|
|
Post by sicadi on Feb 13, 2019 12:18:01 GMT
Hi all
was wondering if it is ok to use a CWg as the nominal generals choice in an allied contingent.
Cannot see anywhere that you can’t but something feels not quite right
Thinking Papal Italian with a single Communal Italian contingent of 2x8Bw + their general
Thanks in advance for any help
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 13, 2019 14:04:37 GMT
Well Sicadi (welcome to Fanaticus by the way  ), after re-reading the “Allied Contingents” section on page 31 of the rules, I would say no, you can’t use a Command Post in an allied contingent. “An allied contingent must include the general’s element of its army (which does not function as a general)”. And page 4 paragraph 3 “Blades”, last sentence says:- “ General’s operating from stationary command positions...etc, etc”. Only active general’s can be a CP...and an allied contingent does not have a functioning general. (But I bet that others will disagree...)Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 13, 2019 16:30:51 GMT
Well Sicadi (welcome to Fanaticus by the way ), after re-reading the “Allied Contingents” section on page 31 of the rules, I would say no, you can’t use a Command Post in an allied contingent. “An allied contingent must include the general’s element of its army (which does not function as a general)”. And page 4 paragraph 3 “Blades”, last sentence says:- “ General’s operating from stationary command positions...etc, etc”. Only active general’s can be a CP...and an allied contingent does not have a functioning general. (But I bet that others will disagree...)Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
I disagree. There’s nothing in the rules to stop the CWg from being used. It represents the ‘allied general’, who comes along with his troops, but just does not get general bonuses / +1’s. If an army only had CWg as its general (ie no options) then it would HAVE to bring it, as allies HAVE to include the ally’s ‘general element’. |
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Feb 13, 2019 20:09:20 GMT
Thanks for the responses fellas
Not sure where it says only active generals can be a CP but it may
Suspect it is within the rules but maybe not as intended. Can’t find an army where the general can only be a CP.
Just thought it gave the 8 Bw even more potential if caught in close combat
Thanks again
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Feb 13, 2019 20:11:35 GMT
I disagree. There’s nothing in the rules to stop the CWg from being used. It represents the ‘allied general’, who comes along with his troops, but just does not get general bonuses / +1’s. If an army only had CWg as its general (ie no options) then it would HAVE to bring it, as allies HAVE to include the ally’s ‘general element’. I'm with Martin on this one P. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 13, 2019 21:09:16 GMT
Ha! I knew people would disagree.  Firstly, there is no army in the lists that must have a CP/Lit/CWg...all of them have a normal element alternative. Secondly, do you think it likely that a mighty King-of-Kings or a God-Emperor would show up with a small contingent as an ally in someone else's army? Wouldn’t such conceited egoistical personages merely send a subordinate underling? And here is a list of all the armies with CWg:- III/16 Khazar, III/73 Italian, IV/37c Javanese, IV/3 Anglo-Norman Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Feb 13, 2019 21:35:47 GMT
Stevie, All good points.....but all things considered I agree with Martin on this one. If the rules don’t specifically say you can’t then you can!
Paddy
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 13, 2019 22:10:09 GMT
Absolutely.
It’s not really about ‘do I think’ anything....it’s about the rules for allies, as published. I know what you’re driving at, but the question asked was ‘is it OK to use the CWg,,,’. Simple answer is, yes, it is allowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 14, 2019 17:50:51 GMT
ditto on allowing any type of general element in an ally contingent. It might well be the general in a CP, or Litter, or wagon, but he is just not in command of the army. He brings his retinue and fights as it would, but no +1 or command control.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Feb 14, 2019 19:50:06 GMT
Why you would want to field an Allied contingent of a CWg and 2 x 8BW is another question. Seems like quite a quick way to loose a battle to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Feb 15, 2019 12:56:44 GMT
Hi
in answer paddy
Just thought the cp flanked by 8bw gives the bw a little more in close combat. A solid blade that does not recoil giving +1 to a deep bow already at +3.
Hopefully do some damage with the shooting first. I don’t for 1 minute think it’s a “Death Star”. Not sure this even exist in DBA. I like unusual armies and all I play with at the moment are classical late book1 / early book2, so thinking of looking a little outside of this to expand my collection.
Thanks for asking
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 15, 2019 17:39:52 GMT
Problem is, a Command Wagon CWg is a type of warwagon sub-class, and is not a Blade element, and is not the same as a Command Post CP which IS a blade variant.
Edit....
oh no, it's not !
pantomime season is here....
ignore the original comment. Pleeez
|
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Feb 15, 2019 18:15:11 GMT
Hi Martin
In the description of blades on page4 CP, Lit, and CWg are treated as solid blades who cannot move into contact with the enemy.
Not sure where you’re getting the war wagon sub-class from.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 15, 2019 18:46:04 GMT
You are correct Sicadi. Page 4, paragraph 3, “Blades”, last sentence, clearly states that CP/Lit/CWg are treated as if Solid Blades... ...but they do not suffer the same combat outcomes as Blades. Indeed, CWg are not even penalised like WWg, and can deploy and move in bad going. Apart from not being able to move into any kind of contact (not even corner-to-corner) with the enemy, the only similarity between CWg and WWg is they just both happen to have the word ‘Wagon’ in their name! Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 15, 2019 20:45:20 GMT
Hi Martin In the description of blades on page4 CP, Lit, and CWg are treated as solid blades who cannot move into contact with the enemy. Not sure where you’re getting the war wagon sub-class from. I apologise profusely. 😳. I got that from a serious misremembering of the classification. I had convinced myself that CWg was a variant on WWg.... Sorry to mislead! Mea Culpa, etc. yes, an 8Cb with solid blade support would be pretty tough against foot, indeed. (Beware being rushed by mounted, though). |
|
), after re-reading the “Allied Contingents” section on page 31 of the rules,
