MeG

Can be viewed from this shared folder.  Draft 2026 List Sets (https://1drv.ms/f/c/dff15d0b1ff429b0/EkGXnX_-v_5GkmdVa4V9fhwBTreaVyjgy_ITfwwtTGS7jA?e=4TCdNZ).

Please note that these are draft and subject to change.  The changes reflect the proposed amendements.  As of today, I have only completed the chariot and classical era lists.  Others will follow.

15/9/25: Added the 3 American list sets.

Given the ongoing discussion about hoplites, is the deletion of the melee expert option for earlier Spartiates a deliberate change or an oversight? IIRC it was not mentioned in the discussion as being up for removal.

Deliberate.  Hippeis now have the option of fanatic (think Themopylae).  Also Spartiates can now be in 9s.  All balances out.

Richard

Must say I don't think allowing 2 units of hippeis is right and restricting the from 450 CE ones to 4 bases when they cannot be Fanatic likewise.

I'd go back to allowing a single unit of 6 in both time ranges and for the pre-450 BCE ones have them restricted to a single 4 base unit if Fanatic is chosen.

I would support 6, fanatics or not .

Ok my feeling is that having deleted the ME is very bad for the spartans who before could face roman legions now they will loose as most players do use SUP, ME legions ...ok I'll flee

Let me explain how I see it : Hannibal's veteran, SUP, LS can face roman veterans on near parity . The many SUP romans would have +1 at impact and melee would be equal if the lybian veterans stay 2 rank deep . Now with the change, same price 140 points, but the ME romans are now better they have the upperhand and AV romans are on parity at impact and melee ...so you pay the same points as before for a less efficient TUG so yes I am unhappy . Same goes for the spartans . Some armies might get to the shelves as it feels pretty wrong and the balance of the antique armies is now once more moved towards Rome .

Quote from: badhabum on September 15, 2025, 10:51:59 AMLet me explain how I see it : Hannibal's veteran, SUP, LS can face roman veterans on near parity . The many SUP romans would have +1 at impact and melee would be equal if the lybian veterans stay 2 rank deep . Now with the change, same price 140 points, but the ME romans are now better they have the upperhand and AV romans are on parity at impact and melee ...so you pay the same points as before for a less efficient TUG so yes I am unhappy . Same goes for the spartans . Some armies might get to the shelves as it feels pretty wrong and the balance of the antique armies is now once more moved towards Rome .

A very specific case and I would argue that the issue is Melee Expert is too cheap rather than any other issue with the points system.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 15, 2025, 08:13:13 AMMust say I don't think allowing 2 units of hippeis is right and restricting the from 450 CE ones to 4 bases when they cannot be Fanatic likewise.

I'd go back to allowing a single unit of 6 in both time ranges and for the pre-450 BCE ones have them restricted to a single 4 base unit if Fanatic is chosen.

Yes, should allow non-fanatic hippeis to be in 6s.  Increase maximum number of hippeis to 12? I believe each King had their own hippeis.  A better description may be "Hippeis led Spartiates".

IIRC the 2 Spartan kings did not campaign together so there would only ever be 1 hippeis unit present.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 15, 2025, 07:26:11 AMDeliberate.  Hippeis now have the option of fanatic (think Themopylae).  Also Spartiates can now be in 9s.  All balances out.

Richard

Respectfully, I don't think it balances out Richard. The points saved from not having ME would only give you four or five additional bases of Spartiates.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 15, 2025, 11:51:38 AM

Quote from: badhabum on September 15, 2025, 10:51:59 AMLet me explain how I see it : Hannibal's veteran, SUP, LS can face roman veterans on near parity . The many SUP romans would have +1 at impact and melee would be equal if the lybian veterans stay 2 rank deep . Now with the change, same price 140 points, but the ME romans are now better they have the upperhand and AV romans are on parity at impact and melee ...so you pay the same points as before for a less efficient TUG so yes I am unhappy . Same goes for the spartans . Some armies might get to the shelves as it feels pretty wrong and the balance of the antique armies is now once more moved towards Rome .

A very specific case and I would argue that the issue is Melee Expert is too cheap rather than any other issue with the points system.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 15, 2025, 08:13:13 AMMust say I don't think allowing 2 units of hippeis is right and restricting the from 450 CE ones to 4 bases when they cannot be Fanatic likewise.

I'd go back to allowing a single unit of 6 in both time ranges and for the pre-450 BCE ones have them restricted to a single 4 base unit if Fanatic is chosen.

Yes, should allow non-fanatic hippeis to be in 6s.  Increase maximum number of hippeis to 12? I believe each King had their own hippeis.  A better description may be "Hippeis led Spartiates".

I'll continue my arguments on the specific amendment about spears it should be much better to do it there

Asiatic hoplites and kardaka in the Later Achaemenid Persian list are LSp where I'd expect them to be Spear(as they are hoplites or imitation hoplites).

Also thureophoroi in the Indo-Greek list.

Corrected the Later Achaemenid Persian and Indo-Greek lists.

Quote from: badhabum on September 15, 2025, 10:51:59 AMLet me explain how I see it : Hannibal's veteran, SUP, LS can face roman veterans on near parity . The many SUP romans would have +1 at impact and melee would be equal if the lybian veterans stay 2 rank deep . Now with the change, same price 140 points, but the ME romans are now better they have the upperhand and AV romans are on parity at impact and melee ...so you pay the same points as before for a less efficient TUG so yes I am unhappy . Same goes for the spartans . Some armies might get to the shelves as it feels pretty wrong and the balance of the antique armies is now once more moved towards Rome .

Change "Spear. New weapon category for classical hoplites and thureophoroi.
        At impact If in 2+ ranks, +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch, +1 vs others.
        In melee If in 2+ ranks, +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch, +1 vs others; if in 1 rank +1 vs foot cancelled by ME.
        Spear would not cancel mounted impact claims. 2+ deep Spear would cancel mounted melee expert claims."

I read this as spear in 2+ ranks still get the +1 versus ME infantry.

So the only change in this interaction is the extra vulnerability to supporting files, which you are supposed to avoid by having a (historically) continuous phalanx with other troops at each end.

Quote from: LawrenceG on September 16, 2025, 10:44:46 AMI read this as spear in 2+ ranks still get the +1 versus ME infantry.

This is correct.

Pyrrhic (2414) Hopilites still listed as long spear

Quote from: Kokor Hekkus on September 16, 2025, 11:46:35 AMPyrrhic (2414) Hopilites still listed as long spear

Corrected. Thanks.

Think the Syrian Byzantine LSp Skoutatoi are missing the 9 base option.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 19, 2025, 05:38:39 PMThink the Syrian Byzantine LSp Skoutatoi are missing the 9 base option.

Corrected.

A question about the spartan Hippeis : they must be in the CIC command OK but you confirm he may not be a floating commander if with the Hippeis only ? I ask because in so many army it is the case so I want to be sure it's not an omission

Quote from: badhabum on September 19, 2025, 08:04:44 PMA question about the spartan Hippeis : they must be in the CIC command OK but you confirm he may not be a floating commander if with the Hippeis only ? I ask because in so many army it is the case so I want to be sure it's not an omission

Thanks - I will add the floating commander bit.

Thank you

In the Three Kingdoms PDF

Gaya Korean - Conscript LSp do not have a 9 base option.

Baekje Koran - the troop sections of the list are missing and the ones from Xianbei Kingdoms is there instead.

Tang PDF

Gokturk elephants and the Hephthalite ones also allowed do not have the escorts option; maybe deliberate for the former but seems odd for the latter as their own list allows them.

Any chance that Chinese armies with the the ability to combine their archers and polearms into mixed units (such as Later Warring States 4205 and Western Han 4211) could have the "All or none" restrictions lifted? Or are there a specific reasons to believe that conventional blocks of close fighters were never used when anti-cavalry archer formations were deployed?

Ooh!I love new list day!!!
I hope it's okay that I gave what's available a readthrough, and have made an obnoxious volume of some notes.

{A few of these comments are not related to the proposed 2026 changes; I've marked these out in squiggly brackets to separate them out a bit}


[1204: Minoan]
Minoan longspears are still in UGs of 6 or 8 with no option to purchase in 9s.
(These TUGs far predate "proto-hoplites" that begin showing up later, so I assume they're meant to remain longspears)
[RJC Corrected]

[1216: Trojan War Achaean]
Nestor's Pylian Spearmen with longspears are still in UGs of 6 or 8 with no option to purchase 9.
(Like the Minoans, these guys don't seem to be some kind of super-early hoplites, so I assume they're intended to still be longspear)
[RJC Corrected]

{Tangent: that gorram Wooden Horse. So... If the horse is two BWg elements glued side-to-side with each other, is it allowed to take all four of its bow shots to the same side? Because it's Tribal, there's virtually zero odds of it having enemies to either side of it to get all of its shots that way.
Perhaps it might be better to reflect the Wooden Horse by instead allowing up to two TUGs of Achaean infantry to take the "Mounted Infantry" characteristic, representing them surprise-attacking from the horse as a flank march.}


[1217: Trojan War Trojans]
{Tangent: Shouldn't Trojan heroes dismount from their chariots as superior/shortspear/melee expert as their at their Achaean counterparts do? It's not like the Trojan heroes were consistently crushed by their Achaean counterparts every time they took to the field as far as I'm aware.}


[2313: Old Saxon]
The changes note on this list says "Dismountable" and really threw me. Would it be possible to amend this note to "nobles no longer mounted infantry" or something to avoid confusing dopes like me? XP
[RJC Corrected]

[2315: Thrungii]
See above note for Old Saxons. Yes, I'm dumb enough to have fallen for this twice. X|
[RJC Corrected]

[3203: Middle Post-Romam Britain]
{Tangent: Could we kindly get Arthur's Companions upgraded to Exceptional? I mean, if we're going to include them, they should probably be a step up from the noble Cavalry of their rough contemporaries, right?}


[3209: Viking]
{This is not a new issue, but I thought I'd mention it here: Berzerkers added to huscarl/hird TUGs don't have enough DC stands to trigger devastating chargers' claims. Is this intentional, or should berzerkers be given a note that they may benefit from devastating chargers' charge claims without a second DC rank behind them?}



[4202-4205: Warring States Chinese]
Early and Middle Warring states close fighters are classed as longspear in 6,8, or 9 stand units, while contemporary Qin armies are 6 or 8 stand polearms (with Devastating Chargers) as is the case only in the later warring states list.
Is this intentional? Or should pre-326BCE Qin close fighters be classed as longspear+devastating in 6,8, or 9 stand units for consistency?


[4305: Baekje Korean]
The notes and battles sections are present, but the army list is missing.
[RJC Corrected]

[4311: Goguryo Koran]
Yameak Spearmen (a pike upgrade to longspears) are currently only fieldable in UGs of 8. Should this be amended to 8 or 9 to better match with Goguryo Spearmen and Silla "Red Banner" pikemen?
[RKC Corrected]

[4610: Ikko Ikki]
With the command restrictions on Veterans and Religious Fanatics, it's likely for commands to have more Fanatics than generals. Would it be possible to allow religious fanatics to count their fanatic quality without a general present?

{Tangent: My club tends to slam face-first into an Abbot and Costello routine every these guys hit the table; trying to communicate which religious fanatics are fanatics and which religious fanatics are not fanatics, even though they're still religious fanatics despite not being fanatics. Could these TUGs be renamed "Religious Zealots" instead to clean that up?)


[5506: Early Hundred Years War English]
English knights are listed as dismounting with the Shieldwall quality. Is this correct?
[RJC=Oops, missed that one. No. Corrected.]


[6110: Canari]
Canari Best Warriors now lose access to optional melee expert when armored: is this intentional?

Canari Best Warriors with melee expert as a half-step quality improvement cancel opposing Spear claims in one rank, causing their half-step quality improvement to essentially double-count itself. Either South American Spears should remain Longspears or Best Warriors should be made Superior instead of melee expert to avoid this strange interaction.


[6114: Inca Empire]
Veteran Aucaruna gaining Melee Expert as a half-step quality increase interacts strangely Spear reclassification of Canari, Chanka, and Columbian warriors to Spear. (The veterans' melee expert both increases their melee claims and cancels Spear in one rank, allowing the veterans' half-step quality improvement to essentially double-count itself).
Either these Veteran TUGs should be reclassified as Superior, or South American Spears should remain Longspears in order to avoid strange interactions with veteran troops.
(Unless Inca Humaminca hearth troops were more different from Aucaruna in equipment or performance than the list lets on, the same strange interaction with Spear applies to them too)


[6306: Hawaiian]
With the "default" unit size of pike TUGs increasing to 9, should Hawaiian Kapa-kaua pikemen have their maximum increased from 24 to 27 to allow fielding three TUGs of 9? (They could previously field three TUGs of 8 when that was the "default" pike UG size)
[RJC Corrected]

I'm sure RJC will comment on most of these, but I'll stick my oar in on a few things.

Quote from: Doomsmile on September 22, 2025, 01:13:27 AM{Tangent: that gorram Wooden Horse. So... If the horse is two BWg elements glued side-to-side with each other, is it allowed to take all four of its bow shots to the same side? Because it's Tribal, there's virtually zero odds of it having enemies to either side of it to get all of its shots that way.
Perhaps it might be better to reflect the Wooden Horse by instead allowing up to two TUGs of Achaean infantry to take the "Mounted Infantry" characteristic, representing them surprise-attacking from the horse as a flank march.}

No they cannot get 4 shots to the same side.

If you want to better reflect the Wooden Horse it'd get removed from the list as not a feature of set piece battle - its a bit of colour for fun really.

Quote[3209: Viking]
{This is not a new issue, but I thought I'd mention it here: Berzerkers added to huscarl/hird TUGs don't have enough DC stands to trigger devastating chargers' claims. Is this intentional, or should berzerkers be given a note that they may benefit from devastating chargers' charge claims without a second DC rank behind them?}

It is deliberate. They still get the ability to do Shatter. However, with the altered rules on Shatter/Shove it may be worth a think.

Quote[4610: Ikko Ikki]
With the command restrictions on Veterans and Religious Fanatics, it's likely for commands to have more Fanatics than generals. Would it be possible to allow religious fanatics to count their fanatic quality without a general present?

It is a deliberate feature.

The achean wooden horse is very useful to help protect flanks

Late Medieval German (5620) militia pikemen have 19 bases allowed which seems a peculiar number - is it meant to be 18 as per the pikemen?

[RJC Corrected]

Trying to follow the evolution so we still are missing 71 and 72 ? correct

Looking at the OneDrive folder that is indeed the case (at the time I type this).

All 2026 army lists now drafted.  Will take another look at Canari and Inca.

The Italian Wars PDF lists appear to be the 2025 versions - it may not have updated properly.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 24, 2025, 07:50:57 AMThe Italian Wars PDF lists appear to be the 2025 versions - it may not have updated properly.

Corrected.  Pushed the buttons in the wrong order....

Revised the draft Canari, Kingdom of Cusco and Inca Empire lists.

A couple of small things I noticed while going over the newly-posted/changed lists, most of which are probably just noticing intentional decisions, but... no harm, no foul, I hope?


[6102: Columbian Indian]
Maximum for Elite Warriors (16 stands) is based on two UGs of 8, instead of UGs of 9. (Regular warrior minimum is based on UGs of 9)
This is probably intentional, but I thought I'd bring this up to double-check.

[6110: Canari]
I missed this earlier. Maximum for Best Warriors (32 stands) is based on four UGs of 8, instead of UGs of 9. (Regular warrior minimum is based on UGs of 9)
This is probably intentional, but I thought I'd bring this up to double-check.


[7101: Late Swiss]
Lorrain Alliance Pikemen are in UGs of 8 only, and have maxima of 16/8 for militia and mercenary pikes respectively. Should these be 18/9 to accommodate UGs of 9?

[7107: Maximilian German]
Militia Pike maximum is 32 bases, allowing for 4 TUGs of 8 bases, but only 3 TUGS of (if you'll forgive the presumptive word) default 9 base UGS. Is this correct?

[7108: German States]
Typo in name of City crossbowmwn.
(With how often I make typos, I'm impressed that this is the first one I've found!)


[7201: Sengoku Japanese]
Maximum number of Bushi and Ashigaru with Yari reduced from 12 to 9.
(This is probably intentional, but thought I'd double-check since the reduction wasn't noted in the army's change list.)

[7202: Nobunaga Japanese / 7203: Takeda Japanese]
Unit sizes for long-spear equipped troops are 6,8 (with no 9s allowed). Is this correct?



Also, I noticed that post-Hundred Years' War English men-at-arms are classed as Polearm now? Not brining it up as a problem, but just noting that 'tis odd. :P

List 7113 James IV scottish : Pike/pavise do they move "normally" 3 MU and no shield cover correct ? ( it's the wording Pike pavise )

For the 1513 option if you choose to not use Shield Cover when shot at there is no slowing so would move "normally". If the Shield Cover is used there is a 1 BW slowing effect and this cannot be prompted through - so, for e.g. if in good going the maximum move is now 2 BW and cannot be prompted back up to 3 BW.

Quote from: Doomsmile on September 26, 2025, 07:20:23 AM[7201: Sengoku Japanese]
Maximum number of Bushi and Ashigaru with Yari reduced from 12 to 9.
(This is probably intentional, but thought I'd double-check since the reduction wasn't noted in the army's change list.)

[7202: Nobunaga Japanese / 7203: Takeda Japanese]
Unit sizes for long-spear equipped troops are 6,8 (with no 9s allowed). Is this correct?

Suspect errors here - the Nobunga "Bushi and ashigaru with yari" numbers have also changed in an (IMO) odd way.

Quote from: Doomsmile on September 26, 2025, 07:20:23 AMAlso, I noticed that post-Hundred Years' War English men-at-arms are classed as Polearm now? Not brining it up as a problem, but just noting that 'tis odd. :P

I'd not noticed that one and not sure why this should be. The Edward IV list is an exception where they are still 2HCC.

Men-at-arms backed up by billmen.  Makes the men-at-arms no more vulnerable to mounted than billmen which seems correct.

The vulnerability argument can apply to earlier men-at-arms as well - and Edward IV of course, which is contemporary with the lists where the change is.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 26, 2025, 10:02:28 AMThe vulnerability argument can apply to earlier men-at-arms as well - and Edward IV of course, which is contemporary with the lists where the change is.

Am correcting Edward IV - this was an error (the infantry had already been changed - just missed it off the dismounting knights).

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 26, 2025, 10:13:41 AM

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 26, 2025, 10:02:28 AMThe vulnerability argument can apply to earlier men-at-arms as well - and Edward IV of course, which is contemporary with the lists where the change is.

Am correcting Edward IV - this was an error (the infantry had already been changed - just missed it off the dismounting knights).

Thanks.

The infantry versions in the Edward IV list are missing the optional Melee Expert that the ones in Kings in the North have BTW.

Quote from: Doomsmile on September 26, 2025, 07:20:23 AMA couple of small things I noticed while going over the newly-posted/changed lists, most of which are probably just noticing intentional decisions, but... no harm, no foul, I hope?


[6102: Columbian Indian]
Maximum for Elite Warriors (16 stands) is based on two UGs of 8, instead of UGs of 9. (Regular warrior minimum is based on UGs of 9)
This is probably intentional, but I thought I'd bring this up to double-check.

<Corrected>

[6110: Canari]
I missed this earlier. Maximum for Best Warriors (32 stands) is based on four UGs of 8, instead of UGs of 9. (Regular warrior minimum is based on UGs of 9)
This is probably intentional, but I thought I'd bring this up to double-check.

<Corrected, also Inca Empire maximums from 24 to 27>


[7101: Late Swiss]
Lorrain Alliance Pikemen are in UGs of 8 only, and have maxima of 16/8 for militia and mercenary pikes respectively. Should these be 18/9 to accommodate UGs of 9?

<Corrected>

[7107: Maximilian German]
Militia Pike maximum is 32 bases, allowing for 4 TUGs of 8 bases, but only 3 TUGS of (if you'll forgive the presumptive word) default 9 base UGS. Is this correct?

[7108: German States]
Typo in name of City crossbowmwn.
(With how often I make typos, I'm impressed that this is the first one I've found!)

< Corrected>

[7201: Sengoku Japanese]
Maximum number of Bushi and Ashigaru with Yari reduced from 12 to 9.
(This is probably intentional, but thought I'd double-check since the reduction wasn't noted in the army's change list.)

[7202: Nobunaga Japanese / 7203: Takeda Japanese]
Unit sizes for long-spear equipped troops are 6,8 (with no 9s allowed). Is this correct?

<My copy has 6,8,9?>

Also, I noticed that post-Hundred Years' War English men-at-arms are classed as Polearm now? Not brining it up as a problem, but just noting that 'tis odd. :P

<See below>

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 26, 2025, 09:56:33 AMMen-at-arms backed up by billmen.  Makes the men-at-arms no more vulnerable to mounted than billmen which seems correct.

Actually, I wonder if the mounted ones should still dismount as 2HCC as not leading billmen.

Yorkist Pretender 5418
Should the Mercenary Pikemen with Halbardiers be allow 9 base TuGs

In the Changes notes in the Later 100YW English and Edward IV the change to the best longbowmen (Formed not Drilled) is not noted - think it should be as a quite material change. It is mentioned in the Early 100YW English list though  :)

Sohei - I've always assumed that the rules re: army commander and the shrine protectors applies to an allied contingent from the list but it would IMO be useful to specify that in the list note ( or otherwise if my assumption is wrong).

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 27, 2025, 09:34:14 AMSohei - I've always assumed that the rules re: army commander and the shrine protectors applies to an allied contingent from the list but it would IMO be useful to specify that in the list note ( or otherwise if my assumption is wrong).

Rules say that [...]Unless specified in the notes, the general must be the same type as the army commander in their own army's list but cannot be legendary[..].

But is it an AC by itself ? That would allow AC-only units (Khan's Guard in Mongols and such) to be taken in an allied contingent ...

Antoine

An allied commander is not an army commander and so unless the list specifically allows it cannot use any army commander only options. Nu

Ikko Ikki have tanegashima in their list but the lists in the Japan PDF only get them as a scenario rule; not sure why there is this difference.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 26, 2025, 09:26:46 AM

Quote from: Doomsmile on September 26, 2025, 07:20:23 AM[7201: Sengoku Japanese]
Maximum number of Bushi and Ashigaru with Yari reduced from 12 to 9.
(This is probably intentional, but thought I'd double-check since the reduction wasn't noted in the army's change list.)

[7202: Nobunaga Japanese / 7203: Takeda Japanese]
Unit sizes for long-spear equipped troops are 6,8 (with no 9s allowed). Is this correct?

Suspect errors here - the Nobunga "Bushi and ashigaru with yari" numbers have also changed in an (IMO) odd way.

Just flagging this again as all 3 of the lists in the Japan PDF have had the maximum number of the Bushi and ashigaru with yari reduced - halved for Nobunaga. Doesn't feel right to me.

<Corrected>

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 26, 2025, 09:56:33 AMMen-at-arms backed up by billmen.  Makes the men-at-arms no more vulnerable to mounted than billmen which seems correct.

I'm curious why the men-at-arms were switched to PA rather than given Spear Protection. Did the supporting billmen reduce the men-at-arms' ability to offend other armored infantry?

Quote from: Doomsmile on September 28, 2025, 03:01:05 PM

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 26, 2025, 09:56:33 AMMen-at-arms backed up by billmen.  Makes the men-at-arms no more vulnerable to mounted than billmen which seems correct.

I'm curious why the men-at-arms were switched to PA rather than given Spear Protection. Did the supporting billmen reduce the men-at-arms' ability to offend other armored infantry?

Same comments as I applied to PA vs Sp, also apply to PA vs 2-HCC.  FArm, PA, ME are pretty good against almost all foot. They are much less vulnerable to CL at impact which is significant.

Quote from: Doomsmile on September 28, 2025, 03:01:05 PM

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 26, 2025, 09:56:33 AMMen-at-arms backed up by billmen.  Makes the men-at-arms no more vulnerable to mounted than billmen which seems correct.

I'm curious why the men-at-arms were switched to PA rather than given Spear Protection. Did the supporting billmen reduce the men-at-arms' ability to offend other armored infantry?

I'd note that by the mid-C15th the numbers of men-at-arms in English armies had fallen dramatically compared to a century before. Compare, for example, the numbers in armies from the early 100YW where you could have contingents with roughly 50:50 archers to men-at-arms whilst for the 1475 expedition to France of Edward IV the indentures are showing 1:10 men-at-arms to archers. In game terms the number of people carrying 2HCC type weapons are very low.

French Ordonnance list have powerbow as drilled

Burgundian Ordonnance list have powerbow/crossbow & handgunners as drilled

Think these were much more "standing army troops" than the English armies raised by indenture. However, thinking about it, the English garrison troops in Normandy in the later 100YW could arguably qualify for Drilled as standing troops.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 28, 2025, 09:38:07 AM

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 26, 2025, 09:26:46 AM

Quote from: Doomsmile on September 26, 2025, 07:20:23 AM[7201: Sengoku Japanese]
Maximum number of Bushi and Ashigaru with Yari reduced from 12 to 9.
(This is probably intentional, but thought I'd double-check since the reduction wasn't noted in the army's change list.)

[7202: Nobunaga Japanese / 7203: Takeda Japanese]
Unit sizes for long-spear equipped troops are 6,8 (with no 9s allowed). Is this correct?

Suspect errors here - the Nobunga "Bushi and ashigaru with yari" numbers have also changed in an (IMO) odd way.

Just flagging this again as all 3 of the lists in the Japan PDF have had the maximum number of the Bushi and ashigaru with yari reduced - halved for Nobunaga. Doesn't feel right to me.

<Corrected>

Thanks  :)

Looks like a few new books have been put through since my last annoying wall of proofreading! XP
So, uh, here it is again?

(I found myself with several comments while reading through these new/revised books that weren't really proofreading in nature; I'll be separating those in a separate post for clarity.)

[4304] Gaya Confederacy
• Conscript Spearmen (LSp) are only available in UGs of 6 or 8 (not 9). (Gaya Armored Spearmen are in 6,8,9 as normal for LSp) The Conscript Spearmen also have a a maximum of 48 stands (6x 8-stand UGs); should this be 54 (6x 9-stand UGs) instead?


[5401] Jarls of Orkney
• Note for mixed UGs of Huscarls and Hird refers to "Dismountable" instead of "Mounted Infantry"

[5405] Feudal Scottish
• Note regarding LSp and old Dismountable rule still included.

[5405] Medieval Scottish
• Note regarding LSp and old Dismountable rule still included.


[5505] Early Medieval Low Countries
• UG sizes not specified for separately deployed Guildsmen with Placon.
• Guildsmen LSp with added Placon-armed bases cannot be taken in UGs of 9. Is this intentional?
• Guildsmen LSp with added Longbowmen bases cannot be taken in UGs of 9. Is this intentional?

[5507] Hundred Years War French
• Allies section references "Best Longbowmen". Is this referring to "Retinue Longbowmen"?

[5508] Free Company
• Veteran Men-at-Arms have no Melee Expert option, unlike all other superior-quality Men-at-Arms in book 55. Is this intentional?

[5515] Burgundian Ordnance
• Ordnance Pikemen has a maximum of 24 bases (3x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 27 (3x 9-stand UGs)?


[5607] Later Communal Italian
• Army Notes in top section are cut off mid-sentence at line break.


[7101] Late Swiss
• Lorain Alliance contingent(s) has five required UGs, which means a minimum of two generals must be assigned to the Alliance contingent. Is this intentional?

[7102] Later Castillan
• Pikemen has a maximum of 24 bases (3x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 27 (3x 9-stand UGs)?

[7103] Later Burgundian
• Pikemen has a maximum of 64 bases (8x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 72 (8x 9-stand UGs)?
• Swiss Mercenaries has a maximum of 8 bases. Should this be 9?

[7104] Later French Ordnance
• Italian Knights dismount with Shieldwall. Is this correct?

[7105] Swabian League
• Feudal Knights dismount with Shieldwall. Is this correct?
• Militia Pikemen has a maximum of 24 bases (3x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 27 (3x 9-stand UGs)?

[7107] Maximilian German
• Militia Pikemen has a maximum of 32 bases (4x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 36 (4x 9-stand UGs)?

[7109] Italian States
• Florentine Militia Pikemen has a maximum of 24 bases (3x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 27 (3x 9-stand UGs)?



Anyway, that's what I found. I also had some thoughts which stray beyond the realm of proofreading, which I'll put in the next post below.

All this proof-reading is really appreciated; it helps loads  :)

Okay, opinion time. Apologies in advance for anything dumb I put below. XP


[4607] Kamakura Samurai + [4608] Muramachi Samurai
• Mixed Cav/Foot TUGs:
With the changes to foot TUGs shooting, these guys' mechanics are super out of step with how everything else works. Instead of getting a bonus when standing to shoot at chargers, these guys give up a +1 claim penalty for trying it.
° Perhaps these mounted Bushi supported by foot should just be classed as Fleet of Foot infantry with Mounted Infantry (for the scouting contribution), probably close-order to discourage bushwhacking through bad terrain, and perhaps with an added Short Spear to make up for losing their charge bonus vs loose infantry?
(If you want to be really spicy: perhaps make the "mounted" Bushi have devastating chargers, functioning in one rank, to capture their bonus vs foot but not against proper cavalry)
° If these guys really must remain classed as cavalry, could we at least give them shower shooting so they don't surrender a claim for shooting at chargers and reclass them as close order so they aren't paying for a fifth BW of speed they can't use?

• Mixed TUGs of Bushi+Followers Shooting:
These UGs are in an environment where they are shooting at superior-quality troops a lot. When standing to receive chargers, mixed Bushi are effectively shooting at Unskilled against the front ranks of most targets, despite paying for skilled shooting.
° Could Bushi in these mixed UGs perhaps be regraded to Experienced shooters, but with either <A> the rear-rank followers classed with Unskilled shooting (adding ranks for the front to shoot at full effect, and excused as a few surviving bushi taking pot shots when files which have lost their front rank take unskilled shots) or <B> with a note that these Bushi shoot at full effect when one rank deep?
(If either of these change are implemented, the same should probably apply to the Murakami units in the Sengoku-era lists, since they fight in the same fashion)


[5401] Jarls of Orkney
• With the changes to Mounted Infantry vs old Dismountable, is the restriction on Huscarls in mixed UGs taking Mounted Infantry still necessary? They wouldn't benefit from the flank march bonus, but it would make a lot of sense that Huscarls might depart mounted for scouting and "foraging" before joining up with the Bondi for battle.


[54xx] General note on Book 54
• It seems strange to me that Hobilars lose their optional Melee Expert when dismounting. While not common, there are examples of cavalry in MeG with optional melee expert keeping it once dismounted. (IIRC some iterations of Roman equites work this way)
Is it clear from sources that Hobilars were only marginally effective troops when dismounting?
(If nothing else, 128 points is a lot to pay for a 67-point infantry base which is ineffective against most targets which would prompt Hobilars to dismount)


[5509] Medieval Burgundian
• From 1420 CE, at least half of the Burgundian knights must be downgraded to average-quality. Burgundian knights can be fielded in mixed UGs with average-quality coustiliers/valets. Would it be possible to add a note allowing knights in mixed UGs with valets to be downgraded to average without downgrading their valets to poor?
Current implementation severely discourages mixing average knights with valets.


[5515] Burgundian Ordnance
• Mixed Pikemen and Longbowmen:
I know these guys are supposed to suck and all, but perhaps the front-rank pikemen should be regraded to LSp? This would simultaneously <A> head off any silly rank-staggering to gain Pike's 3rd-rank benefits, and <B> not force the pikemen to pay points for a 3rd-rank bonus that they can't use.
° (It might also be worth considering allowing these Pk/Longbow UGs to be bought in 12-stand units, so they can deploy three elements wide like the army's other pike UGs? If not, probably NBD; these guys really are quite terrible X| .)


[5516] Edward IV English + [7106] Tudor English
• Do sources suggest that English men-at-arms were regularly outclassed by their continental counterparts? This classification of English men-at-arms is down 1 claim in combat with French men-at-arms on foot, increasing to 2 claims down where the English men-at-arms are reduced to a single rank. (at that point, we're looking at the same difference as between a Veteran Legionary and a standard Gallic warrior!)
If English men-at-arms weren't regularly stomped by their French counterparts perhaps this difference could be <A> mitigated by making English men-at-arms Superior as is the case in the late Hundred Years War list, or <B> keep the English men-at-arms equipped with 2HCC, but add the Spear Protection characteristic (might make them too knight-resistant that way, though!)
° (or maybe <C>, have the 2HCC weapon's +1 charge claim also apply vs mounted, which would make all men-at-arms a bit less less trampleable. XP )


[55xx] General note on Book 55
• Should archers with Mounted Infantry be allowed to take optional stakes?
It's not a game balance thing; I mostly just wanted to share the mental image of outriders showing up by surprise with field fortifications. Gave me a good chuckle anyway. XP



Okay, that's all my bad takes for today. Figured there was no harm in sharing. : )

Quote from: Doomsmile on October 09, 2025, 06:28:08 PM[7101] Late Swiss
• Lorain Alliance contingent(s) has five required UGs, which means a minimum of two generals must be assigned to the Alliance contingent. Is this intentional?

The contingent is not an allied contingent so is not limited to a maximum of 4 UGs.

5607 late communal Italian : that list can be allied to a Papal Italian list which needs them .

But the is something I find disturbing

If  you use the "main list", you need Communal kniths,militia spearme and Contadini spearmen.

The internal allies use a different set with only Militia spearmen as mandatory units

If used as an ally to another list that needs at least 2 allies to have 4 generals and mays have up to 3 contingents of Later Communal Italian allies , must it be from the main list or in a certain logic from the "internal ally" which is more flexible

On second thoughts, same logic for the early communal ally

Quote from: badhabum on October 10, 2025, 09:12:12 AM5607 late communal Italian : that list can be allied to a Papal Italian list which needs them .

But the is something I find disturbing

If  you use the "main list", you need Communal kniths,militia spearme and Contadini spearmen.

The internal allies use a different set with only Militia spearmen as mandatory units

If used as an ally to another list that needs at least 2 allies to have 4 generals and mays have up to 3 contingents of Later Communal Italian allies , must it be from the main list or in a certain logic from the "internal ally" which is more flexible

On second thoughts, same logic for the early communal ally

An ally must be from the main list.  I have added the same ally structure to the Papal Italian list.

The internal ally structure is flexible because the main contingent isn't.  This doesn't apply to external allies (i.e. the German emperors).

Richard

OK so the Papal Italian is a pretty difficult list to balance  :) lots of small poor units

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 26, 2025, 09:26:46 AM

Quote from: Doomsmile on September 26, 2025, 07:20:23 AM[7201: Sengoku Japanese]
Maximum number of Bushi and Ashigaru with Yari reduced from 12 to 9.
(This is probably intentional, but thought I'd double-check since the reduction wasn't noted in the army's change list.)

[7202: Nobunaga Japanese / 7203: Takeda Japanese]
Unit sizes for long-spear equipped troops are 6,8 (with no 9s allowed). Is this correct?

Suspect errors here - the Nobunga "Bushi and ashigaru with yari" numbers have also changed in an (IMO) odd way.

At one point I wrote somewhere here, "I am fed up with all those changes" . I haven't checked if the latest version keeps the downsizing of sengoku Bushi/Ashigaru from 12 to 9/6 but yes I am fed up with all those changes but let me explain,

 
We have now on the continent  max 4 tournaments , all themed ( not counting Geneva ) . Most of us can attend 2 or 3 tournaments. So we love the units we paint and we have to make choices about the armies we will play . Now I painted 2 units of 6 bushi/Ashigaru . Different style . Being on the continent it was difficult to get the miniatures ( I do not like 3D printing and had some essex from earlier times ) . So now by changing the max and going to 9/6 that means I painted some for ...nothing, did all I could to get the miniatures on time for nothing . It is very frustrating and I am not the only one to be frustrated .

It's not the first time a continental player paints an army only to learn he may not use it as the list has changed .

We lost half our players that way

So do not change max numbers. Keep them as they were just out of respect for the players

We do not have 15+ tournaments to play many armies, just 2-3 a year let us play our armies or risk loosing more players

Quote from: badhabum on October 13, 2025, 10:49:33 AMSo do not change max numbers. Keep them as they were just out of respect for the players

They were an error and changed back 2 weeks ago.

A couple of proof reading items.

In book 33 in both Nikophorian lists (3323 & 3324) melee expert on the Kataphraktoi end up costing 44 points rather than 43 (minor issue but since I noticed it figured I'd bring it up).

In book 46 the Ikko Ikki (4610) changes mention a change to the Sohie ally date but have no allies listed.

In book 52 the Komnenan Byzantine (5201) tagmata cavalry don't show the points reduction for charge only bow.

Hello,

Classical Greek 2401 : Sacred Band hoplites have size 6,8,9 but are only allowed 0-8 bases.

Hellenistic Spartan 2417 : helot phalangites are only 0-16 in 8-sized TUGs

Best,
Antoine

Quote from: Manzikert on November 26, 2025, 03:38:15 AMA couple of proof reading items.

In book 33 in both Nikophorian lists (3323 & 3324) melee expert on the Kataphraktoi end up costing 44 points rather than 43 (minor issue but since I noticed it figured I'd bring it up).

In book 46 the Ikko Ikki (4610) changes mention a change to the Sohie ally date but have no allies listed.

In book 52 the Komnenan Byzantine (5201) tagmata cavalry don't show the points reduction for charge only bow.

The single point inaccuracy is due to rounding errors. This has been true for many years - no easy way of fixing it
Ikko Ikki. The allies have been removed - so are not valid at any date! :-)
Tagamata points cost looks correct to me.  They are Drilled - (perhaps you entered them as formed?).

Richard

Quote from: Princeps on November 26, 2025, 05:00:38 PMHello,

Classical Greek 2401 : Sacred Band hoplites have size 6,8,9 but are only allowed 0-8 bases.

Hellenistic Spartan 2417 : helot phalangites are only 0-16 in 8-sized TUGs

Best,
Antoine

Many thanks.  Corrected.
Please re-download the file from the OneDrive.

Richard

Late Medieval Scots 5415, Pike upgrade, should be allowed in 9?

Early Tudor 5417, French Pike in 1485, should be allowed in 9, with a bump to 18 max?

cheers
Matt

What has happened to the Odoacre Roman list ?

Accidentally missed out would be my guess.

Quote from: Kokor Hekkus on January 01, 2026, 05:23:06 PMWhat has happened to the Odoacre Roman list ?

It was deprecated in the last set of lists.  It has now been removed, if you want an Ocdacer army, use the Late Foederate Roman list.

Richard

That's a vastly different army composition, could you please explain the reasoning behind this.

My take FWIW.

Odoacer was a senior commander of the remining Roman troops in Italy when Orestes forced Nepos out of Italy. He wasn't leading a different "non-Roman" army (for want of a better term, just the existing Roman army which by this time was, of course, mainly foederate troops. When the foederate troops wanted land and Orestes refused it, Odoacer overthrew Orestes and deposed Romulus Augustulus and then provided the land and ruled in Italy.

So basically there is no justification for a separate list. The list of barbarians that Odoacer is said to have led is just a list of foederates.

Jordanes does call him king of the Turcilingi (and also the Rugi as well in another place) but that really isn't enough to hang a separate list on as Jordanes is not reliable; he is also called a king of Goths by other authors - its not really clear.

I must confess to having suggested to Richard a couple of times that the Odoacer list under its previous name was not really tenable so I can't say I'm sad to see it go, but I hadn't clocked it was going in this iteration of the lists.

I noticed a couple of minor list errors. In the Sengoku Japanese list (7201) the title is dated 1500-1585 but the list is 1500-1563. In the Anglo-Danish list (3212) the note explaining how Huscarls and Fyrd can be combined cuts off before explaining that they can't take shove.

Corrected.

Are there plans to move the 2026 lists from here to the main site? It's slightly more difficult to tell newer players where to find the current lists. Not a big deal, just wondering.

Quote from: AntiokosIII on March 08, 2026, 10:59:39 PMAre there plans to move the 2026 lists from here to the main site? It's slightly more difficult to tell newer players where to find the current lists. Not a big deal, just wondering.

They are on the main site, at the bottom of the 2026 Competition Amendments page. 

Richard