(Previously known as "Guidelines for DBM List Checkers")
Last Updated: 10-March-03
[Introduction] [General
Rulings] [Book I] [Book II]
[Book III] [Book IV]
[Go Back to the Tournaments Page]
[General Rulings] [Book I] [Book II] [Book III] [Book IV]
This page contains a list of commonly agreed interpretations of gray areas in the DBM Army Lists Books I-IV. The purpose of this page is not to dictate policy to any list checker who is of course the ultimate authority for any competitions they preside over. However, as consistency and predictability are good properties of any list checking process, it is hoped that this page will be of some use to both players interested in potential problem areas with a specific list and also for list checkers when deciding which interpretation to adopt. The BHGS have recently started to publish a smaller set of "Army List Interpretations" for use in their competitions and those documents may also be of interest to players and umpires.
The information contained here usually represents the consensus of the DBM mailing list as extracted from the common discussions on army list legality/illegality. Wherever multiple interpretations are prevelant, I have tried to indicate the main proponents of each interpretation. In all cases of multiple interpretations, my currently preferred intrepretation (which is only relevant for players in competitions for which I check lists) is the first interpretation listed. This is a work in progress and I am always interested to hear from players or list checkers who have been the victims or perpetrators of contentious rulings on army lists.
The rest of this page is organised into sections on unclear or contentious areas of the DBM Army List Books. First, there is a section on problems common to many lists, then there are four sections dealing with specific army lists on a per book basis. All of the information presented here relates to DBM version 3.0 and Army List Books I-IV version 2 (plus Errata for books II-IV dated 20 May 2000) which are copyright Phil Barker and Richard Bodley-Scott.
When attributing different interpretations of the Army Lists I make use of the following abbreviations:
[WRG] Phil Barker and/or Richard Bodley-Scott
[Com] Common or concensus opinion
[BHGS] British Historical Games Society
[KD] Kevin Donovan (U.S.A.)
[LUS] Luke Ueda-Sarson (New Zealand/Japan)
[AUS] Australian
[AP] Antipodean (Common to both Australia and New Zealand)
[RB] Rob Brennan i.e. me!
[NG] Nik Gaukroger (UK)
Please note that I am entirely fallible in my attribution of views and that people sometimes change their own interpretations over time so please do not use the information here as anything other than a guide. If you would like to provide corrections to any of my attributions, please mail me.
[Introduction] [Book I] [Book II] [Book III] [Book IV]
1. Multiple Upgrades
2. Naval Replace Elements
3. X per Y Elements
4. Allies which "need not include otherwise compulsory
foot"
5. Taking allies outside the dates allowed for the allied
list
6. The use of "or" to allow a mix of Troop Types
7. Upgrading TF to Gates
8. Army List Dates
9. Meaning of "Replace" in Army
Lists
10. How Do Size-Restricted (eg. 0-18) Allies Work?
11. Upgrading Elements in Internal Allied Contingents
12. *'ed minima in allied contingents
13. Dismounting Options
TBD
TBD
Some lists have one troop type specified in terms of a ratio to another troop type. For example:
Legions Reg Bd(O) 6-12
Lanciarii Reg Bd(F) 1 per 3 Reg Bd(O)
Opinions differ on whether this implies a strict ratio which enforces a restriction on both the allowed numbers of Reg Bd(F) and the allowed numbers of Reg Bd(O).
8-Aug-01 [WRG] This is a strict ratio ie in the example above Reg Bd (O)
may only be taken in multiples of 3 and for each 3 Reg Bd(O) you must take
1 Reg Bd(F). Thus it is illegal to take for example 7 Reg Bd(O).
8-Aug-01 [AP] This imposes no restriction on the numbers of Reg Bd(O) but
for each 3 Reg Bd(O) you take you must take 1 Reg Bd(F). Thus it is legal
to take 7 Reg Bd(O) and 2 Reg Bd(F).
In some lists it states that allies “need not include compulsory foot”. There are several interpretations of what this means in the case where there is more than one type of compulstory foot:
25-July-01 [KD] If you chose to take compulsory troops you must take all
types listed. Thus if you take any foot, you must take at least the minima
of all types of compulsory foot.
25-July-01 [BHGS] The options are to take no foot, or if selected the relevant
minima and maxima must be adhered to. Where there is more than one compulsory
type of foot, the selection of one type does not make the others compulsory."
TBD
In many lists there is a line in the list like:
Foot archers - Irr Ps(O) @ 2AP or Irr Bw(I) @ 3AP 0-12
Many players ask if this means that you can mix the two types or you must choose one or the other.
8-Aug-01 [KD] You may mix them. If it says 'All x or all y' then you can't mix them.
Many lists have TF for fortifying their camp listed but none have gates specified. Is it possible to take gates in these TF?
31-Aug-01 [WRG] Yes. Any TF may be upgraded to a gate by paying the appropriate cost.
If the army list states:
3-Jan-02 [KD] Not.
3-Jan-02 [KD] Not. However for this one and the previous one, you should probably realize that sometimes the usage is not precise about the transition date. Sometimes it is clear from the way the list is structured that the transition date is included. My basic advice would be to avoid 'cheesy' interpretations revolving around picking exactly such a date.
3-Jan-02 [KD] Probably are included.
Many army lists have "upgrades" and "downgrades" listed for troop types, this is easily understandable. However what does it mean when a list has an entry to "replace" one troop type with another?
20-March-02 [LUS] That depends on the precise wording and the numbers. If
the wording is "Replace ALL" then you can no longer take the replaced troops.
Normally this is not the case and the exact numbers available and replaced
will tell you. For example 0-12 auxilia replaced with 4-6 cavalry reduces
the maximum auxilia to 8 ie it is a straight element for element
replacement.
20-March-02 [KD] This is really tricky. I would go with element for element
replacement unless this just seems wrong (or is explicitly contradicted).
20-March-02 [LUS] Yes.
Sometimes an external ally is listed in the army lists with a restriction on the maximum number of elements in the allied command. The restriction is usually indicated as a range of numbers after the entry for the ally, for example in the Rus list: Danube Bulgar Allies - List: Early Bulgar(Bk 3) 0-18. The section on allies at the start of the army list books has some instructions on how to deal with them and you should read that first. Always read the list notes of the army list for the allied command as there may be important exceptions for allied commands to be found there. There are some issues which may still be unclear, we address them here.
20-March-02 [Comm] First remember that the total size includes the 2 baggage elements that the ally brings, even if they are not part of the allied command. Thus the number of troop elements is actually 2 less than the maximum size of the ally. For example an ally restricted to 0-18 may only have 0-16 troop elements. Now work out the allied "army list" as per the normal rules for allied commands ie 1/4 minima and 1/3 maxima. For the Early Bulgar ally example above, this results in:
Ally Gen Irr Cv(S) 1
Bulgar Nobles Irr Cv(S) 1-10
Bulgar Horse Archers Irr Lh(S) 5-10
Slav Spearmen Irr Sp(I) 4-20
Slav Archers Irr Ps(O) 3-4
Baggage Irr Bg(I) 2
Now adding up the minima, this results in 14 troop elements, thus only 2 additional troop elements can be picked after taking all minima. This gives us a possible allied command of:
1 x Ally as Irr Cv (S)
2 x Bg
1 x Noble as Irrr Cv (S)
5 x Horse archers as Irr LH (S)
4 x Spearmen as Irr Sp (I)
3 x Archers as Irr Ps (O)
0-2 x Nobles, Horse Archers, archers or spearmen or any combination
thereof.
20-March-02 [Comm] This depends on the exact list wording. If the upgrade is mandatory eg 2-5 or 1/2-All then he must command an appropriate number/proportion. If the upgrade is optional eg 0-5 or "up to half" then it is you option as to wheather he commands any of the upgraded troops.
8-Jan-03 [KD] I think that foreign ally contingents should generally be allowed to include *ed minima troops that are made compulsory if any such troops are taken.
10-March-03 [KD] Generally not.
[Introduction] [General Rulings] [Book II] [Book III] [Book IV]
1. Early Sumerian
8. Makkan, Dilmun, Saba, Ma'in and
Qataban
21. Kassite and Later Babylonian
22. New Kingdom Egyptian
24. Hittite Empire
25. Middle Assyrian
26. Later Mycenaean and Trojan War
28. Sea Peoples
30. Dark Age and Geometric Greek
31. Neo-Hittite and Later Aramaean
32. Western Chou and Spring and Autumn Chinese
43. Kimmerian, Skythian or Early Hu
44. Neo-Babylonian
45. Neo-Assyrian Empire
51. Neo-Assyrian Later Sargonid
52. Early Hoplite Greek
54. Early Macedonian
31-Aug-01 [KD] Yes. But to do this you must choose 1 city for the army
and another for the internal ally.
31-Aug-01 [Nigel Tallis (list author)] Yes. The historical situation was
very complicated and difficult to specify within the constraints of a DBM
list without very extensive notes.
31-Aug-01 [Nik Gaukroger] No. The army must be from one city-state.
31-Aug-01 [KD] Yes.
31-Aug-01 [Nigel Tallis (list author)] Yes.
31-Aug-01 [Nik Gaukroger] No.
25-July-01 [KD] No.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes.
10-March-03 [Comm] Yes.
25-July-01 [BHGS] Yes.
1-Aug-02 [RB] Yes.
1-Aug-02 [KD] Literally permitted but pretty cheesy IMO.
18-Oct-01 [Comm] No, mounted infantry and Bg are two types of foot that can only be put on Shp (I).
1-Aug-02 [Nigel Tallis (the list author)] She counts as the king .
8-Jan-03 [BHGS] Yes. The list notes talk of him as a "commander" rather than a general.
26-Aug-01 [Comm] Yes, they may place a WW without having to place a BUA.
26-Aug-01 [WRG] It can be assumed that an item you are not allowed cannot
be compulsory [clear as mud!].
31-Aug-01 [LUS] They can only support Ax(O) or Sp(I), see the list notes.
31-Aug-01 [Jeff Zorn] The Ps can support "foot warriors" when they are upgraded
they are no longer foot warriors but either swordsmen or proto-hoplites,
so don't get the support anymore.
25-July-01 [KD] You get 4-9 chariots. As you get 4-9 per CiC or AG this is
a ratio.
8-Jan-03 [BHGS] As above.
10-March-03 [KD] No. The list notes explicity state that the Western Chou are only covered until 770BC. This is also the historical case as their capital fell to barbarians in the 8th century.
12-July-01 [Com] No. This is an example of Multiple Upgrades that are discussed in the general section above.
12-July-01 [Com] Yes. This is an example of "Taking allies outside the dates allowed for the allied list" that are discussed in the general section above.
31-Aug-01 [Com] Yes.
31-Aug-01 [KD] No.
31-Aug-01 [Com] Yes. Massagatae must always take the asterisked foot (irrespective of allies).
10-March-03 [Com] Yes, but it's probably ahistorical.
1-Aug-02 [LUS] Yes.
8-Jan-03 [Duncan Head/LUS] A mix of DBE X/O and SBE O was certainly envisaged. SBE X was not I think envisaged at the time, though it looks legal to me.
31-Aug-01 [Jeff Zorn] It means that you can take these Ax and Ps in any proprtion/ratio you want.
20-March-02 [Comm] They can only support their own list grouping.
20-March-02 [KD] 1 of each. On page 1 you are allowed to exceed 1/3 the maxima and buy one element if 1/3 the maxima is less than than 1.
20-March-02 [RB] No. They are optional.
20-March-02 [KD] I think so but this is a bit ambiguous.
1-Aug-02 [LUS] 2 reed boats OR 3 galleys, depending upon whether you have boats of galleys in the army.
25-July-01 [Martin Hall] This becomes more clear if you think in terms of the individual troops. Eg for Kallapani, the list says 2-4 of which 1/2 AxS, 1/2 PsO - in terms of individual troops this is 1-2 AxS + 1-2 PsO (but you must take same number of each). Written this way it is clear that an ally must include 1 AxS + 1 PsO.
31-Aug-01 [RB] No. It is not allowed by the current list wording.
31-Aug-01 [Nigel Tallis (list author)] Yes. This is a typo.
31-Aug-01 [LUS] No(?). Normally it is clear that troops of the same origin have an identical term in each line. The assumption here is a I think is that Dikut mati have a different origin from 'the battle array', but since the Dikut Mati line is coupled with battle array troops by an AND I am not sure it is possible to say they are 'just' Dikut Mati...
20-March-02 [KD] 1 of each. On page 1 you are allowed to exceed 1/3 the maxima and buy one element if 1/3 the maxima is less than than 1.
1-Aug-02 [Comm] No. This applies to all other cases of support, eg for Sp, in this list also.
31-Aug-01 [LUS] The whole army.
31-Aug-01 [LUS] 5.
31-Aug-01 [LUS] The whole army.
31-Aug-01 [RB] Yes. Although probably unhistoric there is nothing in the
list which prevents it.
31-Aug-01 [Duncan Head] There is certainly no historical justification for
the above combination.
31-Aug-01 [LUS] There should probably be a caveat saying Asiatics can be
allied to mainlanders (except maybe Athenians), but not vice versa.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] Yes. The list notes state "Every Greek (non Thracian) nationality included in the army... ...must contribute a junior general who commands all it troops.". Note that as an ally he must also control 1/4 all the minima of mandatory troops.
8-Jan-03 [KD] I think it is badly worded but means you may only take those types mentioned plus Highland peasants and/or Lynkestian hoplites.
[Introduction] [General Rulings] [Book I] [Book III] [Book IV]
2. Mountain Indian
3. Classical Indian
4. Warring States and Ch'in Chinese
5. Later Hoplite Greek
10. Camillian Roman
12. Alexandrian Macedonian
15. Alexandrian Imperial
16. Asiatic Early Successor
21. Ch'iang and Ti
22. Arabo-Aramaean
23. Later Pre-Islamic Arab
25. Bosporan
28. Early Armenian and Gordyene
31. Hellenistic Greek
33. Polybian Roman
39. Ancient Spanish
40. Numidian or Early Moorish
41. Han Chinese
42. Tamil Indian and Sinhalese
43. Maccabean Jewish
47. Early German
49. Marian Roman
51. Late Judaean
52. Dacian and Carpi
53. Ancient British
55. Nobades and Blemmye or Beja
56. Early Imperial Roman
57. Later Moorish
58. Alan
62. Abyssinian and Horn of Africa
64. Middle Imperial Roman
69. Sassanid Persian
71. Gepid
72. Early Frankish, Alamanni, Quadi, Seuvi, Rugian or
Turcilingi
74. Palmyran
78. Late Imperial Roman
79. Chinese Northern and Southern Dynasties
80. Hunnic
81. Sub-Roman British
83. Patrician Roman
20-March-02 [KD] Pick a maximum of 24 elements from the following:
1 Ally general as Irr El (O), Cv (O), LH (O) or Ax (X).
0-1 Irr El (O)
3-5 Irr LH (O)
6-12 Irr Ax (X)
6-12 Irr Ps (O), Bw (I) or Bw (O)
2 Irr Bg (I)
12-July-01 [Com] Yes, using fractional elements of javelinmen to make a single
DBE is not allowed.
12-July-01 [AP] No, because the text describing the ratios of archers and
javelinmen is descriptive rather than prescriptive.
26-Aug-01 [WRG] Yes. This is because the "Poor quality foot and followers"
are specified as "1 per 2 Hereditary & mercenary Bw and Bd". This is
an example of X per Y Elements in the general rulings
section.
26-Aug-01 [AP] No.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] Yes. But note that the interp of question 2 above may limit the allowed mixes to have an even total.
8-Jan-03 [RB] Yes, the allied command must also include the Hd.
8-Jan-03 [KD] The requirement to adhere to the 0-1 per X ratio does not appear
for domestic allies though I'm not sure if it isn't implied - in which case
you would need to have the Hd(O).
1-Aug-02 [Comm] No. This is specifically disallowed by the list notes.
29-Sept-02 [KD] You can pick any mix you wish.
29-Sept-02 [KD] If you use bow-armed figures then they can support from the 2nd or 3rd. Crossbows would only be able to support from the 2nd rank.
10-March-03 [LUS] No. There would have to be a seperate cost for the generals for this to be the case.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] Yes.
3-Jan-02 [KD] I think that it is clearly not the intent of the list.
1-Aug-02 [LUS] Yes, as long as no Siciliot Hoplites are downgraded to Reg Sp(I). For Sicilots the Hoplite downgrade option is effectively All/None.
8-Jan-02 [Nick Wade] Yes.
8-Jan-02 [Nick Wade] No.
8-Jan-03 [LUS] Yes.
8-Jan-03 [LUS] No. Only a Phokian CinC can have a Spartan ally.
20-March-02 [Comm] You must have as a minimum 28 elements of which 1/4 (7 elements) must be Leves, 1/4 (7 elements) must be Hastati, 1/4 (7 elements) must be Principes and 1/4 (7 elements) must be Triarii.
29-Sept-02 [Nik Gaukroger] No, you must still take 4 in addition to the CnC.
10-March-03 [KD] No, they must dismount as Ax(S) as the list specifies that they dismount as that in other cirumstances.
1-Aug-02 [WRG] This means that 2 out of 3 Hypapists must be replaced with
Persian guard Bow. The 2/3 means that you can only take a combination of
Hypapists and Persian guard that is a multiple of 3 ie 2 Pk(S) and 1 Bw(O)
or 4 Pk(S) and 2 Bw(O).
1-Aug-02 [Aust] This means that 2 out of 3 Hypapists must be replaced with
Persian guard Bow. The 2/3 means that for every 2 Pk you must take one Bw.
Combinations of Pk(S) and Bw that are not multiples of 3 are allowed eg 3
Pk(S) and 1 Bw(O).
10-March-03 [KD, Duncan Head] He can use a Kn(F) CnC as this is still just
taking the minimum of that troop type. No Kn sub-generals can be taken.
10-March-03 [LUS] No, the CnC must be Pk as he must have the minimum mounted.
10-March-03 [KD] No.
25-July-01 [KD] For late period I would suggest probably more Sassanid like
and thus probably armored horse archers. For earlier periods I would think
Arab or Anatolian (Galatian or Cappodician) or even late Hellenistic types
spear and shield cavalry might be suitable.
25-July-01 [Nigel Tallis] First Hellenistic, then R*man in the west (probably
very R*man in some cases - or rather Aramaean that we _think_ of as R*man
(the ubiquitous "eastern archer" for example). More a mix of Hellenistic/Parthian
in the east, then very Parthian/early Sasanian.
8-Aug-01 [KD] No. You may upgrade any SG to Reg Bd (O). ALL other Gens must
be Reg Kn/Cv.
8-Aug-01 [LUS]. I don't think so.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes.
25-July-01 [Guglielmo Marlia] No.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] No.
3-Jan-02 [BHGS] Yes. The list notes specify only that allied contingents
have this restriction removed, this does not apply to internal allied commands.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] No.
3-Jan-02 [KD] Yes.
3-Jan-02 [BHGS] No.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] No.
1-Aug-02 [LUS] Yes.
1-Aug-02 [LUS] Yes.
1-Aug-02 [LUS] You cannot choose to not be Yemeni or Omani as you are Lakhmids and so automatically not one of the others. This means Lakhmids never have WW, H(S) or Rd in their terrain.
29-Sept-02 [KD] No. No APs are given for such a general.
29-Sept-02 [KD]
Nomad general Irr LH(O) - 1
Camel Riders Irr LH (I) - 1 to 3
Nomad horsemen Irr LH (O) or as camel warriors Irr Cm (O) - 1 to 5
Camel warriors as replaced foot warriors Irr Cm(O) - 0 to 10
NB So long as you don't take more than 12 elements (including 2 Bg) you need
not take the foot. The errata makes this clear.
29-Sept-02 [KD] Yes (but not allies.)
29-Sept-02 [KD] No.
10-March-03 [KD] No.
10-March-03 [BHGS/IWF] The BHGS interp for "need not include otherwise compulsory
foot" is that it isn't an all or nothing situation. You can take some type(s)
of foot without triggering the others.
10-March-03 [LUS] No. I think there are only 4 real options, Desert Nomad,
Settled Omani, Settled Yemeni, and other Settled. There is no indication
in the list that such a thing as nomadic Yemeni or Omani exists; rather the
nomads are specifically called Desert nomads.
10-March-03 [KD] Yes.
29-Sept-02 [KD] Yes.
1-Aug-02 [KD] 0-1 Irr Kn(F) and 0-2 Irr Ax(S). Unless there is some explicit exception to this.
26-Aug-01 [RB] Yes. Except for Aitolian allies in a Polybian Roman army.
26-Aug-01 [KD] A strict reading of the rules would seem to imply so but I
think you would be entirely justied on historical grounds to have only those
troops classed as Aitolians, plus the 1 thureophporoi per 2 javelinmen mentioned
in the notes, in the command.
1-Aug-02 [LUS] Yes.
1-Aug-02 [LUS] No, since the allied command would be a special one with 0-4 Irr LH (O) cavalry, and not a normal internal allied command. Except for Aitolian CinCs, only Eleian, Spartan or Boiotians CinCs can have internal Aitolian allied commands, and only one of them at that.
1-Aug-02 [LUS] Yes. It includes all the thureophoroi in the army, and the Achaian thurophoroi count.
1-Aug-02 [LUS] No, unfortunately. Indeed the list says Aitolian may serve in 'other state's armies' as 'mercenaries'.
1-Aug-02 [LUS] Yes.
8-Jan-03 [LUS] Yup: this is one of the 'unless otherwise stated...' clauses. Thus the special Spartan allied command drawn from this list would be as follows:
1 x Reg Sp(s)or Reg Cv(o) Spartan Ally General
1 to 6 Reg Sp(s) {Spartan Citizens}
0 to 12 Reg Sp(o) {Spartan perioikoi hoplites}
3 to 20 Reg Ax(s) Thureophoroi
2 to 4 Reg or Irr Ps(o)Archers or Slingers
1 to 2 Reg Lh(o)Tarantine Mercs
1 x Reg Cv(o) Cavalry
2 x Bg
The Argive command looks as follows:
1 x Reg Cv (O) Ally General
1 to 6 Irr Sp (O) - unreformed hoplites
3 to 20 Reg Ax (s) Thureophoroi
2 to 4 Reg or Irr Ps (O) Archers or Slingers
1 to 2 Reg LH (O) Tarantine Mercs
1 x Reg Cv (O) Cavalry
2 x Bg
31-Aug-01 [Com] No.
31-Aug-01 [Com] No.
31-Aug-01 [LUS] Just troops described as "Italian" ie just "Italian Tarantines" and "Italian allied infantry". Thus the example of the Gauls would be illegal.
1-Aug-02 [KD] Yes. It says 1 per 2 Bd rather than 1 per 2 hastii and principes.
1-Aug-02 [KD] Yes. Since no nationality is given I don't think they count as non-Italian.
1-Aug-02 [KD] No. Looking at the list notes they are in the list of non-Italian nationalities, also Liguria was not included in the classical definition of Italy.
8-Jan-03 [LUS] 4 as Numidians are clearly allies. however note that you could take another 2 Reg Ps(O) as "non-Cretan" Greeks.
8-Jan-03 [LUS] 6. This depends the umpire agrees that Liguria is 'Italian', which it is in the modern sense and in some historical periods. Some umpires may rule that the internal Italian allies also count as "allies" from the list point of view.
8-Jan-03 [KD] I think so as according to the notes the Reg Cv (O) still seem
to be Spanish, only with Roman, weapons, drill and formations.
8-Jan-03 [BHGS] Yes.
8-Jan-03 [KD] No. There is a line one page 1 of the army list books which states that all troop must be from the same region. Thus you can't use AGs to pick troops from other kingdom's, tribes, cities, etc. unless the list explicitly allows for this .
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes. The list note is referring only to internal allies
taken as part of a Numidian army.
25-July-01 [KD] No. The list notes state "An ally general can only command
cavalry, javelinmen and archers or slingers".
8-Jan-03 [John Graham-Leigh] Yes.
10-March-03 [Comm] Yes.
10-March-03 [KD] Yes, but allied generals may only command cavalry, javelinmen
and archers or slingers (see Q1 above.)
8-Jan-03 [Comm] Yes.
1-Aug-02 [KD] No. The ally must have at least 1 El and 1 Bd (F) and 3 Bw (I) or (O). The ally composition rules specifically refer to troop types rather than lines in army lists. Note also that the upgrade line in question uses the phrase "each of", this implies applying the 1/3 to 2/3 upgrade on a troop by troop basis.
8-Jan-03 [Comm] Yes, unless as an ally for the Selecuids as they have to be all regular.
10-March-03 [LUS] The minimum is zero. This is covered in the offical errata/ammendments.
10-March-03 [LUS] It's a Tribal name, so no.
3-Jan-02 [LUS] Yes. The list notes make this explicit with "The option to
use a Roman ally general represents the temporary ALLIANCE of rival leaders
in Civil war, such as Cassius with Brutus".
3-Jan-02 [Dan Hazelwood] No. The list note is an example and the main list
would be more explicit if the ally general was required.
3-Jan-02 [Antonio ?] No. There were two battles in Philippi in 42BC. Each
battle was fought seperately by Crassus and Brutus.
31-Aug-01 [LUS] No. They are not indented, so can only change sides in civil wars.
29-Sept-02 [Comm] Yes. But note that any Bastarnae ally general must command a minimum of 1/4 the minima of any Bastarnae troops.
25-July-01 [KD] No. All/none refers to the whole army including internal allies.
1-Aug-02 [KD, LUS] Yes.
1-Aug-02 [Lorenzo Mele] No.
25-July-01 [KD] Yes. Desert Blemmye and Beja are actually the same group of people - the name just changes with the Arab Conquest of Egypt in 642 AD. The Greeks (including Byzantines) knew them as desert Blemmye and the Arabs as Beja. If it is before 642 AD you must take the desert Blemmye options, after 642 AD you must take the Beja options.
8-Jan-03 [KD] The Blemmyes need to take them too. (They take the Kushite subject spearmen).
31-Aug-01 [LUS] Yes (but not both eastern and western at once).
1-Aug-02 [KD] No.
8-Jan-03 [BHGS] No.
8-Jan-03 [KD] Yes, they are obviously also 'Equites alares'.
8-Jan-03 [KD] Yes. 0-8.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] No. Each listed troop type is indivually optional.
8-Jan-03 [RB] Yes.
8-Jan-03 [KD] No. I don't think you need to put 1/2 the ally's baggage in
the forts.
8-Jan-03 [KD] No. because I don't think notes about an army apply to the ally unless it is explicitly stated.However I would also say that this is not clear.
12-July-01 [LUS] Yes.
8-Jan-03 [Comm] Simultaneous.
1-Aug-02 [KD] Yes.
1-Aug-02 [BHGS] No. Under BHGS clarifications taking one starred minimum
an allied contingent where the starred minima are not compulsory does not
mean you have to take all.
20-March-02 [Comm] Yes.
20-March-02 [LUS] Only in a *different* command, therefore a single allied
Suevi command can't.
20-March-02 [Comm] No. Based on historical reasoning and the end-date for
Quadi of 506AD.
20-March-02 [Nik Gaukroger] Yes. The Alemannic and Quadi options for the
Suevi are not date restricted, and we do know that an ally can be used even
when it's main list does not exist at that period .
10-March-03 [LUS] Yes.
0-March-03 [LUS] Yes, with the proviso that the ps in non-Alamanic commands are not specifically Alamannic Ps but come from the main list provision of Ps.
8-Aug-01 This is an example of X per Y elements in the general rulings.
29-Sept-02 [KD] Yes. Though for Western armies the foot are not available during some dates when the horse are, so if you pick your date well you can take the horse without the foot
1-Aug-02 [LUS] The Kn(X) dismount as Sp(S), the Kn(F) as Bw(O). The comment about the bows refers to the Kn(F).
29-Sept-02 [Comm] Yes. if Attila takes any allies he must take all the *'ed ones (Ostrogoth allies, Frankish/Rugian subjects, Burgundian/Thuringian subjects and Gepid subject allies.
29-Sept-02 [Nik Gaukroger] The ** minima applies "only if any Sciri or Heruls are used other than Sciri allies in 408AD"
10-March-03 [KD] No. Attila is a sub case of Western Huns. If you take Attila then all Western limits also apply.
1-Aug-02 [KD] Yes. Because the upgrade line says "Upgrade C-in-C and
cavalry".
1-Aug-02 [R Crosby] No.
1-Aug-02 [Comm] UK.
1-Aug-02 [Comm] Yes.
1-Aug-02 [??] No. Because the list notes refer to this option being for
Aurthurian romantics.
10-March-03 [Comm] Yes.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] Yes. The errata to the allies section in the list books allows any troops which are bought as a ratio of other compulsory troops to be bought.
20-March-02 [Comm] Yes. Note that this is different to the Later Imperial Roman list.
[Introduction] [General Rulings] [Book I] [Book II] [Book IV]
3. Italian Ostrogothic
4. Early Byzantine
5. Middle Frankish
8. Central Asian City-States
10. Hindu Indian
11. Central Asian Turkish
12. Christian Nubian
15. Tibetan
17. Maurikian Byzantine
19. Welsh
20. Sui and Early T'ang Chinese
22. Maya
23. Khmer and Cham
25. Arab Conquest
26. Early Serbian or Croatian
28. Carolingian Frankish
31. Umayyad Arab
35. Feudal Spanish
37. Abbasid Arab
40. Norse Viking and Leidang
48. Rus
52. East Frankish
54. Early Samurai
57. Buyid or other Dailami Dynasties
64. Nikephorian Byzantine
68. West Sudanese
70. Georgian
74. Fanatic Berber
77. Scots Isles and Highlands
3-Jan-02 [RB] No.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] Unsure.
29-Sept-02 [KD] Yes.
29-Sept-02 [RB] Yes. This does seem cheesy though.
29-Sept-02 [KD] Unsure.
25-July-01 [KD] Yes. The Sabir end in 558. The Hephthalites in India (who should not be available as Byzantine allies) end in 570 AD. The Western Huns seem to end in 558.
25-July-01 [KD] Bw(O), substituting 2 elements of LH for one Bw.
31-Aug-01 [KD] No. Look at the Middle Frankish list, there is an exception in the notes. Their internal allies are different from most others and act more like external allies.
3-Jan-02 [LUS] Generally speaking Yes. Note that some allied contingents do refer to a specific sub-list though.
20-March-02 [KD] Before 561AD all armies are Austrasian and so can take options lettered [A]. However troops from other regions (including Neustrians [N]) can be taken as internal allies (subject to date restrictions on [Aq], [B], and [P] troops) by using the internal ally generals. Note that sub-generals cannot control these troops. Note also the special list note that makes these internal allies more like external allies in terms of their troops counting towards the main army's minima/maxima. Note also that as these troops come from another region (ie army-list) any mandatory troops only available to non-Austrasian regions are not mandatory for an Austrasian army.
1-Aug-02 [KD] Yes. The list note about troops not counting towards minima only applies to foreign allies taken from this list (eg Neustrian ally with Aquitanian CinC). Note that these allies must still command a minimum of 1/4 the minima of all compulksory troops (and can only command a max of 1/3 the maxima).
25-July-01 [WRG] No. The generals must be Irr Kn(F) if the Chakar is Irr
Kn(F).
25-July-01 [AUS] Yes, although its probably not the intent.
2. Is it possible to have upgraded Reg Cv(S) generals and Irr Kn(F) Chakar armoured cavalry?
8-Aug-01 [LUS] Yes, as long as you are Tarim-basin states, Sogdians or other non-Tarim basin states cannot do this.
8-Aug-01 [LUS] Yes.
8-Jan-03 [KD] Only Rajputs can have Rajputs as domestic allies, only the Rashtrakutas may take them as foreign allies.
8-Jan-03 [KD] No. You can only have 1 foreign Rajput allied command.
20-March-02 [Duncan Head (list author)] No. It is the intention of the list
that Uighurs only get Cavalry generals.
20-March-02 [BHGS] Yes. They may be LH(S).
29-Sept-02 [Nik Gaukroger] Yes.
25-July-01 [RB] Yes. This is inferred from the standard WRG response
that out of date allied contingents represent nations/tribes before they
are sufficiently big to field their own armies. In this case the "desert
Blemmye" options of the list should be used. See the Nobades and Blemmye
or Beja list entry here for more info.
25-July-01 [KD] Not sure, probably No.
8-Jan-03 [KD] No. I think that foreign ally contingents should generally
be allowed to include *ed minima troops that are made compulsory if any such
troops are taken.
20-March-02 [Comm] Yes. Because all other troops in the Tibetan list are
optional through having 0 minima or are asterisked types that are optional.
8-Jan-03 [BHGS] No. Because their *'ed minimum only applies if more than 8 LH are taken so it is effectively 0-8 or 12-18 plus general and thus they are not compulsory.
20-March-02 [Comm] Yes. The restriction on multiple allies does not apply
to the Khazar troops as they are not an allied command.
20-March-02 [Michael Anastasiadis] I hope not because the Moorish allies
should only be available to an army fighting in North Africa with no other
allies, and the Khazar troops were only used on the Eastern Front on one
occasion against the Sassanians by Herakleios.
2-Aug-02 [LUS] 0 or 8. This is due to the list note "North Welsh armies and
commands cannot have more than the minimum of archers, and need not have
any". Note that this still allows North Welsh allies to take archers as the
still count as compulsories for DBM purposes.
2-Aug-02 [BHGS] Any number between 0 and 8. This means they cannot be used
in an allied command as they are not compulsory.
2-Aug-02 [KD] I would say it is not clear which is correct "0-8" or "0 or
8".
See answers to question 1 above.
8-Jan-03 [KD] No, the maximum of 8 is for the army as a whole.
8-Jan-03 [LUS] No, they can only take the allied contingent after 1181 and before 1322. As mentioned in the precis to the army lists, you can only use contingents at an historically approporiate date.
8-Jan-03 [RB] Yes.
8-Jan-03 [KD] It is not clear to me that the Sub must be North Welsh. The
list only says one AG must be South and the CiC North.
8-Jan-03 [KD] 7-80, though keep in mind the whole army must have more 8 more Ax than the total of Bw, Ps and Wb.
29-Sept-02 [KD] No. As a historical matter this covers the armies invading northern Korean and you would not expect any of the southern tribal types to be present.
20-March-02 [RB] No.
20-March-02 [KD/LUS] Yes if they habitually fought together, which is very
doubtful.
8-Jan-02 [LUS] No. From the list books 'An army including troops available only in a particular historical period cannot include troops available only during an incompatible historical period'
25-July-01 [KD/LUS] No. They are described as "Nomad or settled" and in the
army lists 'or' never read as 'all x or all y' unless they explicitly use
the word 'all'. [Also based on historical reasoning].
25-July-01 [Nick.Gaukroger] Yes.
25-July-01 [Comm] No. They are not described as nomads.
29-Sept-02 [RB] No.
29-Sept-02 [KD] I sort of suspect they are.
29-Sept-02 [KD] Both.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes.
25-July-01 [KD] No, but I am not at all sure about this [based on historical
reasoning].
31-Aug-01 [KD] Yes, but they must be in an Aquitinian command.
31-Aug-01 [KD] No. The minimum number of Kn still applies. The 0-16 is just the number you may upgrade.
31-Aug-01 [KD] Yes.
1-Aug-02 [KD] No. Only Charlemagne can have sub-generals or Reg Kn(F).
1-Aug-02 [KD] Yes. Only Charlemagne can have sub-generals, both can be Aquitanian if desired.
1-Aug-02 [KD] Yes. Note that this is dubious historically but the list does not disallow it.
8-Jan-03 [Brendan Moyle] Yes.
10-March-03 [Comm] Yes.
10-March-03 [LUS/NG] Yes, but it's cheesy.
10-March-03 [KD] No. The list explicitly says they are "unskilled with the
lance and poor horsemen" and thus (according to the rules page 5) Kn (I).
Thus you can't regrade them as Reg Kn (F) and still claim they are Swabians.
20-March-02 [Comm] Yes.
20-March-02 [Comm] No.
20-March-02 [BHGS] Yes. they must be in the same command as the WWg(I).
3-Jan-02 [Comm] Yes. For example you may upgrade all the spears and none of the archers.
29-Sept-02 [Comm] Yes.
8-Jan-03 [BHGS] No. 6 as 6 have to be replaced with ghulams.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] Yes.
1-Aug-01 [KD] Yes.
29-Sept-02 [RB] No, the errata makes it clear that only Norwegian vikings
can get Breton allies.
29-Sept-02 [Others] Yes, if you argue that Norwegian Vikings settled in Ireland.
20-March-02 [Comm/LUS] 1 x Ally as Irr Cv (S), 2 x Bg, 1 x Noble as Irrr Cv (S), 5 x Horse archers as Irr LH (S), 4 x Spearmen as Irr Sp (I), 3 x Archers as Irr Ps (O), 0-2 x Nobles, Horse Archers, archers or spearmen or any combination thereof.
1-Aug-02 [KD] Yes. I assume this just counts as an upgrade.
1-Aug-02 [KD] No.
10-March-03 [RB] Yes.
10-March-03 [Nik Gaukroger] No, those downgrades apply to the army as a whole.
18-Oct-01 [Comm] No. It can only be: Ally general as Irr Cv (O) or Irr LH (S), 2 Irr Bg, Irr 6 LH (S), 0-1 Irr LH (S) or Irr Ps (O) or Irr Bw (I)?
29-Sept-02 [Comm] Yes.
29-Sept-02 [Comm] Yes.
29-Sept-02 [RB] No. Monks may have been bow-armed in which case they must
dismount as Bw(O).
29-Sept-02 [KD] Wasn't there a monk who dismounted at the Battle of Uji during
the Gempei War to defend a bridge with a naginata?
18-Oct-01 [Comm] No. If the extra ghulams are fielded then no Dailami Ax, Bw or Ps are allowed.
18-Oct-01 [Comm] No. The all the Irr Dailami must be under the command of an irregular CinC or sub-general.
20-March-02 [KD] Yes. I usually consider that such restrictions don't carry across to allied contingents. of course if main list requirements affect allies then you can always use the mandatory upgrade to Reg Cv to convert the allied Dailami to allied Cv. Note that on a historical basis you should probably not be allowed this combination.
8-Jan-03 [KD] Yes.
1. Does the Byzantine Art(O) have to deploy with the baggage?
12-July-01 [BHGS] No.
12-July-01 [KD] Depends on umpire, cheesey to not deploy with baggage.64.
Nikephorian Byzantine
25-July-01 [WRG] Yes. This is an example of "X per Y Elements" that are discussed
in the general section above.
25-July-01 [AP] No.
25-July-01 [WRG] No. The boats replace some of the elements in the 0-14
allowed.
25-July-01 [LUS] Yes. The "plus 0-4 Boats" in the list allows an extra 0-4
elements to be brought as crew for the boats.
25-July-01 [WRG] No. This is an example of "Naval Replace Elements" that
are discussed in the general section above.
25-July-01 [LUS] Yes.
8-Jan-03 [KD] No. I don't think notes about an army apply to the ally unless it is explicitly stated.
8-Aug-01 [KD] Yes. (But I'm not sure if this is historical in all cases)
8-Aug-01 [KD] No.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes. Note the "or" in "Upgrade CinC or Berber generals to Reg Cv(O) All/0", also based oon historical considerations.
25-July-01 [KD] Yes. It's obvious that the Catalans are Christians.
25-July-01 [Comm] No. They are not explicitly listed as "Christian" troops.
10-March-03 [KD] No.
10-March-03 [Comm] No, they can only control troops of their own origin.
[Introduction] [General Rulings] [Book I] [Book II] [Book III]
1. Komnenan Byzantine
5. Sicilian
7. Early Crusader
12. Polynesian or Melanesian
13. Medieval German
16. Scots Common Army
17. Later Crusader
18. Lithuanian or Samogitian
19. Tarascan or Toltec-Chicimec
21. Anglo-Irish
24. Khwarizmian
30. Teutonic Orders
35. Mongol Conquest
39. Navarrese
43. Later Hungarian
54. Medieval Scandinavian
55. Ottoman Turk
57. Low Countries
61. Italian Condotta
66. Later Polish
68. Medieval Spanish or Portuguese
73. Ming Chinese
75. Timurid
76. Early Burgundian
81. Inca
83. Wars of the Roses English
84. Burgundian Ordonnance
10-March-03 [LUS] You shouldn't take this year. This is a typo in the list
it should read "before" and "from" 1150.
10-March-03 [BHGS] None of the troops so marked are available in 1150.
29-Sept-02 [KD] Yes. The list notes say "Minima marked * only apply before the conquest of the kingdom by Charles...". This means that after 1266 the minima drop to 0 but any number up to the maxima may still be taken.
29-Sept-02 [KD] Yes.
29-Sept-02 [RB] Yes.
29-Sept-02 [KD] Maybe.
25-July-01 [RB] No.
25-July-01 [KD] Probably not.
8-Jan-03 [LUS] The warriors used to be Wb in the first edition list, and the line was never omitted when the second edition list came out.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes, as long as you don't try to mix city and clerical
WWg in a clerical or city command. The CinC could command both though.
25-July-01 [KD] I don't think you can put them in the same command. IMO elements
bought on a per command basis remain with that command unless the list explicitly
says otherwise.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes, and only feudal ones may dismount after that date.
25-July-01 [Comm] You must take the full minima as it is an internal ally.
The additional troops may be either the CinC's or Mercenary ally's
commands.
2-Aug-02 [Others] No, the full minima do not apply. Note that this is a minority
view.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes. This is a tricky one - my view is that the minimum
does apply because they can be either Feudal or Mercenary and if you didn't
have any elsewhere you would have to have one to go with the Merc AG. So
even if you do have some elsewhere...
25-July-01 [Firefall] No, it is acceptable to count the ones in the CinC's
command.
25-July-01 [KD] Yes, its perfectly OK to count multiple rear-rank elements
on different general's DBE's towards the total.
25-July-01 [Dave Allen] Yes. Although you might be able to make a case for
six using the odd element as the rear of either of the other general's
DBEs. This is a bit iffy in my view.
31-Aug-01 [KD] No. They must be in an Imperial CiC's command.
31-Aug-01 [KD] Yes. I think bows are permitted if the list doesn't specify.
31-Aug-01 [Karl Heinz Ranitzsch]. Yes. Historically, I think an 1150 German
Heerban (mostly rural) militia is unlikely to have been well-equipped with
high-tech weapons. So they should be bow-armed.
20-March-02 [BHGS] Heerban Ps (O) can assumed to either be bow or crossbow
armed (any dispute during a game and they will be deemed to be armed as per
the majority of the figures)
31-Aug-01 [KD, LUS] Yes. As the Ps(S) are mandatory you must take some Bw
that can be upgraded to Ps(S).
31-Aug-01 [Mike Campbell] No. This regrade only applies to Bw and if you
take the archers as Ps then you don't have to do the regrade.
20-March-02 [KD] The 1/4 minima apply, but there are no maxima as these are internal allies (just like normal internal allies).
20-March-02 [KD] Yes, but you must find a place for the rest of the full minima, either in his command or elsewhere.
20-March-02 [Nik Gaukroger] No. This is because the mounted handgunners are
not referred to as "Feudal or Mercenary mounted handgunners".
20-March-02 [LUS] Yes.
20-March-02 [Duncan Head] The Spanish general can command Spanish, the Italians
should count as "feudal" troops. [Based on historical arguments].
20-March-02 [BHGS] Only the Spanish general.
2-Aug-02 [Comm] Yes.
1-Aug-02 [WRG] No, but he can command them if desired.
10-March-03 [LUS] You must take 2-4 Clerical KnI in addition to the general. Your optionals troops are any of the the city, free canton and mercenary troops that are starred (subject to the proviso that if you take any city toops, you must take all starred 'city' options, etc, and if you take any troops labelled mercenary (other than the above 2-4 KnI) you must take all starred 'mercenary' options; you are also allowed to take the WWgI despite it not being starred.
10-March-03 [LUS] Yes, but it is due to a bug in the list (before/from not matched), so prepare to have it called cheese.
8-Jan-03 [John Graham-Leigh] The C-in-C can command any Lowland troops (including
spearmen, Norman-Scots knights, Ettrick archers, ribaulds, feudal archers,
bombards and war wagons) and Highlanders (not Islesmen).
A Highland general can command only Highlanders.
An Isles general can command only Islesmen and Highlanders.
A Galwegian general can command only Galwegians.
A French general can command French, or Norman-Scots knights.
Highlanders can be commanded by the C-in-C, a Highland general or an Isles
general.
Islesmen can be commanded only by an Isles general.
Galwegians can be commanded only by a Galwegian general
French can be commanded only by a French general.
The amendments make it more restrictive; without them, it could be construed that Highland, Isles and Galwegian generals could command Lowland troops.
10-March-03 [LUS] Yes.
8-Jan-03 [Comm] No.
8-Jan-03 [Comm] Yes.
10-March-03 [Comm] No.
10-March-03 [NG] No, but they can be.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes.
29-Sept-02 [RB] He costs the same as a sub-general.
29-Sept-02 [BHGS] He costs the same as an ally general. (This may change
in the future though).
8-Jan-03 [KD] No.
10-March-03 [KD] Yes.
10-March-03 [Com] He is an indented ally and thus may only command Qangli troops.
3-Jan-02 [Comm] Kn(S).
3-Jan-02 [Comm] They must be Bd(S).
1-Aug-02 [LUS, Nick Wade] Kn(S).
8-Jan-03 [LUS] Yes.
18-Oct-01 [KD] Yes, if you have ANY Gascons in the ally command. If the Ally
General commands only English then it's ok not the have the Gascons in such
a command as it says "and/or" Gascons.
18-Oct-01 [Nick Wade] No.
18-Oct-01 [KD] No.
18-Oct-01 [RB] 1/4 of everything except Irr LH (S) if a Szekeler general
is used and Irr Kn (S) if they are used.
18-Oct-01 [LUS] Strictly speaking, 1/4 of everything except Irr LH (S) if
a Szekeler general is used and Irr Kn (S) if they are used. This is a mistake.
He should only be commanding Bosnians, and I can't see anybody enforcing
the letter when it is obviously a mistake.
18-Oct-01 [RB] Yes.
18-Oct-01 [LUS] No. Although this is not what the list actually says (see
answer to last question).
20-March-02 [LUS] No. Because he cannot command the Nobles which are mandatory in an allied contingent.
29-Sept-02 [Nik Gaukroger] No. The upgrade is "Upgrade C-in-C and nobles"
and not "Upgrade C-in-C and/or nobles".
29-Sept-02 [KD] Not sure.
29-Sept-02 [KD] Yes. Note that he can also be taken as Irr Kn(O) in the earlier period.
1-Aug-02 [Comm] No. You cannot use Swedish options in a Union army (except in a Swedish allied command).
1- Aug-02 [Comm] It must be 1/2 Irr Bd(O), 1/2 Irr Bw(O).
8-Jan-03 [BHGS] Yes.
8-Jan-03 [KD] Yes. However the Serbian allies are not optional in such a
case - they are not permitted.
8-Jan-03 [LUS] Yes.
18-Oct-01 [Comm] Yes. The * says that the minimum applies to Venitians in Italy, so it is 6-8 LH(I) for Venitians, and 0-8 LH(I) for everyone else.
29-Sept-02 [KD] Yes. No pikes of any type may be taken.
8-Jan-03 [KD] +20.
8-Jan-03 [RB] No.
8-Jan-03 [KD] I think it is cheesy at best.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes. For a Portuges army, the Castillan only items are irrelevant. So there is no star marked french element, then no condition, you can have 5+ french elements.
20-March-02 [Comm] No, and you are prohibited from doing so by the general rules.
1-Aug-02 [LUS, KD, Comm] Yes. I think it is simply (but badly) saying a sub general can command troops that normally only on ally could command. Thus the CinC can command troops not specifically marked as Timurid but he cannot command Georgians, Persians etc (who can be commanded by Timurid sub-general).
10-March-03 [KD] Yes. The first line is downgrade Kn (O) to Cv (O) 0-2/3. Then later in the list it requires you to downgrade Kn (O) to Kn (I). By the time you get to the Kn (I) line the Cv (O) are no longer Kn (O) and hence do not figure into these calculations at all.
8-Jan-03 [KD] No.
25-July-01 [LUS, KD] Yes, if any are taken [in the army].
25-July-01 [Aus] No.
25-July-01 [Comm] Yes.
8-Jan-03 [John Graham-Leigh] Well, Perkin Warbeck never fought a battle so I don't think the DBM list relates to him; it ends with Stoke Field in 1487, before he appeared on the scene. The "YP" bits in the DBM list refer to the Yorkist army at Stoke Field. It was commanded by the Earl of Lincoln (Edward IV's nephew) with Lambert Simnel purely a figurehead. Lots of Irish troops and some German mercenaries. The list allows a Kn(S) C-in-C only if a crowned king, which Warbeck and Simnel certainly weren't.
8-Jan-03 [BHGS] No.
8-Jan-03 [LUS] The simple answer is the list is 'unclear'. There were historical
instances of dismounting.
8-Jan-03 [KD] I would be inclined to let the Kn (O) SGs dismount as being
Ordonnance but not the CiC as he is a Kn (S) Gendarme.
[Introduction] [General
Rulings] [Book I] [Book II]
[Book III] [Book IV]
[Go Back to the Tournaments Page]
This page is maintained by Rob Brennan (brennanr@iworg.com).