This is an unofficial list of changes to the army lists in 2021. They will be published when Simon is better.
When published, the lists will include Magna and Pacto lists. They will also show the points values per base.
No Camp
Any entirely mounted army can choose the No Camp option.
Armhrs chariots and cavalry
ArmHrs chariots and cavalry are now defined as Close rather than Loose. This makes such troops cheaper.
Lists affected include: Phoenician; Later Sargonid Assyrian; Assyrian Babylonian; Neo-Babylonian Empire. Southern Dynasties, Northern Dynasties; Western Wei and Northern Zhou. Black Army Hungarian, French Ordonnance; Burgundian Ordonnance; Kingdom of Naples; Italian Condotta; Republic of Venice; Late Medieval German; Late Medieval Polish; Late Swiss; Later Castilian; Later Burgundian; Later French Ordonnance; Swabian League; Tudor English; Maximilian German; German States; Italian States; Italian Wars French; Italian Wars Venetian; Pre-Cordoba Trastámara Spanish; Trastámara Spanish.
Armhrs horse archers
This option has been removed for Xianbei Kingdoms; Tuyuhun; Later Qiang; Di; Later Xiongnu; Goguryeo Korean; Southern Dynasties; Northern Dynasties and Western Wei and Northern Zhou.
Guard cavalry in Song lists are graded as Cavalry, Drilled Close, ArmHrs/Protected, Superior, Short Spear, Experienced Bow, Shoot & Charge, optional Melee Expert.Lists affected include: Later Zhou and Early Northern Song; Later Northern Song;
Mongol guard cavalry are graded as Drilled Close, ArmHrs/Protected, Superior, Short Spear, Skilled Bow, Melee Expert. Lists affected include Mongol Conquest; Golden Horde; Ilkhanate; Chagatai Khanate and Yuan Dynasty.
Mamluk Egyptian. Upgraded Royal Mamluks graded as Drilled Close, Superior, Armhrs/Protected, Skilled Bow, Short Spear, Shoot & Charge, optional Melee Expert.
Timurid. Samarkand guards graded as Drilled Close, Exceptional, Armhrs/Protected, Skilled Bow, Short Spear, Melee Expert, optional Dismountable.
Ottoman Turkish. Qapu Khalqi graded as Drilled Close, Superior, Armhrs/Protected, Experienced Bow, Short Spear, Shoot & Charge, Melee Expert.
Ak Koyunlu. Upgraded Sultans retinue graded as Formed Close, Superior, Armhrs/Protected, Experienced Bow, Short Spear, Shoot & Charge.
Sparabara
Sparabara troops are no longer classified as Short Spear. The front rank are now defined as "Flexible" instead of "Loose". It was felt they were too powerful at impact against foot.
Lists affected include: Later Elamite; Early Scythian or Saka; Neo-Babylonian Empire; Achaemenid Persian – Royal Army; Achaemenid Persian – Satrapal Army.
Early Italian Light Cavalry
Early Italian light cavalry are now classified as Protected. The armies can also select one SuG of Skirmishing cavalry, Average, Protected, Experienced Javelin with the option of Cantabrian characteristic.
Lists affected include: Early Campanian; Bruttian; Lucanian; Apulian; Samnite; Later Campanian.
Scythed chariots and Thunder-Bomb Oxen
Special rule only requiring one rank to claim the Devastating Chargers combat factor.
Lists affected include: Later Achaemenid Persian, Galatian, Early Seleucid, Seleucid, Pontic and Goryeo Korean.
Stampeding Cattle
Classified consistently as Cavalry, Tribal Close, Poor, Protected, Expendables, Devastating Chargers, Combat Shy. Note they do not get the special rule that applies to Scythed chariots.
Late Byzantine Troops
Kavalloroi graded as Drilled Loose, Superior, -/Fully Armoured, Charging Lancer, Melee Expert. Vardariotai garaded as Drilled Flexible, Superior, Protected, Skilled Bow. Cavalry graded as Formed Loose, Average, Protected, Charing Lancer, optional Melee Expert. Kontatatoi graded as Formed Close, Average, Protected, Short Spear, Shieldwall. Archers graded as Formed Loose, Average, Unprotected, Experienced Bow, optional Combat Shy.
Lists affected include: Latin Empire; Nicaean Byzantine; Epirot Byzantine; Empire of Trebizond; Frankish Greece; Late Imperial Byzantine; Despotate of the Morea and Order of St. John.
New and restructured lists
Etruscan 500 to 280 BCE. This list has been separated from the Early Roman and Latin list (500 to 330 BCE).
Gallic Foederate Roman 461 to 486 CE. Replaces the Later Foederate Roman list for post Roman armies in Gaul. The Later Foederate Roman army list is adjusted to 461 to 476 CE to cover armies in Spain and Italy.
Armorican and Early Breton 435 to 913 CE. This new list includes Bacaudae armies and partially replaces the Breton list.
Basque or Early Navarrese 470 to 1035 CE. This list now includes Basque armies prior to the establishment of the Navarrese kingdom.
The Early Medieval French list has been renamed Early Feudal French.
Breton list. The army can have:
0-18 Nobles, Cavalry, Formed Loose, Superior, Protected, Devastating Chargers, optional Melee Expert, Dismountable (as Formed Close, Superior, Protected, Short Spear, Shieldwall).
18-48 Cavalry, Formed Loose, Average, Protected, Unskilled Javelin, Short Spear, optional Combat Shy.
0-48 Levied foot. Infantry, Tribal Loose, Poor, Unprotected, Short Spear, optional Combat Shy.
0-12 Light cavalry. Cavalry, Skirmisher, Average, Unprotected, Experienced Javelin, optional Combat Shy.
0-48 Skirmishers. Infantry, Skirmisher, Average, Unprotected, Experienced Javelin, Combat Shy.
The army can have Early Feudal French or Feudal French allies and may use Feigned flight.
Norman 987 to 1071 CE. Norman armies prior to 987 CE are now included in the Viking list. Breton milites are reclassified as per Breton cavalry in the Breton list.
Khitan-Liao. Fully equipped ordo cavalry can be regraded to Drilled Close, Superior, Armhrs/Protected, Experienced Bow, Mtd Polearm, Shoot & Charge. 16-36 tribal cavalry Formed Loose, Average, Protected, Experienced Bow, Short Spear optional Melee Expert. Before 952 CE 0-18 can be upgraded to Drilled Loose as Ordo cavalry. From 952 CE 18-36 can be upgraded as Ordo cavalry. 1/3 of Ordo cavalry can be upgraded to Skilled Bow. Up to 1/3 Ordo cavalry can be upgraded to fully equipped ordo cavalry as above. 0-18 tribal horse archers, Formed Flexible, Average, Unprotected, Experienced Bow, optional Combat Shy, up to half can be upgraded to Skilled Bow. 0-18 Balhae Infantry, Tribal Flexible, Poor, Protected, Short Spear. Replacing the Chinese contingent are 6-24 Chinese subject swordsmen Formed Flexible, Poor, Protected, Melee Expert. 6-18 Chinese subject crossbowmen, Formed Loose, Poor, Unprotected, Experienced Crossbow, optional Combat Shy.
Hohenstaufen Sicilian. A new list has been created for Hohenstaufen armies in Sicily from 1194 to 1266 CE. The Norman Sicilian list has been adjusted to 1072 to 1212 CE.
List dates
Early Campanian. The end date has been adjusted to 264 BCE to allow for the Mamertines.
Thuringii. The start date has been adjusted to 380 CE.
Turcilingi. The start date has been adjusted to 450 CE. There is no firm evidence for the Turcilingi prior to 450 CE.
Hunnic. The end date has been extended to 469 CE.
Bedouin Dynasties. The end date has been extended to 1500 CE to represent minor tribes.
Daylamite. The end date has been extended to 899 CE. Includes Daylamites prior to the Dailami Dynasties list.
Later Merovingian Frank. The end date has been extended to 735 CE. To include the armies of the Duke of Aquitaine.
Breton. The start date has been adjusted to 935 CE.
Sui China. The end date has been adjusted to 623 CE.
Tang China – Central. Tang China – Southern. Both lists start date adjusted to 623 CE.
Tamil Indian. The end date has been adjusted to 1450 CE to include the kingdom of Kotte.
Rajput Indian. The end date has been adjusted to 1310 CE.
Angevin Sicilian. The start date has been adjusted to 1268 CE.
Kingdom of Tiemcen. The end date has been extended to 1520 CE.
Specific List Changes
Urartian. Cavalry regraded as per forum post.
Hunnic. Option to regrade horse archers from 428 to 454 CE as Protected, Experienced Bow instead of Unprotected, Skilled Bow.
Ptolemaic. Option to include one SuG of Cretan archers. Cretan archers were recorded at Raphia.
Early Franks. Allied contingents from this list cannot include Fanatics.
Early Imperial and Imperial Roman. From 194 to 323 CE up to 1/3rd of legionaries may be reclassified as Lanciarii: Infantry, Skirmisher, Average, Protected, Experienced Javelin, Short Spear with optional Melee Expert and Shoot & Charge.
Foederate Roman. Upgraded equites can be regraded to bucellarii as Cavalry, Superior, Protected, Experienced Bow, Short Spear with optional Shoot & Charge.
Achaemenid Persian – Royal Army. The army is allowed 12-48 Sparabara (Average with Experienced Bow). Up to half can be upgraded as Immortals (Average with Skilled Bow). One TuG of 6 can be further upgraded as Apple Bearers (Superior with Skilled Bow). This better represents armies where the Emperor was present.
Achaemenid Persian – Satrapal Army. The army is allowed 8-16 Sparabara (Protected, Average with Experienced Bow). One TuG, 6 or 8, can be upgraded as Immortals (Average with Skilled Bow). Sparabara can be replaced with crescent shield spearmen and archers from 465 BCE. The army can also have 0-32 Iranian Sparabara (Unprotected, Average with Experienced Bow).
Siciliot Greek and Syracusan. Italian mercenaries are now reclassified as Infantry, Formed Loose, Average, Protected, Unskilled Javelin, Short Spear with optional Shoot & Charge. This is for consistency with other armies.
Later Carthaginian. Veteran Punic cavalry can be regraded as Cavalry, Drilled Loose, Superior, Protected, Unskilled Javelin, Short Spear with optional Shoot & Charge. This represents veteran Spanish cavalry fighting for the Carthaginians.
Early Arab Conquest. 0-12 Cavalry, Formed Loose, Average, Protected, Long Spear optional Dismountable, Combat Shy can be taken from 634 CE. Martyrs have been removed from this list. Warriors must now be taken in TuGs of 6. This better represents the resilience of the early Arab armies.
Ghaznavid and Kara-Khanid Khanate ghilman are reclassified as Cavalry, Drilled Loose, Superior, Protected, Experienced Bow, Short Spear. Half the horse archers in a Ghaznavid army can be upgraded to skilled. This is for consistency with other Arab armies and reflects the better armour/training at this time for these troops.
Viking. Norman armies prior to 987 CE can include one TuG of milites. Irish warriors can be regraded all or none as Tribal Close, Average, Protected, Short Spear. One account of Irish warriors describes the shields as overlapped.
Early Scots. Can now include a Dublin Viking ally alongside Strathclyde allies in 937 CE.
Norse-Irish. Irish warriors can be regraded all or none as Tribal Close, Average, Protected, Short Spear. One account of Irish warriors describes the shields as overlapped.
Eastern Later Roman. Changed so only a single TUG of equites, equites equipped as horse archers, equites illyricani, or equites alani may be upgraded to Superior.
Daylamite. A minimum of 24 warriors must be chosen. The only practical difference is if this army is chosen as an ally.
Early Byzantine. One TuG of Huns can be regraded as Cavalry, Skirmisher, Average, Unprotected, Experienced Bow, Cantabrian, optional Combat Shy. From 551 CE any kavallrioi can be selected as Archers, Infantry, Formed Loose, Average, Protected, Experienced Bow, Combat Shy. 12-24 Foederate or Allied Lombard cavalry can be selected as Infantry, Tribal Close, Average, Protected, Short Spear, Shieldwall, optional Combat Shy.
Maurikian Byzantine. Skutatoi can be regraded all or none as Infantry, Formed Close, Average, Protected, Experienced Darts, Short Spear, optional Shield Cover. This is for consistency with early lists and represents doubts as to when Skutatoi adopted longer spears. The "Khazar" ally must be selected from the Gokturk list.
Syrian Byzantine. Skutatoi may be regraded as per the Maurikian Byzantine list.
Tolosan Visigoth. Spearmen and Roman auxiliaries are now defined as Formed (as opposed to Tribal/Drilled).
Swabian Duchies. Dismounted Nobles are no longer classified as Melee Expert.
Khazar. Arsiyah can only be chosen from 840 CE.
Middle Warring States. This list can no longer choose Heavy cavalry.
Southern Dynasties. Chained wagons (Eastern Jin only) classified as Battle Wagons, Tribal Loose, Average, Protected, Unskilled, Crossbow.
Gokturk. Can now have Sui China allies.
Sui China. Tujue cavalry replaced with tribal cavalry, 0-16 Formed Flexible, Average, Unprotected, Experienced Bow, optional Combat Shy. Up to half can be regraded as Skilled Bow.
Tang China – Northern. Fubing are only compulsory if any infantry are taken so all mounted armies are now permitted.
Goryeo Korean. Battle chariots now regraded as Formed Loose, Poor, Protected, Devastating Chargers, Expendable (consistent with other scythed chariots).
Qara-Khitan. Ordo cavalry regraded as per Khitan-Liao list.
Ilkhanate. Crusader cavalry. Now defined as Armenian cavalry Formed Loose, Average, Protected, Charging Lancer optional Melee Expert, that can be upgraded with Crusaders to Formed Loose, Average, -/Fully Armoured, Charging Lancers, Devastaing Chargers, optional Melee Expert. Sultanate of Rum allies allowed before 1278 and then Early Turcoman Beyliks allies from 1278 to 1281.
Kamakura Samurai and Muromachi Samurai. Mixed TuGs may now make block moves with other mixed TuGs.
Rajput Indian. Fanatic cavalry UG size limited to 4 elements. From 1299 to 1301 the army can have a Mongol contingent, 0-8 Formed Flexible, Average, Unprotected, Skilled Bow, Short Spear, optional Melee Expert, Dismountable.
Muslim Indian Sultanates. The Delhi Sultanate can include Neo-Muslims (1294 to 1311) 0-8 Formed Flexible, Average, Unprotected, Skilled Bow, Short Spear, optional Melee Expert, Dismountable.
Ayyubid Egyptian. The date restrictions for Sudanese and Turcomans have been removed.
Norman Sicilian. Before 1100 can add 0-6 Lombard cavalry, Formed Loose, Average, Protected, Short Spear, Devastating Chargers, optional Melee Expert. 0-8 Saracen archers can be Tribal or Formed Loose Average, Unprotected, Experienced Bow, optional Combat Shy.
Taifa Andalusian. The option for El Cid for the Taifa of Valencia has been removed. This is now represented as a Feudal Castilian army.
Chichimec. Increased number of Elite tribesmen to 0-24. Sub generals replaced by ally generals.
Some of these change require rebasing of units, having just finished, literally in the last week, my arcaemid Persians I don't want to rebase as flexible. Are tourney organisers strict on basing or will I be able to use without rebasing.
Is this a regular thing with MEG in changing the armies in such a way?
I wouldn't rebase Achaemenid Persians just to show the front rank of my Sparabara are flexible. Just tell your opponent whether they are currently loose or close (or use a counter)
No competition will care about this basing issue. As long as you are on a 4cm front, no one will mind.
Martin
Quote from: mark hargrave on January 02, 2021, 12:32:03 AM
Is this a regular thing with MEG in changing the armies in such a way?
Rare now and only when an egregious error is identified - making changes that will affect people's collections are avoided if at all possible.
One suggestion I would have (like Martin) is that if you have the odd spare figure base it up on, say, a small round base to use as a marker when the Flexibles are in Close formation - would be unobtrusive; I do it for units with Integral Shooter with my C4th Romans.
Thanks, that's a relief.
"Mongol guard cavalry are graded as Drilled Close, ArmHrs/Protected, Superior, Short Spear, Skilled Bow, Melee Expert."
Sorry this is not clear to me. There is no "Mongol guard Cavalry", there is "Khan's Guard" and "Upgraded Khan's Guard".
Can you be more specific as to the changes please.
It is the guard cavalry with ArmHrs in the Mongol lists mentioned - they're usually the upgraded ones such as the Upgraded Khan's Guard you mention..
Remember this is an unofficial FYI list to give people an idea of the changes coming and not definitive - only the actual lists will be that - so may be a little vague in places.
I should perhaps mention and thank the people who have helped with the list changes this year. In particular Nik Gaukroger who has been an absolutely star in checking Early Medieval, Asian and Medieval lists, Lee Sanders for his suggestions, Peter Cross for checking the Biblical and Classical lists. Any faults remaining with the lists are my responsibility. Thanks to everyone else who has contributed.
A few statistics for those who are interested:
There are 37 lists sets. Within the list sets there are 625 lists with a total of 7791 lines so the average list has about 12 1/2 lines in it. With the index this amounts to just over 4,500 pages and just over 65Mb to download.
The most expensive troop type per base are Burmese Elephants at 366 points. The cheapest are spectating women and families at 11 points per base.
Richard
Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 02, 2021, 01:14:29 PM
The most expensive troop type per base are Burmese Elephants at 366 points.
In an attempt to win the "I'm the saddest" competition I think that it is actually military order Brother knights with the Fanatic optional characteristic chosen 8)
The Burmese nellies win if leaving out optional characteristics.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 02, 2021, 01:34:19 PM
Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 02, 2021, 01:14:29 PM
The most expensive troop type per base are Burmese Elephants at 366 points.
In an attempt to win the "I'm the saddest" competition I think that it is actually military order Brother knights with the Fanatic optional characteristic chosen 8)
The Burmese nellies win if leaving out optional characteristics.
Sad but true!
Timurid : why are the samarkand guard downgraded from skilled to experienced which is not the case in mongol armies ?
Quote from: badhabum on January 02, 2021, 03:04:31 PM
Timurid : why are the samarkand guard downgraded from skilled to experienced which is not the case in mongol armies ?
Just to hear you complaining !! ;) :) :) :)
Quote from: badhabum on January 02, 2021, 03:04:31 PM
Timurid : why are the samarkand guard downgraded from skilled to experienced which is not the case in mongol armies ?
I am checking the consistency on these guard unit classifications.
Richard
Are the stampeding cattle going to have DC as a mandatory characteristic? In the Timurid list one can only run 3 of them and must run them 2-wide, which means half of your frontage pays for DC and can't ever benefit from it. WIll the max go up to 4?
I do not understand the basis for the assumption that all cavalry with armored horses MUST be close order. This is particularly puzzling where the troops were horse archers. Are we stating that Mongol Guards became shock troops but were just really bad at it,so don't count lance or DC, but also no longer shoot well, but are still highly motivated? This seems like an enormous change in battlefield role just to account for a bit of leather /cloth horse armor. If you insist on consistency, just classify the troops as protected and ignore the 'horse armor'.
I recall a quote about excessive consistency and hobgoblins.
I think you are possibly misunderstanding the change to Close for those troops. It is being done as an easy way to get the points correct and makes no difference to how they operated in the 2020 lists. It comes out of this discussion - https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=1493.0
On the cows they can still get benefit from DC when in 1 rank as they still get Shatter - but obviously not the full benefit.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 02, 2021, 06:29:15 PM
Quote from: badhabum on January 02, 2021, 03:04:31 PM
Timurid : why are the samarkand guard downgraded from skilled to experienced which is not the case in mongol armies ?
I am checking the consistency on these guard unit classifications.
Richard
That is why I asked will wait and see : Mongol guard cavalry are graded as Drilled Close, ArmHrs/Protected, Superior, Short Spear,
Skilled Bow, Melee Expert. Lists affected include Mongol Conquest; Golden Horde; Ilkhanate; Chagatai Khanate and Yuan Dynasty.
Nick,
First, thanks for all your good work - it is really appreciated. I also appreciate your patient responses to we 'grognards'. I do share some of Antiochus's concern however.
While I understand that the change to close for all Armoured Horse is intended to get the points correct, I wonder about appearing to equate Mongul (et al) formations with that of cataphracts. It's not quite the same as classifying Sassanid long spear carrying cavalry as short spear in order to replicate the correct battlefield effect for example.
In any case, I will demur to your wisdom.
Steve
The classification of arm/hrs cavalry as close has no game effect at all, except to lower their points.
Martin
Quote from: martymagnificent on January 03, 2021, 02:29:03 AM
The classification of arm/hrs cavalry as close has no game effect at all, except to lower their points.
Martin
Exactly. I am genuinely puzzled as to why something that is making zero effect to how the troops work in the game, but makes the troops cheaper to tackle an identified cost issue, is causing concern.
Only from the perspective that as MeG prides itself on being historical, I believe it is misleading to appear to equate the formation of Parthian cataphracts with that of Mongul Guard cavalry, particularly if you read the MeG definition of loose and close.
I do understand it makes no difference to the game but am asking if there is another way of reducing the points cost that better reflects historical practice - I don't know and like I said, I will abide by the umpire's decision.
Cheers
The definitions are, and can only be, guidelines for classification to get what we think the right table-top behaviour should be. I'd prefer to get the latter right to be historical than get hung up on other things, not doing so would be a greater offence against historicality IMO. For instance we have crusader knights as Loose as that seem to get the right effect, but there is historical information that would suggest that Close would be appropriate; Republican Roman legionarii would be another good example (but the other way round).
I'd also suggest that the definitions are themselves not absolutes - "Close" can cover a range of closeness that can deal with a Parthian formation (whatever the evidence tells us that was) and a Mongol guard formation (whatever the evidence tells us that was) for example.
I'm sure the army builder could be made to adjust the points in a different way, however, as this was was an easy approach it is the one adopted; and what with all the other list work being done and volunteer time finite, plus when suggested when the issue was first raised and there being no objections at the time, I think it is sensible. (it also has some advantages where there are mixed formations some non ArmHrs troops)
However, ultimately I'm relaxed about how it is dealt with as I am happy with the definitions being guidelines - but I do see where you are coming from.
No worries.
I have a question concerning constitency :
Foederate Roman. Upgraded equites can be regraded to bucellarii as Cavalry, Superior, Protected, Experienced Bow, Short Spear with optional Shoot & Charge.
Why do those units dissapear in late foederate roman and Easterna later roman armies ? or rephrased what units do they represent ?
The reappear in the early byzantine armies ...so what is the logic ?
Regards
I think the Later Foederate Roman also has the upgrade; remember that Richard's list is not exhaustive (and I suspect he was using "Foederate" to cover both the lists).
Not in the eastern army as the east, I would suggest, was not "warlordy" in quite the same way as the west was at least in the 2nd half of the C5th - although obviously being the C5th the info is sparse to say the least. You can have a unit that is the same bar the Shoot & Charge FWIW.
The troops in thee Early Byzantine list are not quite the same thing as the earlier times although the MeG classification is similar, they appear to have been more integrated in the army. There is an interesting book on the bucellarii, "Riding for the Powerful: Buccellarii and the Ideal of Retainer Loyalty" that suggests that they are more the elite of the army albeit with close ties to individuals, but that ultimately they were under the emperors control. It cites cases from Procopios where Belisarios has to ask Justinian for some of "his" bucellarii back that have been deployed elsewhere for example.
Interesting fact if they dissapear in eastern late armies and come back later ..what happened ;D strange things happens in history
QuoteAchaemenid Persian – Royal Army. The army is allowed 12-48 Sparabara (Average with Experienced Bow). Up to half can be upgraded as Immortals (Average with Skilled Bow). One TuG of 6 can be further upgraded as Apple Bearers (Superior with Skilled Bow). This better represents armies where the Emperor was present.
I am wondering should we not do something similar withe the romans ! up to know Republican armies car upgrade a lot of TUGs to superior and so have a huge amount of SUP even exceptionnal ! my feeling is that it is pretty too strongh ! perhaps allow tu upgrad ea % of the average so there will always be some average somewhere ! up to half or 2/3 if we want to represent big veterans armies !
IMO a fully veteran LRR is perfectly reasonable - for example the army Lucullus had in the east appears to have been wholly veteran, if somewhat bolshy.
Lusitanoan spanish may not have short spear or DC or Impact weapon as it would make it too strongh .... Persian Sparabara are now deemed too strongh at impact vs infantry and loose short spear ...but ROMA CAPUT MUNDI remains 8) hurray for them even if "too" strongh
Those cases are "too strong" when compared to their opponents, something which is not the case with the LRR. You're not comparing like with like evaluations.
Just (finally!) noticed the proposed changes to Early Arab Conquest. I am disappointed , but not really surprised, that the Martyrs are being removed. Disappointed, because they add flavor and color to a list that's a bit monotone. Not surprised, because there is a LOOOONG history of debate about just how fanatic anyone was in the Arab Conquest armies. The changes take the position that the debate is over. I think it's a shame that players who disagree should not get the one unit, but the trend seems to be to make lists more vanilla and allow fewer debatable options. These views change over time.
I do wonder why the units have to be smaller to reflect 'resilience'. IMHO it is very questionable to say that a larger number of small units has more staying power than a smaller number of larger units. My own limited experience is that larger units are more resilient and less maneuverable. It seems to me that this should be left to the player, but that may just one more reason nobody has been foolish enough to trust me with writing lists.
Quote from: AntiokosIII on March 22, 2021, 10:34:32 PM
Just (finally!) noticed the proposed changes to Early Arab Conquest. I am disappointed , but not really surprised, that the Martyrs are being removed. Disappointed, because they add flavor and color to a list that's a bit monotone. Not surprised, because there is a LOOOONG history of debate about just how fanatic anyone was in the Arab Conquest armies. The changes take the position that the debate is over. I think it's a shame that players who disagree should not get the one unit, but the trend seems to be to make lists more vanilla and allow fewer debatable options. These views change over time.
IMO there is a difference between allowing something that is debatable or a different interpretation of the available evidence and allowing something that just isn't supported at all. I don't see any trend to vanilla-ising the MeG lists either - OK I'm more inside the process that outside so that will colour my view probably, but we do keep a weather eye out for it. Of course you can always raise any such cases you think are happening here as you are with this - RJC keeps an eye open 8)
Quote
I do wonder why the units have to be smaller to reflect 'resilience'. IMHO it is very questionable to say that a larger number of small units has more staying power than a smaller number of larger units. My own limited experience is that larger units are more resilient and less maneuverable. It seems to me that this should be left to the player, but that may just one more reason nobody has been foolish enough to trust me with writing lists.
FWIW I'm with you on this.
QuoteQuote
I do wonder why the units have to be smaller to reflect 'resilience'. IMHO it is very questionable to say that a larger number of small units has more staying power than a smaller number of larger units. My own limited experience is that larger units are more resilient and less maneuverable. It seems to me that this should be left to the player, but that may just one more reason nobody has been foolish enough to trust me with writing lists.
FWIW I'm with you on this.
On the face of it, many small units will generate more KaB tests than few small units, and the impact of a failed test is a bigger fraction of the breakpoint, so it would be surprising if small units are more resilient.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 22, 2021, 09:17:15 PM
Those cases are "too strong" when compared to their opponents, something which is not the case with the LRR. You're not comparing like with like evaluations.
Yes I do . I fear you are much to positive towards the romans ! You know they did loose battles ::)
A veteran roman army might have it all superior due to allowed numbers
A veteran AlexMac army may not have all his pikes SUP
A veteran Carthaginian army is limited in the numbers of SUP
Completely illogical and very biaised towards Rome ! With all the army having melee expert and all impact weapon they can handle near anything and you give the opportunity to near all the army to be sup ..no I will always contest it
Quote from: badhabum on March 23, 2021, 09:39:15 AM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 22, 2021, 09:17:15 PM
Those cases are "too strong" when compared to their opponents, something which is not the case with the LRR. You're not comparing like with like evaluations.
Yes I do .
Well we're not going to agree here are we :D
Quote
I fear you are much to positive towards the romans ! You know they did loose battles ::)
That really does show a lack of understanding of how the lists are drawn up. Yes the Romans lost battles, seriously nobody thinks otherwise; and the fact that they did is not a valid argument against their grading as the lists have them. The list allows those losing Roman armies to be played as well as the better ones that tended to win a lot - that is how MeG lists work (and pretty much all army lists). Players may then choose to run armies of a specific style, such as lot of Superior legionarii, but that is a choice and lists allow that - it would be wrong for them not to if such armies are historically justified. Then you trust that the game mechanisms and points values are robust enough that all such versions are viable - IMO in MeG they are, and LRR is far from being an unbeatable monster for example.
Quote
A veteran roman army might have it all superior due to allowed numbers
A veteran AlexMac army may not have all his pikes SUP
A veteran Carthaginian army is limited in the numbers of SUP
Completely illogical and very biaised towards Rome ! With all the army having melee expert and all impact weapon they can handle near anything and you give the opportunity to near all the army to be sup ..no I will always contest it
Well the list complier certainly thinks it is logical, and I agree. It is far more nuanced than just veteran=Superior.
Shall we put in a diary event for you to bring this up again at each annual list review ;) ;) ;)
QuoteThat really does show a lack of understanding of how the lists are drawn up
I think I do but I aklso am more and more convinced that there is a flaw in the logic with roman armies, competitions and competitive players !
The problem is that the list can be so strongh as to become too strongh vs historical opponents .
Romans were better than "barbarians" ! Ok later republican, early imperial and imperial by being melee expert they are better than a huge majority of any army they might face on basis of simpel historical data . By being superior it is a bonus and by enable 100 % of the army to be sup ..it causes a kind of unbalance . But I understand completely the point system and the rules are the rules . That's it ..Pardon me if I feel it is wrong and I do have 2 roman armies, nearly 3 8)
In a themed tournament, if you want to maximise a roman army it is easy . In an open tournament things are different as the opposition is different .
But I DO understand how creating an army list works perhaps much better than you think :)
In general I like the approach the lists take to quality
I have to admit, however, I have always felt that an Alexandrian list should have the potential to have a lot of 'supermen' in it.
I would allow the Pike to be superior and (some?) of the hypaspists exceptional.
Martin
The new lists are abt to be officialized, it s matter of days if I recall a post 2 weeks ago.
Do you have a firm date for the publications of 2021 lists / 2021 budget sheet?
(So there is no point for me to check the forum 4 times a day)
Thanks in advance for sharing
No, but it should be at the same time as the lists.
I might perhaps be more specific when I write that I think LRR and early imperial armies are a bit too strongh :
They have impact weapon which is pretty strongh and puts them as some of the very best shok units in the game even is not DC or shatter
Being flexible they adapt to all type of terrain
being melee expert they always have a factor even if one rank deep
The have shield cover vs shooty armies
They are drilled
They have ORB ( an underestimated capacity ) and being impact weapon and melee expert it is quite a good defensive formation
And if that is still not enough ..
They mays have up to 24 SUP + 8 exceptionnal ..
So I agree romans were good at what they did, they had veteran armies but they already have very good charateristics which should enable them, in period to defeat most opponents . They should be able to have some SUP and in the case of the Xth legion exceptionnal ones ! But my message is : does all that not make them a bit unbalanced ? When I have responses such as :if we give short spear to lusitanian or if we give melee expert to other spaniard .. it would make spaniards too strongh ..I cannot help but wonder how the spaniards who resisted the romans for hundreds of years could be made too strongh an interesting debate 8)
And I do not say all spanish ( and other armies ) should have melee expert or be SUP ... just a bit more of them and the Lusitanian might have short spear ;D Well yes I did paint those damn Lusitanian ;D
LRR can be beaten, the secret is to have more bodies at the start of the game, BUT more important to have more alive at the end than them just grind them down till they get sick of killing you and die of terminal boredom ! My cunning plan anyway
QuoteLRR can be beaten, the secret is to have more bodies at the start of the game, BUT more important to have more alive at the end than them just grind them down till they get sick of killing you and die of terminal boredom ! My cunning plan anyway
Will your cunning plan survive contact with the enemy, though?
In a straight fight you'll need 2.5:1 numerical superiority if you are not also superior melee expert.
Quote from: shaun on March 24, 2021, 02:12:32 PM
LRR can be beaten, the secret is to have more bodies at the start of the game, BUT more important to have more alive at the end than them just grind them down till they get sick of killing you and die of terminal boredom ! My cunning plan anyway
:) :) :) :)
Quote from: PUNCH on March 24, 2021, 07:25:33 PM
Quote from: shaun on March 24, 2021, 02:12:32 PM
LRR can be beaten, the secret is to have more bodies at the start of the game, BUT more important to have more alive at the end than them just grind them down till they get sick of killing you and die of terminal boredom ! My cunning plan anyway
:) :) :) :)
This strategy got a name: tendonitis
I never said they cannot be beaten . I just wrote that some lists culd be better but the answer is it would make them too strongh ..but what about the romans ? LRR and Imperial
Quote from: badhabum on March 24, 2021, 10:38:04 AM
I might perhaps be more specific when I write that I think LRR and early imperial armies are a bit too strongh :
They have impact weapon which is pretty strongh and puts them as some of the very best shok units in the game even is not DC or shatter
Being flexible they adapt to all type of terrain
being melee expert they always have a factor even if one rank deep
The have shield cover vs shooty armies
They are drilled
They have ORB ( an underestimated capacity ) and being impact weapon and melee expert it is quite a good defensive formation
And if that is still not enough ..
They mays have up to 24 SUP + 8 exceptionnal ..
So I agree romans were good at what they did, they had veteran armies but they already have very good charateristics which should enable them, in period to defeat most opponents . They should be able to have some SUP and in the case of the Xth legion exceptionnal ones ! But my message is : does all that not make them a bit unbalanced ? When I have responses such as :if we give short spear to lusitanian or if we give melee expert to other spaniard .. it would make spaniards too strongh ..I cannot help but wonder how the spaniards who resisted the romans for hundreds of years could be made too strongh an interesting debate 8)
And I do not say all spanish ( and other armies ) should have melee expert or be SUP ... just a bit more of them and the Lusitanian might have short spear ;D Well yes I did paint those damn Lusitanian ;D
Must say ia agree, most barbarians have few Sups and are usualy DEV chargers.
Versus the Romans only numbers and bad dice give them a slight chance. The Rumans will seek contact, protect flanks and punch through with the exceptionals and superiors.
There are not enough Average compulsory troops ine the roman Army.