Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

jon,

another question: there is the option to upgrade some generals to an ally,
and in the basic rules it gives a point cost for an ally general. the cost
difference between an ally and a sub-general is 25; however, i have been
unable to find any reason why one would upgrade an ally (or purchase one)
unless required to do so, as they seem to have no additional benefit over a
sub-general, and also have some limitations (i.e. can only give orders to
their own command).

so, my question would be, per the rules, are their any advantages to having
an ally general over a sub-general?

cheers,
dan


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Stone]

--- On January 17 Dan Bass said: ---

>
> so, my question would be, per the rules, are their any advantages to having
> an ally general over a sub-general?
>

I'll let Jon speak to the rules question, but I'll make a couple of comments
from a player's point of view:

(1) Don't equate points cost with game value. That's not what the point system
is designed to reflect, and in many instances it does not reflect game value.
So just because ally generals cost more doesn't mean they are "better" than
subgenerals.

(2) A subgeneral negates a down combat roll by one only on the first bound of
combat. A CinC or an Ally negate a down combat roll by one on every bound of
combat. That can be an advantage if your ally general is part of a unit that
you expect to be in combats that take more than one bound to trend in a
decisive direction.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

<<so, my question would be, per the rules, are their any advantages to having
an ally general over a sub-general?>>

Yes. Primarily, the ability to have in your army troops that the base
nationality does not otherwise provide.

Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]