Baggage- how many?

[william]

As I start writing this piece on the word processor (this helps with my poor spelling) at home I am wondering will I ever post it.

This is a continuation of a discussion on the Yahoo group, I am not trying to prove my point on a different forum (indeed both this forum and the Yahoo group share many subscribers as has been shown from previous experiences) but I feel this forum is usually the best for debating the rules, the Yahoo group better to discuss the lists and any proposed rules changes. It also does not bother Mr Barker as he continues the labour of said army lists.

It could be a long, verbose post and feel free to ignore if you want (will not hurt my feelings) and of course I may be being pig headed, indeed some have pointed out clearly and most politely where I am wrong in my thinking.

Here goes.

On page 9 in the DBMM rulebook, under the definition of baggage it states, ?Each general has 0-2 elements?: in this case elements refer to numbers of baggage elements. This clearly means each army can contain up to 2 elements of baggage per general. This theme is continued in the army lists in most cases with the type of line

Baggage camels or pack mules ? Irr Bge(F)        0-2 per general

As in the Khurasanian list, Pg 43, book 3.

Sometimes the army list books reduce the number of baggage elements available, it is stated on Pg 1 of all army lists (so far) that if an allied command is less than 10 troop elements can only have 1 baggage element, further the Nan-Chao and Ta-Li list, Pg 36 book 3, the army can have no baggage elements unless the army takes an ally (for this list there is historical reasons why the main army did not have baggage. So there are some generals who cannot have or contribute 0-2 baggage elements to the army OOB.

Therefore IMHO the lists are overruling the rulebook in these cases.

So what?s my point, if the lists can indicate a reduction in baggage elements per general for the OOB can they also indicate an increased number of baggage elements an army can have.

My examples are Bge(S) (so far anyway). In some lists a general may be Bge(S), AFAIK this type of general can (if allowed by his army list) contribute 2 more baggage elements; this leaves a possible 3 elements of baggage contribution for this type of general to the OOB. Some other Bge(S) replaces other baggage with in a list, as with the ?Replace Irr Bge(O) with Cathach reliquary and clerical escort ? Irr Bge(S) ? in the Norse Irish list, Pg 45, book 3, in this case the baggage ratio is not altered as it would still be 0-2 per general. The third case is a listing for Bge(S) that is not a replacement or C-in-C, for an example in the same list ?King praying in pavilion or bothy surrounded by bodyguard ? Irr Bge(S) @ 3AP                   1?, my conjecture is that if one takes Brain Boru in 1014 AD, then one must take the ? King praying etc. ? Irr Bge(S) and still be able to take the normal 0-2 Irr Bge(O) or (F) per general.
I suppose a clearer example would be one of my favourites, Communal Italian, Pg 67, book 3.

This army can have 4 regular generals, each of those generals can have

 ?Camp ? Irr Bge(O)            0-2 per general?, it also has the famous city

?Carroccio ? Reg Bge(S)      1?.

As it is not a stated as a replacement for the Camp, I think that it is taken as an addition to the normal allocation of baggage form the generals. In my mind this means that with this list it is possible to have 9 elements of baggage. Further more as the Carroccio is not an element of ?general?s ? baggage it must be held within the ?Army Baggage ? Structure (which if you have been following the discussion on the Yahoo group pulls the rug from under my Papal Italian monstrosity), one may also question whether in this example the Carroccio would provide ME to other commands as it has not contributed by a general.

Now TBF, the rules author may not have intended this (or indeed I may be totally wrong). The easiest way of avoiding any misunderstandings by smart Alecs like myself (hopefully there is only one) would be to take Pg 9 of the rulebook as indicating the maximum possible number of baggage elements in the an army. Secondly it may also be advisable for future drafts of any list book (with only book 4 to go in the present cycle this could be a bit late), that all non general Bge(S) should be stated in the lists as replacements for other baggage (as the Medieval Germans are coming up this may be a good idea) and any future errata ensuring that any such non general Bge(S) are again substitutions for other Baggage elements. Finally competition list checkers or the commentary might want to cover it in any future statements.

Or of course I could just be waffling.

William

Ps (just can not resist the last word) Pg 9 does indicate the number of baggage elements a general can have (or contribute) this is not necessarily the same as the number an army can have.

Well it is very quiet here at the moment, it may give the forum some to discuss (or laugh about)

[MikeCampbell]

0 or 1 elements of baggage fit into the 0-2 allowance - those lists are not over-rding the rules at all ...at least not in that respect!

Also 0-2 "normal Baggage" and 1 Bg(S) still fits within the 2 elements allowed by the rules - yuo do not HAVE to take 2 elemetns of "normal" Bg - if you take the Bg(S) then thatgeneral gets a choice of 0 or 1 "normal" Bg to make up his 2 element maximum.

Again the lists do not over-ride the rules.

[andrew]

Gidday Mike and William

I'm more than happy to accept I may be misinterpreting this, but this is what I posted on the Yahoo group:

I agree page 9 says "Each general has 0-2 elements" of Baggage - but it doesn't state if that includes or excludes the General's element. I think it could be argued either way if the General was an element of BgS (i.e. each general has 0-2 Baggage **including himself**, or each general has 0-2 **logistical** Baggage).  Do we know if there has there previously been a proclamation on this?

I saw your latest post on the Yahoo group Mike (here) but I thought it would be easier to discuss it here.

If we take the sentence "each general has 0-2 baggage" - can you see an alternative interpretation that says the Baggage is in addition to the general?  Such that it doesn't matter what the General is?  An interpretation might be that he is allowed to bring along 2 elements of (for the purposes of this argument 'logistical') baggage?  I guess I'm looking at the preamble on page 9 in the rules which states :

"BAGGAGE, representing the army's logistic support, including all personnel, supplies and equipment that
increase the physical or mental welfare of troops or generals.  lts function is to increase staying power."

I know I'm on shaky ground here but having 1 element of BgS Gen out of 0-2 allowed does not "increase the staying power" per the preamble.  I also question how a BgS general could be considered "logistical support" (per the preamble) that can increase the physical/mental welfare of himself; in particular, how does a General being a BgS increase the 'mental welfare' or the 'staying power' of himself given a Gen is already 2ME?  This is the part I am grappling with.

I understand 100% that a General cannot bring more than 2 elements of Bg, irrespective of the type of Bg, but the part I'm querying is that given a General can bring 2 elements, I can see an interpretation that the Gen shouldn't be included in the 0-2.  Equally I can see an interpretation that he is part of the 0-2.  In the absence of a clarification, or a convincing argument to the contrary, I see this as being open to interpretation.  Why?  The interpretation centres on the inclusion of the word 'General' in the sentence "Each general has 0-2 elements".  If it said each 'command' can have 0-2 elements, then there is no doubt at all, but unfortunately the rule doesn't say that.

Cheers
Andrew

P.S.

Re this :

Again the lists do not over-ride the rules.

From memory there are some things in the lists that do over-ride the rules.  Dismounting comes to mind.  I reckon if I looked harder I could find another instance or two......just like the "DBx has no memory' statement which I think we have proved is not true.

[william]

  Ok I see this topic going in three different directions.

1. Bge(S) generals and the limit of their baggage allocation.

2. Whether the list book's over rule (moving the goal posts here, right round the pitch) or change items from the rule book.

3. The number of baggage elements an army can have.

1. Truth be told this has me a little stumped, instinctively I feel they are allowed 0-2 elements of baggage on top of being baggage themselves, if a Norman general is Kn(F) this does not reduce the maximum number of Milites the command could have to take or ( trying to find a new list example but this is the one that sticks in my mind) if the Ghurids take the regular option then it triggers a minimum Ghulam number. Both examples have nothing to do with baggage so probably do not help. Really the general is baggage so why can he/she not take 2 more - because he/she is limited to 2 elements of baggage - but the general is already baggage - etc. I think this may need an officail decision some time in the distant future.

2.  Here  I am a little surer of myself, I presume when the rules were written some things were forgotten or other situations not taken in to consideration. The rules were composed first, changes to said rules have been incorperated in to the lists. I know of one definite example of this, the inculsion of Oa as a terrain type that is clearly not in the original rules at the moment, TBF and I had not realised this before, rule sets seem to be fluid by nature in this technical age and who is to say Oa will not be in any version 1.1 or 2. Again the terrain change has nothing to do with baggage numbers but may have bearing on this point.

3 my favourite and I am going to do a seperate post on this.

William

[william]

  Ok 3.

The rules state on Pg 9 (just to remind us), 'Each general has 0-2 elements. An ally's must, and other general's can remain with him as Command Baggage. All other baggage is held in common as Army baggage. Each non-allied command without command baggage shares the effects of Army Baggage and deploys in one of them.'

Very clear and uncomplicated.

Nearly every list allows each general to take 0-2 elements of some sort of baggage per general, this is Ok and follows the rules on Pg 9, in most cases there is nothing further to add.

As I have already said in some lists there are baggage elements that have baggage listed in other ways, my usual example is communial Italian.

To try and make it easier on myself (but it may be more complicated for others ) I am going to create a Communial Italian list here. ( It is being created off the cuff so points might not be entirely acurate or ME calculations correct for everything but my ideas on the baggage ).

Command 1
1 Reg Kn(I) C-in-C                                30
3 Contadini Knights Irr Kn(F)                   27
3 Communal Knights Irr Kn(I)                  24
3 Communal Spearmen Reg Sp(I)             12
1 Communal Crossbowmen Reg Ps(O)        2
1 Contadini Infantry Irr Hd(O)                  1

This command has (or should have) 96AP and an ME of 20

Command 2
1 Reg Kn(I) Sub general                       30
2 Contadini Knights Irr Kn(F)                   18
6 Communal Knights Irr Kn(I)                  42

This command has (or should have) 96AP and an ME of 20

Command 3 and 4 are the same
1 Reg Kn(I) C-in-C                                30
18 Communal Spearmen Reg Sp(I)             54
2 Communal Crossbowmen Reg Bw(O)         8
3 Contadini Infantry Irr Hd(O)                  3

These commands have (or should have) 95AP and an ME of 25.5

This so far gives us a total 382AP and 91ME

For the extra points I am going to take the 2 camp elements for each general, this is going to form a train command, the train command can IMO take the the Carroccio ( indeed as it stands it must as it is compulsory), it is not a general taking it but the army itself.


Giving a Train command of

8 Irr Bge(O)                    16
1 Reg Bge(S)                   6

Giving a sub total of the train command of 22AP and 4.5ME, it also adds 4.5ME to each command.

Army total 404AP ( have to work on my maths) and a total ME of113.5.

I see no reason why the baggage part of this army is illegal.

I can see why it can be said that a generals command can not include ( as Mike kindly pointed out to me ) 3 elements of command baggage ( though would still like to argue against it ), I do not see why a train command can not take any unused baggage in the army list ( I am not sure whether this would apply to Army Baggage in a command as this can only (I think) contributions from C-in-C and sub generals.

If this was not intended to be allowed then there are ways of changing this situation ( as per original post or out right clarification ).

I will of course admit to owning a couple of Bge(S) suitable for the Italians, Anglo-Norman, Medieval Germans and ( if I had my way ) Crusaders. I do also own an EAP list which may soon have a Bge(S) option, whether in the new book 1 this will be a replacement for existing baggage or not I am not sure.

William

Ps putting army baggage into a generaled command can give that particular general more than 2 elements of baggage.

[andrew]

Hi William

Interesting.....

1.  I believe this comes down to an interpretation on whether the statements "Each general has 0-2 elements" is interpreted as "Each general has 0-2 elements including itself" or "Each general has 0-2 elements excluding itself."

2.  Another 'rule' in the lists that is not in the rulebook is the ability to place a Marsh, even if it isn't in the defenders list of allowable terrain types.  By the way, where is the 'Oa' terrain type in the lists?

3.  Interesting interpretation - let me see if I'm understanding what you are driving at.  Are you saying that commands with generals are allowed up to 2 elements, whereas a general-less command isn't constrained in such a way?

Andrew

[foxgom]

Hi

just a comment...

it is possible to keep the weak part of a train command at the rear and mix the fighting elements e.g. WWg, Art; Bg(S) with the front elements of a fighting command.

A train command deploys with one of the generals?commands.

neil

[vexillia]

A train command deploys with one of the generals' commands.

Not sure you are right about this.  A train command isn't really linked to any other as far as deployment is concerned see http://dbmm.org.uk/forums/index.php?topic=503.msg3341#msg3341 for a relevant discussion.

[andrew]

it is possible to keep the weak part of a train command at the rear and mix the fighting elements e.g. WWg, Art; Bg(S) with the front elements of a fighting command.

Hi Neil

We toyed with idea in a few games because it seemed like a great idea, but we have since decided it is a really really bad idea!  Let's say you have some Art up front which you eventually lose, what happens next is that if a command breaks, the train command probably has an element within 800 paces of the broken command, so it cops a -1 or most probably a -2 penalty.  Suddenly your army baggage command is broken, your army staying power is reduced and you will be that much closer to breaking......

Cheers
Andrew

[william]

Hi Andrew

1.  I believe this comes down to an interpretation on whether the statements "Each general has 0-2 elements" is interpreted as "Each general has 0-2 elements including itself" or "Each general has 0-2 elements excluding itself."

Yes I believe that it could be interpreted either way.(Though I feel that baggage other than elements allocated in the lists as 0-X per general should not be restricted at all but TBF this is not backed up by the rules Pg 9). As to what is intended we will have to wait and see.

2.  Another 'rule' in the lists that is not in the rulebook is the ability to place a Marsh, even if it isn't in the defenders list of allowable terrain types.  By the way, where is the 'Oa' terrain type in the lists?

Oa is listed on page 2 in the climata, aggression and terrian section, it basic splits 'O' into 2 parts. 'O' becomes Orchards or Olive Groves and 'Oa' Desert oasis. I have been reliably informed ( if one can ever be ) that if an army has just O it can not have Oa and visa versa which IMO is probably more correct. A Greek army able to have a desert oasis? It is still a rule change ( or over ruling?). I did not think of the Marsh or Dune thingie.

3.  Interesting interpretation - let me see if I'm understanding what you are driving at.  Are you saying that commands with generals are allowed up to 2 elements, whereas a general-less command isn't constrained in such a way?

Yes, could not state it any better (TBF you have stated the position in a more clearer way), back to my first post if this was not intended, Pg 9 could state, 'OOBs unless further restrained only have 2 elements of baggage per general (including a general's element if this is baggage)'. Might need a bit more Barkerese but along those lines. From now on (again repeating myself) all non general Bge(S) could also be in relevant lists as upgrades to existing allocations to stall any further confusion. ( I would have to find other ways to place foot in mouth ).

William

[william]

it is possible to keep the weak part of a train command at the rear and mix the fighting elements e.g. WWg, Art; Bg(S) with the front elements of a fighting command.

Hi Neil

We toyed with idea in a few games because it seemed like a great idea, but we have since decided it is a really really bad idea!  Let's say you have some Art up front which you eventually lose, what happens next is that if a command breaks, the train command probably has an element within 800 paces of the broken command, so it cops a -1 or most probably a -2 penalty.  Suddenly your army baggage command is broken, your army staying power is reduced and you will be that much closer to breaking......

Cheers
Andrew

It is also rather PIP intensive to do anything with the usable assets in a train command. Unless the elements are F it will cost at least 3 pips per move, (2 for the first if F). Which if part of a regular command is going to happen rarely.

Irr Bge(S) may sound great as a combat factor booster but to get maximum benefit it could support 4 elements to one side and that is going to be very difficult to pull off in an aggressive way. The best way maybe to support 3 elements to it's front but even that is PIP intensive.

William

Thats probably why this topic is not going to come up much in a game.

[andrew]

Irr Bge(S) may sound great as a combat factor booster but to get maximum benefit it could support 4 elements to one side and that is going to be very difficult to pull off in an aggressive way.The best way maybe to support 3 elements to it's front but even that is PIP intensive.

William

Thats probably why this topic is not going to come up much in a game.

Agreed.  I don't often see BgS but if I have an option of taking BgO and TF and a BgS then I like to arrange the BgS in the middle of the BgO so it fights with a factor of 2(BgO) + 3(TF) + 1(BgS) = 6.

I once played against a BgS in a doubles game that was being used to push forward some foot troops (can't remember what).  The BgS became an instant target and we ended up killing it and all who tried to defend it.......