> And telling us what you mean by the word "regiment"
> would help, too. Is that 100 troops? 1000? 10,000?
We really do not expect you poor benighted barbarians to understand such notions as "military organisation", or have read (if indeed they can read) the most recent Lunar Excursus, but we are given to believing that a regiment consists of several of your "gaggles", "herds" or "warbands", i.e. 500, 700, 800, 900 or 1,000 (if full-strength).
(ILH-1, p. 14. If you can stomach to read about such things :) Regimental strengths depend on tradition, and vary a lot. I thought you'd be happy to read that...)
> "Commands a total of X troops"
> That's meaningful.
Quite agreed.
> Saying a title means the same as some other title
> we've never heard of either doesn't help.
You must forgive us, but some of us like all this colour among the Lunars. Same as you like all this made-up barbarian history. It invigorates us as much as this Bryan bloke everyone keeps on wittering on about pleases others, for some reason that escapes me. Why one debased savage hobbling around the walls of his damp hovel is more important than the wonderful glories of the Imperial Army is completely beyond me.
Cheerio,
Stu.
Powered by hypermail