Oops in The New Army List Book

[Pelopidas42]

I've been wondering the same about the MI Romans. Here I was thinking I had all the bases covered, and now I've had to draft some warbands in from an embryo Frankish/Goth army to plug the hole. I know you don't have to follow the lists, but for a club game it's always best for justice to be SEEN to be done
In the privacy of of my own home I'll continue to DWTH I want.

[elsyr]

Seems like it has to be a cut-and-paste boo-boo (meant to refer to legionary infantry rather than warbands) to me.

Doug

[Pelopidas42]

Seems logical. Perhaps we need and "OI RICK!" for some clarification

[Pelopidas42]

Actually I'm beginning to think that line shouldn't be in at all!

[Big Al]

I have the army lists but tend to just flick through them. I don't really use them, but after comments here I took a closer look at the Mid Imperial Roman list. There are a couple of things. First off, in the text above the list, Rick mentions that units of Raw Recruits were used and should be. He goes on to say that he hasn't made these compulsory as that would be an imposition. Yet, when you look at the army composition, it states that 1 in 3 units in a division must be Freshly Raised. What is the difference? Freshly Raised is a Useful Rule which is something you would give to a unit of Raw Recruits. There is no rule for Raw Recruits, so surely this makes them compulsory?

Then, as pointed out already, there is only one Warband option in the list, namely the Numeri. Depending on how you look at it, this could be listed as a Numeri army with Roman support. 75% of the army must be none skirmishing infantry of which 50% are Numeri warbands. In other words, at least 37% of the army must be Numeri Warbands. I would have seen it less of an issue if that had been Auxiliary units and the warbands as an option, especially as the notes above the list make no reference to warbands whatsoever or the reasons for making them so prominent.

As I said, I only use the lists as an initial reference point, not to play with, so I am not that worried, but it would be nice to know the reasons.

[Pelopidas42]

Al,
I hadn't spotted the freshly raised issue in the MIR list, but, strangely enough, had spotted it in the immediately preceding Palmyran list. I suspect another cut and paste booboo. We really need some clarification on this. I too do not feel that I have to abide by the list (but see previous posts); I do have some concerns though as it looks like there be a total c&C& up here!

I should point out that Palmyrans and MI Romans are my major armies from this book!

[Big Al]

To be honest, if the notes say that Raw Recruits aren't compulsory but the lists say otherwise, I would go with the author notes. However, I know that some will not accept that and so clarification or FAQ is probably best.

[trevor allen]

I don't know if this one has already been noted, but on pg 9, in the composition notes for the MI Romans, it says that at least half of the non-skirmisher infantry units must be warbands. That seems an awful lot of Numerii.

Doug

Especially when you consider this is the principal opposition to the Palmyran, where the only warbandish troops are covered in another entry anyway (the Palestinian Clubmen). Hopefully this is another up to half to cover some of the other campaigns! If not I'd love to see the source.

[Pelopidas42]

Obviously quite a few of us waiting for an answer on this one.

[Pelopidas42]

I've come to the conclusion that the freshly raised is definitely a cut and paste error in the Middle Roman list. There is no reduction in points costs line in the body of the lists like there is for the Palmyrans for such troops.