This was discussed when the 2020 changes were considered but the end result seems pretty poor
Loose arm/hrs knights seem to be getting stiffed by the points. They now have all the disadvantages of close arm/hrs (they are functionally identical, just as slow and bad in terrain) but cost 13 points more a base if average.
Also quite a few protected arm/hrs horse archer types that would appear to be getting a pretty terrible deal. 10 points more, slower, worse in terrain and cant evade.
Anything on an Arm/Hrs should be priced as if close as that is how they perform. May be simpler to have them all graded as close in the lists
Martin
They don't just perform as Close as they reduce shooting effect by a colour - having used and played against non-catafract ArmHrs I think it is very useful because of this and justifies additional points even allowing for other effects. The point on costing as Close is valid to a degree, however, when using Prot/ArmHrs types (and, indeed on occasion ArmHrs knights) I have not felt their overall points cost was obviously wrong.
May be the case but this is not a case of preference or interpretation.
We have functionally identical classifications (close arm/hrs and loose arm/hrs) that cost different points. That is error, plain and simple.
Martin
Fair point.
I feel Loose ArmHrs/Prot points are OK as they stand so I'd be happy to see the Close version points made up to the same. That, of course, would mean an exception for Close ArmHrs/Prot which would not be good, however, I have a feeling that Close ArmHrs/Prot is represented by a single example in the lists (one of the Koreans IIRC, but there may be more I am not recalling) so possibly not worth agonising over and just making them Loose would work (suspect them being Close is an anomaly to be honest).
The Loose FArm/ArmHrs points I am less sure of having not used them much - they didn't feel wrong though as I mentioned but would probably not be bothered if they were all made Close.
I have plenty of Chinese armoured horse archer models but would never willingly 'upgrade' them to Prot/Armhrs in game (unless I knew I was going to be playing a whole lot of foot archer armies, which seems pretty unlikely). The loss of movement and evade is just too much.
We also don't seem to see a lot of cataphracts (who would suffer significantly from your suggestion to up the points of close arm/hrs types)
I feel it would be better to keep the points as they are and reclassify all mounted that are part of a unit with any bases of 'arm/hrs' as close.
Martin
Quote from: martymagnificent on September 27, 2020, 09:30:48 AM
I have plenty of Chinese armoured horse archer models but would never willingly 'upgrade' them to Prot/Armhrs in game (unless I knew I was going to be playing a whole lot of foot archer armies, which seems pretty unlikely). The loss of movement and evade is just too much.
Think you may be at a different place in the MeG development cycle down-under; shooting foot are getting more used here in the UK, especially the eastern types, and so the ArmHrs version of the cavalry are coming into their own and we get a better feel for their points value. IMO the greater use of foot shooters comes as people get more used to the game - as I think in the UK we have more players so more games we move through this process quicker than elsewhere. ArmHrs is also dead useful against mounted shooty types - I use mounted shooty a lot and have, I think, a rather good idea of how ArmHrs affects the dynamic over the course of a game 8)
Quote
We also don't seem to see a lot of cataphracts (who would suffer significantly from your suggestion to up the points of close arm/hrs types)
Catafracts would be unchanged as I said that I felt that the cost of "Loose ArmHrs/Prot" were the right ones, catafracts are, of course, ArmHrs/FArm :D Catafracts are pretty popular here in the UK as well.
I play quite a lot and often use shooting armies. What I see from comp reports suggests you guys aren't so much having a shooting boom as an Achaemenid Persian one, but my impression may be inaccurate.
Either way the current position is a problem and I get the sense that, to the extent people use knights in comp, they strongly favour the ones without arm hrs.
Martin
Quote from: martymagnificent on September 27, 2020, 10:03:54 AM
I play quite a lot and often use shooting armies. What I see from comp reports suggests you guys aren't so much having a shooting boom as an Achaemenid Persian one, but my impression may be inaccurate.
That one just gets extra air time due to a list issue ;D
Quote
Either way the current position is a problem and I get the sense that, to the extent people use knights in comp, they strongly favour the ones without arm hrs.
Well I did say above I'd probably be OK with the ArmHrs/FArm as Close.
I am perfecty happy with some protected/armoured horses units . They have their uses but yes, cannot flee ....it is to be accepted . Perhaps give the choice to the player !
Glad to hear someone's been getting some use out of those Prot/ArmHrs archer units.
I'll admit, most of them looked pretty awful to me (on paper, at least) after they lost the ability to evade— expensive, few to no claims in melee, and forced to walk into charge if they want to shoot anything.
Those of you who use Prot/ArmHrs archers, do you just use them as dedicated counter-units, or do you get any kind of mileage with them against units that aren't squishy archers?
(Literally asking for a friend here. :P )
I use the Tang Army quite often and i always take the Imperial Guard horse archers Armored Horse/protected Flexible Superior and Melee Expert. They are my reserve/Flank attack force.
There are flexibles with armoured horses? Can they evade when acting as a SuG?
The whole arm'hrs/prot thing is just a case of possible poor value and as such always open to interpretation/preference.
I'm more troubled by loose troops with Arm/Hrs costing more than close troops with arm/hrs as they are identical from a rules POV. That probably justifies an errata (either points or lists)
Martin
Quote from: martymagnificent on September 30, 2020, 05:02:13 AM
There are flexibles with armoured horses? Can they evade when acting as a SuG?
I rather think these are something that slipped through the list revision when ArmHrs was introduced. Doesn't sound very plausible IMO
or would lead to some quite extensive reevaluation of which troops could have ArmHrs; I don't think the latter would be the best way to go as the troops who currently have ArmHrs feels about right to me at present.
As to whether they can evade the answer is that if in Skirmish formation they can (and indeed must in most cases) if in TUG formation they cannot as it is TUGs with ArmHrs that are not allowed to do so. Rules are clear on this point.
Possibly where they are not is for movement. We have 2 lines in the movement table that may be contradictory; one says "Close Cv or Cm; anyCv or Cm with ArmHrs" (my emphasis" and the other says "Skirmish Cavalry or Camelry" - if in Skirmish formation the flexible troops will be both any Cv with ArmHrs and Skirmishers :o
In December we will do a survey of what feels under and over priced and see if anything is worth tweaking in the army builder for 2021. Remind me then. Sounds a fair spot Marty.
Si
The fact that arm/prot mounted may not flee/skirmish is not a problem but I have a question as the move 4 MU do they fall back and break off normaly as other CV/CM/CH . I would say yes but sometimes having it written is better
Their lower speed is the only difference for that.
Marty, I have it as one of two points issues to fix in Jan. It's a good spot.
Si
What would you change ?
Not decided yet but will address it.
S
I can see it is a tricky one for a variety of reasons.
Martin