Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: internal ally wording  (Read 164 times)

DracoStandard

  • T/O
  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
internal ally wording
« on: November 08, 2019, 08:03:00 AM »
...is odd and confusing

3. They must take UGs sufficient to get them to at least 50% of the minimums in the list if there is sufficient allowance for a UG after the core
army itself has taken the minimum.

Is this supposed to mean that the core army has to take the minimum, and then the ally has to take 50% of the minimum as well, because that is really not obvious?

I read that as the ally has to take 50% of the minimum, unless the core army has taken the minimum and there is not enough left to make TUgs up to the minimum.

eg minimum is 12, maximum is 16
if the core army takes 12, the ally does not have to take 6 (and probably cant take any in this case)

or min is 12 and max is 18
the core takes 12 and the ally takes 6...but the wording does not seem to preclude the ally taking 12 and the core taking 6

I fear this maybe due in part to wishfull thinking, but it really is not clear that the core army has to take the minima on top of the minima for any internal ally

lionheartrjc

  • TWZ Team
  • Centurion
  • *
  • Posts: 457
    • View Profile
Re: internal ally wording
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2019, 08:31:02 AM »
I don't think it is odd and I think it may be you who are confused.

1.  The core army has to take the minimum. 
2.  If there is sufficient remaining, then the ally has to take 50% of the minimum.

I am not sure why this is really not obvious.

You are correct, if the minimum is 12, maximum is 16 and the UG size is 6,8 then the ally would not need to take any.

If the minimum is 12, maximum is 18, then the core army has to take the minimum (12) and the ally has to take a 6.  (I don't get why you think the core can only take 50%, the wording about 50% clearly refers to the ally.

This is actually a rare situation in the lists.  Most lists have maximums that clearly exceed the minimums.  Later Moorish is one exception and I am sure there are others.

Richard

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Magister
  • *
  • Posts: 1433
    • View Profile
Re: internal ally wording
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2019, 08:46:13 AM »
Guess who has had ana army list rejected today ...  :o
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

DracoStandard

  • T/O
  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
Re: internal ally wording
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2019, 09:12:05 AM »
indeed I did and spent ages staring at those rules and thought I had followed them to the letter. 

I have a feeling that the specific point only makes sense if you already know what it is supposed to mean.  Reading it cold, the point about the main army must take the minimum counted separately from the ally is hidden in a subclause.  This is confusing

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Magister
  • *
  • Posts: 1433
    • View Profile
Re: internal ally wording
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2019, 09:14:58 AM »
The majority of the list issues for Warfare have been ally related ...
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

DracoStandard

  • T/O
  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
Re: internal ally wording
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2019, 12:24:32 PM »
The problem is that the rues for minma and maxima are slightly contradictory

the minima are (effectively) per contingent (100% for main, 50% for ally) but the maxima are for the whole army.

You would assume that either they are both per contingent or both for the whole army.

As there is this slight contradiction, and its not explicitly spelt out.  problems occur.

Simon Meg-Meister

  • TWZ Team
  • Magister
  • *
  • Posts: 1132
  • TWZ founder, MeG author and lifelong wargamer
    • View Profile
    • The Wargames Zone
Re: internal ally wording
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2019, 02:44:34 PM »
However to be fair to PC this is actually clearer still from RJC

Quote
1.  The core army has to take the minimum. 
2.  If there is sufficient remaining, then the ally has to take 50% of the minimum.

S
Rolling Skulls in the land or Purple

DracoStandard

  • T/O
  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
Re: internal ally wording
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2019, 03:57:59 PM »
But more importantly dodgy bits in lists have meant that I am now out of ideas for warfare... and have wasted all my warm ups developing illegal lists.   Damnabit

mad lemmey

  • MeG Moderator
  • Tribunus
  • *
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: internal ally wording
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2019, 10:31:42 PM »
Looks like Pete S is about to drop out too because of this issue too.

*edit, he has*
« Last Edit: November 09, 2019, 12:18:43 AM by mad lemmey »
List bounced...

lionheartrjc

  • TWZ Team
  • Centurion
  • *
  • Posts: 457
    • View Profile
Re: internal ally wording
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2019, 08:00:37 AM »
I intend in the introduction to the list sets to include

"Example: An army has 4-12 cavalry (UG size 4,6) and 18-32 spearmen (UG size 6,8,9) as compulsory troops with 2 internal allies.  The core army must take 4 cavalry and at least 18 spearmen. The first ally must take 4 cavalry and at least 9 spearmen.  The second ally must take 4 cavalry but cannot take the 9 spearmen as this would exceed the 32 spearmen limit for the army. "

Richard

Simon Meg-Meister

  • TWZ Team
  • Magister
  • *
  • Posts: 1132
  • TWZ founder, MeG author and lifelong wargamer
    • View Profile
    • The Wargames Zone
Re: internal ally wording
« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2019, 08:13:23 AM »
That will help. Suggest perhaps a change:

From

3. They must take UGs sufficient to get them to at least 50% of the minimums in the list if there is sufficient allowance for a UG after the core
army itself has taken the minimum.

to

Quote
3. A main army take takes minimum troops from the list before internal allies are considered at all.  So if 8-16 then the main army must first take 8 as a minimum and may take no more until after internal allies are built.
4. Thereafter internal allies must take an UG of at least 50% of the minimum (so this case half of 8 = 4) if there is sufficient allowance left by the maximum to form an UG.  Thus if BGs are 4-6 in the above, the first internal ally must take at least 4 bases and up to 6, if 6-8 at least 6 bases and up to 8. 
5 Where multiple internal allies exist, a previous ally must take the minimum if that allows a further ally to take an UG of such troop types.  So again in the above example, if you had 2 internal allies and it was 4-6 as UG size then BOTH must take an UG of 4 bases, if UG size is 6-8 then the first one takes a 6 and there is no need for the second internal ally to take an UG at all as there are not enough bases left to do so.

Si

RJC please of course check I have it technically correct.  Helps to have the example paralleling the step but step I think.
 

S
« Last Edit: November 09, 2019, 08:27:19 AM by Simon Meg-Meister »
Rolling Skulls in the land or Purple

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Magister
  • *
  • Posts: 1433
    • View Profile
Re: internal ally wording
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2019, 08:34:04 AM »
I intend in the introduction to the list sets to include

"Example: An army has 4-12 cavalry (UG size 4,6) and 18-32 spearmen (UG size 6,8,9) as compulsory troops with 2 internal allies.  The core army must take 4 cavalry and at least 18 spearmen. The first ally must take 4 cavalry and at least 9 spearmen.  The second ally must take 4 cavalry but cannot take the 9 spearmen as this would exceed the 32 spearmen limit for the army. "

Richard

By coincidence (or maybe not) a very pertinent example given the circumstances  8)
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

peter c

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: internal ally wording
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2019, 01:43:12 PM »
Hi All,
 I have had the need for guidance on this question in the past and have found constructing an army using internal allies just to complicated for my skill levels. So my answer is not to use armies that would need an internal ally or two.
However I find using and constructing an army with an External Ally very simple.
Therefore I have always thought that the requirements for an internal ally should be the same as an external ally, with the proviso that the totals for each troop type selected in your army  cannot exceed the maximum for that troop type in the army list.

Simon Meg-Meister

  • TWZ Team
  • Magister
  • *
  • Posts: 1132
  • TWZ founder, MeG author and lifelong wargamer
    • View Profile
    • The Wargames Zone
Re: internal ally wording
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2019, 01:51:59 PM »
Its a very different historical concept though.

Internal allies are about the nations troops being spread out across potentially unreliable commander.  It therefore doesn't increase the numbers of troops available.

External allies are about truly independent contingents.

I think the words above are actually quite easy and clear now Peter.  I can do it.  So give it a try.

S
Rolling Skulls in the land or Purple

daveparish

  • Auxilia
  • *
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: internal ally wording
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2019, 04:35:51 PM »

Internal allies are about the nations troops being spread out across potentially unreliable commander.  It therefore doesn't increase the numbers of troops available.

But it does increase the number of troops - or at least the minimum for troops with a minimum, because this rule:-

1.  The core army has to take the minimum.
2.  If there is sufficient remaining, then the ally has to take 50% of the minimum

  means that the minimum increases by 50% (or 100% if two internal allies). I think that internal allies probably shouldn't increase either the number of troops available or their minima

Dave