MeG

Mortem et Gloriam Army Lists => List Queries => Topic started by: Sillyflower on December 13, 2023, 02:15:03 PM

Title: Magna and Pacto artillery costs
Post by: Sillyflower on December 13, 2023, 02:15:03 PM
Using 2023 lists,
MAGNA lists have Guns have c/shy guns @90pts +optional  barricades@32pts
                         Cannons 212pts with both attributes being compulsory
And those are the points used by the army builder

However, for PACTO the lists for guns say 90pts +16 for optional  barricades, but the builder insists that barricades are 32pts
                            canons cost 196 with both compulsory attributes, but the computer says 212pts

Which Pacto cost versions are correct? I should add that this is the only time I've ever seen discrepancies - and it does impact of an army I intend to use!

Tx in advance

Title: Re: Magna and Pacto artillery costs
Post by: lionheartrjc on December 13, 2023, 04:40:56 PM
The builder is correct as the points should be identical for Magna and Pacto.

I will look at the 2023 and 2024 draft lists to see if I can figure out what has gone wrong.
Update: I have checked and they seem to be correct in most lists.  Could you confirm which list you were looking at as I think the error is specific to that list.

Richard
Title: Re: Magna and Pacto artillery costs
Post by: Sillyflower on December 13, 2023, 10:39:51 PM
Thanks  for such a prompt and useful reply. I knew magna and pacto  points were/should be identical - i just didn't know which version was correct

I was looking at Magna and Pacto late medieval 2023 lists, particularly 5416 but I got same results for some other 5### lists featuring artillery. Can't remember which armies
Title: Re: Magna and Pacto artillery costs
Post by: lionheartrjc on December 14, 2023, 06:12:24 AM
The error seems to be in list set 54 - Kings in the North in the 2023 Pacto list set.  It seems to be correct in all the 2024 lists.

Richard
Title: Re: Magna and Pacto artillery costs
Post by: Sillyflower on December 14, 2023, 11:45:12 PM
Very grateful, Richard