army baggage pool can be worth 12 or 9 ME, which is not in Martin's grids and therefore a ramification that Martin had not considered.

William

[william]

  No wonder I was Befuddled. 

Martin, my dear man, befuddled already, this is only just starting, there is a few more ME situations to consider, Bg(S), why one would want army baggage in a commanded command etc.

  William

[vexillia]

Which means ( just in this example ) that 6 elements of baggage in a three command army baggage pool can be worth 12 or 9 ME, which is not in Martin's grids and therefore a ramification that Martin had not considered.

Quite right. Will look at this later.

[vexillia]

Which means ( just in this example ) that 6 elements of baggage in a three command army baggage pool can be worth 12 or 9 ME, which is not in Martin's grids and therefore a ramification that Martin had not considered.

New tables now at http://tinyurl.com/dmvtl5

[MikeCampbell]

Not quite right Mike as you've mixed your "musts" and "cans":

1/ it must be "held in common"
2/ it can deploy in 1 of the contributing commands, or
3/ it can be in a train command and deploy independently of other commands (page 22, para 1).

Nope - it MUST deploy in 1 of them - and yes that is confusing!

This means it must deploy in the rectangle of 1 of them, because only generals have the rectangles, and it is only general's elements that must not deploy in the rectangle of another general - a train command without a general is exempt from this and so the "must deploy in 1 of them" means your train command cannot be deployed over an inter-command boundary.

I have no idea why this is important enough to be a rule - it seems completely trivial and pointless.

[vexillia]

Nope - it MUST deploy in 1 of them - and yes that is confusing!

I disagree because:

because only generals  have the rectangles

N0 (aren't capitals annoying?).  Page 22, paragraph 1 is clear: "each command with a general must deploy inside a rectangle ..."

it is only general's elements that must not deploy in the rectangle of another general

No such rule; page 22, paragraph 1 refers to commands with general's  never general's elements. 

Plus, on page 22, example 2 of the recent full DBMM commentary there's an example of just the opposite - http://tinyurl.com/deekaq.

because only generals  have the rectangles a train command without a general is exempt from this

Yes.  Exempt meaning no deployment restrictions.

and so the "must deploy in 1 of them" means your train command cannot be deployed over an inter-command boundary.

Ah! I see how you've drawn your conclusion but it is only correct if you believe army baggage to be the same as a train command so that Page 9 applies. 

I tend to think they're different as does the Commentary team: On page 22 example 2 of the full DBMM commentary there's an example of a train command deployed outside the rectangles of two commands - http://tinyurl.com/deekaq.

I have no idea why this is important enough to be a rule - it seems completely trivial and pointless.

   Good discussion though.

[Richa_Eire]

I tend to think they're different as does the Commentary team: On page 22 example 2 of the full DBMM commentary there's an example of a train command deployed outside the rectangles of two commands - http://tinyurl.com/deekaq.

Is this because a train command does not have to be baggage. For example an artillery or WarWagon command. The rules as above would then allow the artillery command to be deployed along the front of an infantry line made up of more than one command - very Rennaissance!!

Richard

[MikeCampbell]

Nope - it MUST deploy in 1 of them - and yes that is confusing!

I disagree because:

because only generals  have the rectangles

N0 (aren't capitals annoying?).  Page 22, paragraph 1 is clear: "each command with a general must deploy inside a rectangle ..."

it is only general's elements that must not deploy in the rectangle of another general

No such rule; page 22, paragraph 1 refers to commands with general's  never general's elements. 

Or you might read it that the elements in a command with a general are the general's elements...which is what I meant when I wrote it.

So on that context YES (no caps's are not irritating when used appropriately)

because only generals  have the rectangles a train command without a general is exempt from this

Yes.  Exempt meaning no deployment restrictions.

and so the "must deploy in 1 of them" means your train command cannot be deployed over an inter-command boundary.

Ah! I see how you've drawn your conclusion but it is only correct if you believe army baggage to be the same as a train command so that Page 9 applies. 

Army baggage is army baggage whether it is in a train command or not - the page 9 restriction makes no distinction and neither do I.

I tend to think they're different as does the Commentary team: On page 22 example 2 of the full DBMM commentary there's an example of a train command deployed outside the rectangles of two commands - http://tinyurl.com/deekaq.

so it does - well in that case I might have to have a little discussion with them 'cos I think they're wrong.

[Tim Child]

so it does - well in that case I might have to have a little discussion with them 'cos I think they're wrong.

As always, Mike, we're open to discussion.  This particular item has been in the Commentary since edition 1 IIRC and has never been questioned.  The first paragraph of page 22 is very clear - why did Phil add the "with a general" comment otherwise?  I'd have to scan my copies of the development versions, but I seem to recall (I might be mistaken) that these three words were added precisely to allow the baggage camp to cross the command boundaries.

Page 9 doesn't actually refer to deployment rectangles, if that makes any difference to the sense of the sentence "Each non-allied command without command baggage shares the effects of Army Baggage and it deploys in 1 of them".  To me, this actually reads as a non-updated fossil from earlier drafts when it was expected that Army Baggage would be part of a generalled command.


Changing tack, IMHO there are very few circumstances in which I would want to put army baggage in a command with a general.  If that command breaks, the knock-on effects to the rest of the army would be dramatic, given that the baggage would then all count as lost!  Each other command would lose the ME effect of the baggage as well as the temporary +2 for the broken command.  Game over in 99 out of 100 cases, I'd think!

Tim Child

[MikeCampbell]

Rob Brennan has set me right -

1. p9 says that army Bg must be in a non-allied command without command bg
2. a train command with no general is such a command, hence it can contain
the Bg
3. train commands with no general deploy as per p22 ie "in" the command but
NOT restricted by deployment rectangles which only apply to commands
with generals

As to why Phil does something.....much as I love his rules there are times when that question is simply unanswerable, and trying to tease out rules by asking it is not always useful!

however I sit corrected and am preparing a "blue sky" simplified baggage proposal for the Yahoogroup over lunchtime!

[william]

Changing tack, IMHO there are very few circumstances in which I would want to put army baggage in a command with a general.  If that command breaks, the knock-on effects to the rest of the army would be dramatic, given that the baggage would then all count as lost!  Each other command would lose the ME effect of the baggage as well as the temporary +2 for the broken command.  Game over in 99 out of 100 cases, I'd think!

Tim Child

Oh there are quite a few, playing against that tricky fellow Richard A. mostly makes you try and come up with off the wall solutions.

If you wish to have more chance of weather or wind changes then taking an extra train command does not make sense. Even though you must roll at least 4 dice ( until the dummy rolls a 6 ), there is still more chance of weather change than rolling with the extra dice.

Placing the Army baggage in a Sub command increases the element numbers ( some times dramatically ), this can put it on an advantage when flank marching ( but it is a double edged weapon as it could be just as easy lost ). For example in say a Galatian army having a command of 1 General and 34 warband(O) is 35 elements, add to that 6 elements of baggage that gives the total element count for the flank march at 41, which is quite a good size flank march ( and it may even be an option for sub Brit's ( only those with sub generals )).

If the Army baggage contains the Carroccio then it would be easier ( less pips ) to move it in a generalled command rather than a train command, this way it might be able to follow all those poor Italian ( or Anglo Norman ) Sp(I) who could some times use it's support.

Trying to hide the Baggage can be a little hard in a 4 generals Army, Concealed command C in C, delay another command and 2 flank marches will leave a Train command all alone on table ( and that is scary enough to look at ), if the Army baggage was in a command even that would not have to be iniatially deployed, giving more options for putting no troops on table.

There may be many more reasons to consider Army baggage within a command but of course none of them would out weigh an extra dice for a regular Train command, sometimes (as with Burgundian Ord. ) it is ( at the moment ) possible to have a regular Train command but only if it does not include Baggage, placing Army baggage in a generalled command for this army nearly gives the same ME benefit but across all generalled commands plus having an extra regular dice.

Some to be going on with.

  William

[william]

Rob Brennan has set me right -

Shock, horror

I am not sure which is a more frightening occourance, being corrected by Rob ( which has very often happened { always go weak in the knees ) ) or Mike C. getting something slightly wrong.

  William

Ps the only thing more frightening than these 2 is me getting something right.

[william]

New tables now at http://tinyurl.com/dmvtl5

Hi Martin

As I know you love to keep changing your good work ( yes I am a pain ), you might want to consider an extra Bge element in your grids for armies ( ok I realise there are not many of them ) that can take extra Bge elements.

These of course would be mostly Bge(S), but taking a Bge(S) in a 3 command feudal Spanish army could give another maximum 2 ME ( Train command or command Baggage ) where as taking the Carroccio as an extra baggage element in a 4 regular command Communal Italian army can be worth an extra 2.5 ME. As well as all the other permutations there in.

The other slight thing that may be worth consideration and TBF I am not sure about this myself ( in how to word it or consider it within your grids ( and it may be covered already ) ), there may be times that a sub general does not contribute baggage to army baggage, whether this is allowed or considered again I am not sure.

EG a 3 sub ( 1 C in C and 2 Subs ), has an Army baggage of 4 elements, this adds 2 ME to each command usually ( for a total of 6 or 8 ME depending on train command or not ), can one chose that one of the commands is not contributing to the pool, thereby reducing his own commands ME and obviously the armies total ME ? I can only think of one reason why ( but there may be many ) a player would wish to do this, to keep a disposable ( or sacraficial ) command to below 12 ME thereby adding only 1 ME to adjacent commands at the end of the bound.

Any way more to be going on with,

Tell me when to shut up.

  William