READ THE OVERALL ONE ON THE 2020 COMPENDIUM BEFORE THIS POST
As mention above we are not changing much in the rules. There is very little I want to change about the game balance. It is playing very well with great army feel. Overall I want to make archers and horse archers armies a bit more viable but it doesn't need many changes. Only:
Prompting through Fire to be more expensive
1. Becomes recover 1BW = YELLOW, 2 BW = RED
I also want to balance Professional vs. Insinctive a bit in the PBS phase and introduce the choice fo the terrain into the game. This gives a lovely narrative for the PBS system and will get some territories into use that currently never get played. It will also create more variety of command structures.
PBS
1. First card/disc is played to see who chooses which of the defenders territory type is to be used. So you can play a RED to try to get this. Represents invader picking which bit to attack.
2. Professional armies get 7/6/5/4 for AC grade, Instinctive 5/4/3/2 with scouting included as today. No benefit for Subs. Simpler and more balanced advantage for Professionals. Points adjusted up 100 for instinctive generals as Pro one slose their boost for PBS.
All the other changes in the next post are minor fixes for issues players have raised this year, or simplifications of things that confuse to little effect. So we will fold them in.
SIMPLIFICATIONS AND FIXES
The following is a range of removals, simplifications and fixes not expected to have a material effect on the overall game, but to clean up areas players have found needing adjustment. A few are responses to the comments people kindly posted to my request for input above.
Terrain adjusted to provide alternative cavalry friendly space and to encourage more interesting tables
1. Uneven removed entirely
2. Replaced with OPEN space that blocks other terrain placement. Open Spaces may not be taken as compulsory items. Encoruagement to leave them on table to improve the look.
Deployment changed to solve outscouting issues against large armies
1. Deployment to be in ⅓s rather than in 4 UGs at a time.
2. Outscouting to go down first and opponent match the % they put down.
Characteristics cleaned
1. Shieldwall to be 2+ deep and in Good Going to get its benefits.
2. All "Barricades" revert to paying for each base with pts cost adjusted.
3. Keil solved by having them in 12s and keeping a simple Kiel characteristic.
4. Laying Stakes and Caltrops moved to the Movement Phase.
Flank Charges fixed to remove the cheesy one
This is rthe occurs when you are just past the line but there is enemy support nearby so it feels wrong.
1.Retain the line as today as it is simple, but add a second condition that there must be a 1BWx1BW empty space on the flank to be charged.
Charge-Only Forced Charges
1. CL/DC with Charge-Only shooting to be subject to Forced Charges.
Allies cards not be used as a buffer when hesitant
1. Hesitant allies cannot discard cards (except at End of Turn!).
Wounded Mediocre Generals fixed
A 2-card general who is wounded to lose any cards they currently hold.
Break Off fixed
To keep Loose Cv in range of Cataphracts and bows and to limit foot break offs to only those that are reasonably realistic.
1. Maximum of movement distance -1BW.
2. Only Cv,Cm,Ch allowed to break off from equal speed opponents.
ArmHrs to count vs. PBw at range
1. ArmHrs to count vs. PBw and XBw inside 1BW
Mounted Short Spear to count in terrain
Makes it fit better with LSp - remove * from SSp charge combat.
Artillery
1. Not to benefit from shooting at Unprotected
2. Never Run Away or Skirmish
All of these tweaks look very welcome to me, although the PBS stuff will take some getting used to. I particularly like the tweaks to flank charges, allied cards discarding, and wounded mediocre generals. Well done, O Mighty One!
Oh, and the tweak to prompting through fire. Love it.
I imagine this stuff (wording of tweaks, changes to lists, new Army Builder, etc) will be available for download and play test in a few weeks? Soon in any event? Hope so.
Good job Simon :) :)
Barricades, is that both ranks or just front rank like stakes & caltrops?
Presume hesitant allies will still be allowed to discard at the end of the turn to try and become reliable...
On uneven, it was use to give an edge to mounted on infantry.
What would be the options now for a changing lancer against long spear army going table wide?
Going through the woods?
Hard time for the lancers.
Quote from: mad lemmey on August 12, 2019, 07:32:07 PM
Barricades, is that both ranks or just front rank like stakes & caltrops?
its the same for all. But tis no change really. Just 1/2 the points per base and pay for the whole TuG. KISS change.
Si
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 13, 2019, 10:16:29 AM
Quote from: mad lemmey on August 12, 2019, 07:32:07 PM
Barricades, is that both ranks or just front rank like stakes & caltrops?
its the same for all. But tis no change really. Just 1/2 the points per base and pay for the whole TuG. KISS change.
Si
That means you could now go single ranked behind barricades etc if you wanted to, which would be handy sometimes.
Quote from: RogerW on August 12, 2019, 09:51:27 PM
Presume hesitant allies will still be allowed to discard at the end of the turn to try and become reliable...
Yes can always discard at the end just not during the move.
Quote from: daveparish on August 13, 2019, 11:40:23 AM
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 13, 2019, 10:16:29 AM
Quote from: mad lemmey on August 12, 2019, 07:32:07 PM
Barricades, is that both ranks or just front rank like stakes & caltrops?
its the same for all. But tis no change really. Just 1/2 the points per base and pay for the whole TuG. KISS change.
Si
Indeed and one of the reasons. Thin line of ottoman janissaries behind barricades is quite historical.
S
That means you could now go single ranked behind barricades etc if you wanted to, which would be handy sometimes.
Look sensible - however some concern over 'all chariots can evade' .... what even those Mycenaean chappie with long spear (as cavalry with long spear can't) and more worrying .. Assyrian/Babylonian tanks which should struggle with anything straight ahead. Am assuming the characteristics will determine this ?
Like the Kiel solution - Pikes in 12's. Ideal for Italian Wars etc. Saves that occasion list with single pike block of 8 bases and mandatory kiel characteristic - how doe that work ?
Quote from: IanN on August 13, 2019, 07:31:16 PM
Look sensible - however some concern over 'all chariots can evade' .... what even those Mycenaean chappie with long spear (as cavalry with long spear can't) and more worrying .. Assyrian/Babylonian tanks which should struggle with anything straight ahead. Am assuming the characteristics will determine this ?
It isn't all chariots can evade. Its:
Quote
They can therefore evade as cavalry (if allowed to by other rules - so if hey have missile weapons and no Scythed Chariots cannot evade!
Si amended what he posted to catch that one after RJC pointed it out 8)
Quote from: IanN on August 13, 2019, 07:35:08 PM
Like the Kiel solution - Pikes in 12's. Ideal for Italian Wars etc. Saves that occasion list with single pike block of 8 bases and mandatory kiel characteristic - how doe that work ?
If you flag any such it'll help catch them for sorting :)
Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 13, 2019, 07:52:30 PM
Quote from: IanN on August 13, 2019, 07:35:08 PM
Like the Kiel solution - Pikes in 12's. Ideal for Italian Wars etc. Saves that occasion list with single pike block of 8 bases and mandatory kiel characteristic - how doe that work ?
If you flag any such it'll help catch them for sorting :)
Just a quick thought but some of the Italian War TUGs are already very expensive and have very few TUGs in the army already. Will the charge to 12 bases make these armies unplayable as they will be so small. Could a 12 base TUG count as one and a half in both army and loss count?
Quote from: IanN on August 13, 2019, 07:31:16 PM
Look sensible - however some concern over 'all chariots can evade' .... what even those Mycenaean chappie with long spear (as cavalry with long spear can't) and more worrying .. Assyrian/Babylonian tanks which should struggle with anything straight ahead. Am assuming the characteristics will determine this ?
Yes I meant all can evade subject to other rules. Amended above.
S
Quote from: Rino on August 12, 2019, 10:35:01 PM
On uneven, it was use to give an edge to mounted on infantry.
What would be the options now for a changing lancer against long spear army going table wide?
Going through the woods?
Hard time for the lancers.
Simon, can you revert to us on this one?
Thx.
Quote from: Rino on August 14, 2019, 01:59:18 AM
Quote from: Rino on August 12, 2019, 10:35:01 PM
On uneven, it was use to give an edge to mounted on infantry.
What would be the options now for a changing lancer against long spear army going table wide?
Going through the woods?
Hard time for the lancers.
Simon, can you revert to us on this one?
Thx.
Well you are are right there is nowhere to "hide" now but that will encourage results. Most people didn't like uneven so have bowed to the big majority (even though in the minority myself on this one).
FWIW my plan in such a match up would be to put down a mix of rough going and deep hills. Plan as follows:
- Hills with the +1 even things up nicely with Superior CL. You then have a good chance with a break off. Hills need to be enough to allow you to break off 2BW and charge in again.
Ride some lancers through the rough if not covered. You can fight in it perfectly well as the spears lose their factors and the cat keep Sup and M Expert.
Use mobility to fight on a narrow frontage only with a second wave of charges.
And we don't see many hoplite armies so maybe this will encourage a few.
Si
Tweaks. Roman legionnaires. Still not many get used. Why not make them close order, with the option of flex foot as the Auxilia tended to do the donkey work. Would make them a little cheaper and more likely to be used.
Why no Unprotected in charge combat phase ?
Lots of lists appear to have few cumpulsory troop types, thus making historically unsuccessful armies somewhat unrealistically successful on the table
No uneven cavalry friendly terrain :( Purchased several bits of it from Magister Militum at Britcon on sunday circa £160 !!!! Why is it being removed?
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 14, 2019, 07:31:10 AM
Well you are are right there is nowhere to "hide" now but that will encourage results.
Indeed. It isn't as if long spears, pikes, etc. were going into Uneven as that was suicide, in those matchups it just encouraged stand offs :-[
You also get the crazy situation where Mounted can count long spear but foot can not.
Not really crazy - foot LSp is a mass effect weapon that relies on cohesion whereas mounted LSp is an individualistic weapon (the "fencing lancers" of an old DBM list).
I think the new prompting through fire is too harsh. Had anyone actually play tested this?
Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 14, 2019, 09:34:18 AM
Not really crazy - foot LSp is a mass effect weapon that relies on cohesion whereas mounted LSp is an individualistic weapon (the "fencing lancers" of an old DBM list).
Look at another way, foot cannot get an advantage in magic terrain. Flexible foot in particular lose both ways in that if in close they are disadvantaged by terrain and if in loose counts as loose foot in the open against mounted. What exactly does this terrain look like that it creates these strange effects?
Do we have any examples historically of mounted going into a patch of openish terrain and flicking V signs at foot who have no answer to a large body of horse in a piece of ground that is only marginally worse than a billiard table?
I like the changes. Particularly the new prompt through fire. Hopefully horse archers now actually have chance to slow mounted and get extra shots in.
Removal of magic cav friendly uneven terrain a positive. A compremise could be only affects close so loose foot are not disadvantage Vs mounted?
The keils at 12s fits nicely with ReG allowing cross over of armies, but you do need them to count 2 tugs so break points can get to a reasonable level.
Quote from: rayfredjohn on August 14, 2019, 10:15:42 AM
I think the new prompting through fire is too harsh. Had anyone actually play tested this?
Give it a go Ray. Felt good to me in may two test games.
Need to make sure you don't charge from max range which is good.
Gave HA a little bit more time and space to work with.
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 12, 2019, 04:49:32 PM
PBS
2. Professional armies get 7/6/5/4 for AC grade, Instinctive 5/4/3/2 with scouting included as today. No benefit for Subs. Simpler and more balanced advantage for Professionals. Points adjusted up 100 for instinctive generals as Pro one lose their boost for PBS.
This seems like a rough deal for Instinctive Generals: You get fewer PBS cards and your army loses 400 points.
If you are removing an ability from Professional Generals why not make them cheaper rather than Instinctive Generals more expensive.
That might also help address the "smallness" of high quality armies.
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 14, 2019, 12:35:34 PM
Quote from: rayfredjohn on August 14, 2019, 10:15:42 AM
I think the new prompting through fire is too harsh. Had anyone actually play tested this?
Give it a go Ray. Felt good to me in may two test games.
Need to make sure you don't charge from max range which is good.
Gave HA a little bit more time and space to work with.
I feel a disturbance in the force. In isolation I would predict that this will unbalance the game too much. However, the elimination of "cav tastic" terrain might bring order to the universe.
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 14, 2019, 12:35:34 PM
Quote from: rayfredjohn on August 14, 2019, 10:15:42 AM
I think the new prompting through fire is too harsh. Had anyone actually play tested this?
Give it a go Ray. Felt good to me in may two test games.
Need to make sure you don't charge from max range which is good.
Gave HA a little bit more time and space to work with.
Currently it is pretty simple to prompt through fire, I'd suggest almost trivial to anyone who applies a little thought - the change will bring it a bit more into play and should, IMO, provide the little extra balance needed in Crusader:Muslim battles which is missing at present (due to speed increase of knights in 2019).
Quote from: steads on August 14, 2019, 12:54:08 PM
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 12, 2019, 04:49:32 PM
PBS
2. Professional armies get 7/6/5/4 for AC grade, Instinctive 5/4/3/2 with scouting included as today. No benefit for Subs. Simpler and more balanced advantage for Professionals. Points adjusted up 100 for instinctive generals as Pro one lose their boost for PBS.
This seems like a rough deal for Instinctive Generals: You get fewer PBS cards and your army loses 400 points.
If you are removing an ability from Professional Generals why not make them cheaper rather than Instinctive Generals more expensive.
Might also help address the "smallness" of high quality armies.
Initially making Professional cheaper was the idea, however, on reflection the idea that making Instinctive a little more expensive was preferable partly to try and mitigate against the very common 2 x Talented, 2 x Competent seen in large instinctive led armies - also being mindful that large armies are seen my some as an issue.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 14, 2019, 01:14:27 PM
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 14, 2019, 12:35:34 PM
Quote from: rayfredjohn on August 14, 2019, 10:15:42 AM
I think the new prompting through fire is too harsh. Had anyone actually play tested this?
Give it a go Ray. Felt good to me in may two test games.
Need to make sure you don't charge from max range which is good.
Gave HA a little bit more time and space to work with.
Currently it is pretty simple to prompt through fire, I'd suggest almost trivial to anyone who applies a little thought - the change will bring it a bit more into play and should, IMO, provide the little extra balance needed in Crusader:Muslim battles which is missing at present (due to speed increase of knights in 2019).
Is using a change to a universal rule the way to solve the problem that knights move as quickly as horse archers? Hmmmm, probably not.
That is just a particularly pertinent example and not the root cause reason.
I'd add, for example, that my games this weekend with Eddy IV show that prompting through fire is just a bit too easy at present - the only cases where a prompt through fire could not be made when a player wanted were when the general was not in range; I'd suggest that as cards were not the issue it supports the idea that it is too easy.
Well with this and horse archers becoming cheaper, I'm sure we will see more shooty, horsey types.
Might change this trend towards big stodgy foot armies. Who knows.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 14, 2019, 01:40:38 PM
That is just a particularly pertinent example and not the root cause reason.
I'd add, for example, that my games this weekend with Eddy IV show that prompting through fire is just a bit too easy at present - the only cases where a prompt through fire could not be made when a player wanted were when the general was not in range; I'd suggest that as cards were not the issue it supports the idea that it is too easy.
I agree that prompting through fire is just too easy at present.
Quote from: nigelemsen on August 14, 2019, 12:26:43 PM
The keils at 12s fits nicely with ReG allowing cross over of armies, but you do need them to count 2 tugs so break points can get to a reasonable level.
Totally agree - and some armies using such units from being too small.
Most of these occur in Italian Wars or similar times. Only 8 bases TUGs with compulsary kiel - same period : eg Trastamara Spanish
Quote from: steads on August 14, 2019, 12:54:08 PM
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 12, 2019, 04:49:32 PM
PBS
2. Professional armies get 7/6/5/4 for AC grade, Instinctive 5/4/3/2 with scouting included as today. No benefit for Subs. Simpler and more balanced advantage for Professionals. Points adjusted up 100 for instinctive generals as Pro one lose their boost for PBS.
This seems like a rough deal for Instinctive Generals: You get fewer PBS cards and your army loses 400 points.
If you are removing an ability from Professional Generals why not make them cheaper rather than Instinctive Generals more expensive.
That might also help address the "smallness" of high quality armies.
Its a net + for Instinctive vs. 2019. There is +2 in total to those numbers I forgot to add in. Now if scouting is average you get 6 with a Talented Instinctive vs 8 for a Talented professional when it was nine.
We could do either on the points but felt instinctive up a bit would create more variety of choices for those armies.
Quote from: rayfredjohn on August 14, 2019, 01:33:06 PM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 14, 2019, 01:14:27 PM
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 14, 2019, 12:35:34 PM
Quote from: rayfredjohn on August 14, 2019, 10:15:42 AM
I think the new prompting through fire is too harsh. Had anyone actually play tested this?
Give it a go Ray. Felt good to me in may two test games.
Need to make sure you don't charge from max range which is good.
Gave HA a little bit more time and space to work with.
Currently it is pretty simple to prompt through fire, I'd suggest almost trivial to anyone who applies a little thought - the change will bring it a bit more into play and should, IMO, provide the little extra balance needed in Crusader:Muslim battles which is missing at present (due to speed increase of knights in 2019).
Is using a change to a universal rule the way to solve the problem that knights move as quickly as horse archers? Hmmmm, probably not.
That is a side effect. The reason is that all missile fire hasn't quite yet reached its required effect in slowing. So what it will do is give mass bow armies a chance and nudge HA armies a bit more into the mainstream.
Quote from: IanN on August 14, 2019, 03:34:51 PM
Quote from: nigelemsen on August 14, 2019, 12:26:43 PM
The keils at 12s fits nicely with ReG allowing cross over of armies, but you do need them to count 2 tugs so break points can get to a reasonable level.
Totally agree - and some armies using such units from being too small.
Most of these occur in Italian Wars or similar times. Only 8 bases TUGs with compulsary kiel - same period : eg Trastamara Spanish
I suspect the plan is to allow a single 12 base Keil in these armies or 8s without Keil.
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 14, 2019, 07:31:10 AM
Quote from: Rino on August 14, 2019, 01:59:18 AM
Quote from: Rino on August 12, 2019, 10:35:01 PM
On uneven, it was use to give an edge to mounted on infantry.
What would be the options now for a changing lancer against long spear army going table wide?
Going through the woods?
Hard time for the lancers.
Simon, can you revert to us on this one?
Thx.
Well you are are right there is nowhere to "hide" now but that will encourage results. Most people didn't like uneven so have bowed to the big majority (even though in the minority myself on this one).
FWIW my plan in such a match up would be to put down a mix of rough going and deep hills. Plan as follows:
- Hills with the +1 even things up nicely with Superior CL. You then have a good chance with a break off. Hills need to be enough to allow you to break off 2BW and charge in again.
Ride some lancers through the rough if not covered. You can fight in it perfectly well as the spears lose their factors and the cat keep Sup and M Expert.
Use mobility to fight on a narrow frontage only with a second wave of charges.
And we don't see many hoplite armies so maybe this will encourage a few.
Si
Thx for the feedback.
Should the one fearing lancers having most say then they could have been contented by setting simply a limitation to the number of uneven that could be placed on the table (a kind of FOG approach)
As it is now it create the following
1- the defender in plain could take a open open so no terrain at all
2- infantry long spear army have no element where they fear the lancers. In open they are happy, if rough or difficult they have the same factor as the cav lancer...
3- the only good is that the open open prevent ending up with overloaded table. But last time I saw it it was a Persian that saturated the table against a galate...
There are no reason for the lancers to be suicidal, finishing the game and winning will take the full 3h.
The same effect could have been achieved with only adding open open and without canceling uneven.
I'd suggest that an army that may face such a situation should perhaps have a plan for if/when it could happen - including making some army composition choices as a contingency. Like your example of a Galatian faced by Persian in lots of terrain (where I note Open Spaces would assist the Galatian) - they need a plan to deal with it.
I think you are presenting an unusual case - massive long spear army in a plain (how many such armies have Plains?) - as a likely scenario when I would suggest it isn't.
Quote1.Retain the line as today as it is simple, but add a second condition that there must be a 1BWx1BW empty space on the flank to be charged.
Can you be more specific about the "empty space" . Where should it be or is it a 1 BW distance minimum between the charging unit and the target ?
Uneven terrain : why not add a terrain . An open terrain where nothing may go . So the cavalry commander may choose some open terrain to avoid too many uneven terrain . It could be done by just having as first terrain in the list a n open/Uneven terrai option . Just my 2 cents ...
I wonder what would be the terrain limitations to open open.
Applicable to jungle ?
IMO open open anywhere ...
Quote from: badhabum on August 15, 2019, 02:23:30 PM
IMO open open anywhere ...
Then an clear advantage to close order troops
Uneven is a clear advantage to cavalry armies ...so what ...
Why are bit armies seen as an issue? To take such an army you have given up on taking anything good. Plus you get to get enough models on the board so it actually looks like a battle and not a big skirmish game
Are we try to move the game to standard number of units so it becomes more rock/stone/etc?
Presumably any rule changes will be on printable A4 pdf sheets so we can replace existing sheets which have already been paid for.
Quote from: rayfredjohn on August 14, 2019, 02:56:03 PM
Well with this and horse archers becoming cheaper, I'm sure we will see more shooty, horsey types.
Might change this trend towards big stodgy foot armies. Who knows.
Is part of the intent to get the army balance spot on. Make it still hard to use a HA army but a bit more viable for the average player vs a wall of Gauls.
S
Rino
Most welcome. I can see you like Uneven as I did. But it seems 9/10 players don't so we need to adjust to grow the game. Personally I don't have an issue with Lancers. You won't face a wall of hoplites often and it would be good to encourage the latter. Anytime you take a one dimensional army it has a nemesis and you then need to be smart in how you respond to being the underdog.
If you are on a totally open table with all CL vs all LSp then either risk a Flank March - will cause utter mayhem if it arrives. Or go three tugs deepen one place and force a breakthrough at a price and then exploit the gap. Put rough down instead of uneven and you have the same blocking effect in that terrain.
So not as bad as you fear.
S
Quote from: badhabum on August 15, 2019, 12:04:50 PM
Quote1.Retain the line as today as it is simple, but add a second condition that there must be a 1BWx1BW empty space on the flank to be charged.
Can you be more specific about the "empty space" . Where should it be or is it a 1 BW distance minimum between the charging unit and the target ?
Uneven terrain : why not add a terrain . An open terrain where nothing may go . So the cavalry commander may choose some open terrain to avoid too many uneven terrain . It could be done by just having as first terrain in the list a n open/Uneven terrai option . Just my 2 cents ...
I'll fix it with diagram soon. But the detailed version will be: "able to place a 1 BW square base aligned to the flank being contacted facing away from the charger such that it doesn't touch any enemy". So essentially if you have friend 1BW or less from the far point of the contacted friend you protect the flank.
Hope that makes sense. Easier with a biccie.
S
Quote from: nigelemsen on August 15, 2019, 07:16:56 PM
Why are bit armies seen as an issue? To take such an army you have given up on taking anything good. Plus you get to get enough models on the board so it actually looks like a battle and not a big skirmish game
Are we try to move the game to standard number of units so it becomes more rock/stone/etc?
They are not an issue at all. I prefer them.
It is just to give choice with the same game so we can draw in those who like small armies to the bright side ... ;)
US will do lot of Pacto comps as people travel a lot by air so carrying a small army is easy.
Magna is mainly to allow 28mm on a 6x4.
Widens our market place of potential Mortem et Gloriam players by x3 I suspect when you think about newbies and the players liking smaller number of figures.
What is great is that its a smaller army but NOT a smaller game. The whole system still works in all three sizes. I hope therefore that we will find many people wanting to try the game.
As for me ... I'll be fielding full armies in Maximus comps unless demoing Pacto. And playing Magna down here as they like their 28mm.
Si
Si
Quote from: Robin on August 16, 2019, 08:14:21 AM
Presumably any rule changes will be on printable A4 pdf sheets so we can replace existing sheets which have already been paid for.
Free printed exchange as usual if you don't fancy the new book. But I'm sure you will.
S
Quote from: badhabum on August 15, 2019, 02:23:30 PM
IMO open open anywhere ...
Indeed KISS everywhere we can
The changes to prompting through fire - this seems to be aimed at knight Vs horse archers (which I think is a bit of a problem now) but won't this also make foot even worse against horse archers ( hello FoG).
Quote from: craig.w on August 18, 2019, 04:49:17 PM
The changes to prompting through fire - this seems to be aimed at knight Vs horse archers (which I think is a bit of a problem now) but won't this also make foot even worse against horse archers ( hello FoG).
This was my feedback
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 14, 2019, 04:10:33 PM
Quote from: rayfredjohn on August 14, 2019, 01:33:06 PM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 14, 2019, 01:14:27 PM
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 14, 2019, 12:35:34 PM
Quote from: rayfredjohn on August 14, 2019, 10:15:42 AM
I think the new prompting through fire is too harsh. Had anyone actually play tested this?
Give it a go Ray. Felt good to me in may two test games.
Need to make sure you don't charge from max range which is good.
Gave HA a little bit more time and space to work with.
Currently it is pretty simple to prompt through fire, I'd suggest almost trivial to anyone who applies a little thought - the change will bring it a bit more into play and should, IMO, provide the little extra balance needed in Crusader:Muslim battles which is missing at present (due to speed increase of knights in 2019).
Is using a change to a universal rule the way to solve the problem that knights move as quickly as horse archers? Hmmmm, probably not.
That is a side effect. The reason is that all missile fire hasn't quite yet reached its required effect in slowing. So what it will do is give mass bow armies a chance and nudge HA armies a bit more into the mainstream.
And nudge barbarian foot armies even further out of the mainstream? ;) No one uses them now, making them worse is unlikely to change it. Maybe knights should move 4, as they used to? Problem solved!! :D
Quote from: rayfredjohn on August 18, 2019, 05:15:27 PM
Quote from: craig.w on August 18, 2019, 04:49:17 PM
The changes to prompting through fire - this seems to be aimed at knight Vs horse archers (which I think is a bit of a problem now) but won't this also make foot even worse against horse archers ( hello FoG).
This was my feedback
Ah, yes, I see now. Great minds think alike!
Quite a few tribal armies at a Britcon. I got mine through massed bow fire quite easily.
Quote from: marshalney2000 on August 18, 2019, 07:42:22 PM
Quite a few tribal armies at a Britcon. I got mine through massed bow fire quite easily.
into horse archers?
I beat one horse archer army 15 to zero from memory and Timurids 9 to 2. Getting massed foot through massed archery is too easy in my book.
I use barbarian foot a fair bit and I think it is fair to say that shooting armies (whether foot or mounted) are the least of their problems.
Martin
That is one universal issus which is what the slowing and a bit of points reduction is for.
WIll ease.
Still easier to play the foot. But more chance for the HA with a decent player.
rather than just and expert.
S
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 19, 2019, 08:47:30 AM
That is one universal issus which is what the slowing and a bit of points reduction is for.
WIll ease.
Still easier to play the foot. But more chance for the HA with a decent player.
rather than just and expert.
S
Sounds about right. Looking forward to getting my horse archer armies out again rather than large foot armies.
There was talk as well of dropping the minus one for cavalry fighting after shooting in. An evade. I presume this has been dropped.
Quote from: marshalney2000 on August 19, 2019, 09:59:42 AM
There was talk as well of dropping the minus one for cavalry fighting after shooting in. An evade. I presume this has been dropped.
Si squashed that idea in the chariots topic ;D
Quote from: marshalney2000 on August 18, 2019, 07:42:22 PM
Quite a few tribal armies at a Britcon. I got mine through massed bow fire quite easily.
But what kind of tribal foot? The fact that two feudal Germans and one Frisian army were used seems to indicate that there was some 'gimmick' in those armies.
Loose long spear and close Viking types - both are in mixed units with better troops to the front, in the case of the Viking types Superior. Gives you a nice open table block and a good terrain capability.
Quote from: craig.w on August 19, 2019, 05:02:41 PM
Quote from: marshalney2000 on August 18, 2019, 07:42:22 PM
Quite a few tribal armies at a Britcon. I got mine through massed bow fire quite easily.
But what kind of tribal foot? The fact that two feudal Germans and one Frisian army were used seems to indicate that there was some 'gimmick' in those armies.
Well one of the armies had two allies that never historically fought together. At the moment. You can take minimal amount of main army troop types and fill out with goodies from other lists. And let's not forget the Frisians almost conquered the world LOL. Roman's, Byzantines and Norman's were historically rubbish !! Right ::) ;)
It's a bit Flames of War v4. Cherry picking. Needs sorting.
Quote from: Robin on August 19, 2019, 06:38:40 PM
Well one of the armies had two allies that never historically fought together.
Are you sure of that?
Been looking. Same area, but fight together ummm cant find it !!!!
Quote from: Robin on August 19, 2019, 08:32:21 PM
Been looking. Same area, but fight together ummm cant find it !!!!
Cheers. I genuinely didn't know and was wondering. Suspected it was the case as multiple foreign allies are the exception IMO ;D
Quote from: Robin on August 19, 2019, 08:32:21 PM
Been looking. Same area, but fight together ummm cant find it !!!!
Well they fought together in quite a few armies at Britcon and at Skulls so historical precedent has been set.😂😂😂
Quote from: Robin on August 19, 2019, 06:38:40 PM
Well one of the armies had two allies that never historically fought together. At the moment. You can take minimal amount of main army troop types and fill out with goodies from other lists. And let's not forget the Frisians almost conquered the world LOL. Roman's, Byzantines and Norman's were historically rubbish !! Right ::) ;)
It's a bit Flames of War v4. Cherry picking. Needs sorting.
You aren't quite specific -do you mean the Viking and Dithmarschen allies shouldn't be together? I had a quick look and there were loads of occasions where Dithmarschen forces were linked with Germans (Battle of Bornhoved - then later on loosely ruled by the Archbishop of Bremen and still later allied to the Hanseatic city of Lubeck). The bit I'm not sure about is where the Vikings come in. I suppose they represent Danish forces - but those two were generally on opposite sides (eg Bornhoved) so the list probably needs a note that you can't take them together - or more radically drop the Viking ally totally (I didn't look for the evidence there). But this is just a list tweak issue isn't it?
PS Don't underestimate the Dithmarshen - they kept on winning against far superior opposition (in numbers and equipment) - think a courageous effective peasant army like the Swiss but just a bit less famous
Just had a look at the lists and the other ally is indeed Early Medieval Danish (who just look very like Vikings). Just to emphasise again that those two were mostly enemies (the Dithmarshen and the Danes)
Quote from: daveparish on August 20, 2019, 10:03:54 AM
Quote from: Robin on August 19, 2019, 06:38:40 PM
Well one of the armies had two allies that never historically fought together. At the moment. You can take minimal amount of main army troop types and fill out with goodies from other lists. And let's not forget the Frisians almost conquered the world LOL. Roman's, Byzantines and Norman's were historically rubbish !! Right ::) ;)
It's a bit Flames of War v4. Cherry picking. Needs sorting.
You aren't quite specific -do you mean the Viking and Dithmarschen allies shouldn't be together? I had a quick look and there were loads of occasions where Dithmarschen forces were linked with Germans (Battle of Bornhoved - then later on loosely ruled by the Archbishop of Bremen and still later allied to the Hanseatic city of Lubeck). The bit I'm not sure about is where the Vikings come in. I suppose they represent Danish forces - but those two were generally on opposite sides (eg Bornhoved) so the list probably needs a note that you can't take them together - or more radically drop the Viking ally totally (I didn't look for the evidence there). But this is just a list tweak issue isn't it?
PS Don't underestimate the Dithmarshen - they kept on winning against far superior opposition (in numbers and equipment) - think a courageous effective peasant army like the Swiss but just a bit less famous
Yup, the "Vikings" are Early Medieval Danish.
It is a list issue. However, it would be, IMO, no bad thing to tighten up across all the list books on when foreign allies can be used together as I think it was fairly unusual.
Its interesting on the Dithmarshen (or possibly Frisian) / Danish thing that only the Germans with internal Frisian (or possibly Dithmarshen) troops can have Danish allies.
I would have thought it more represented different proto German states in a combined army
Feudal Germans fighting alongside Danes in the crusade against the Wends https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendish_Crusade
The archbishopric of Bremen includes Dithmarschen (at least on the maps I can find of the HRE in 1150ish)
Firstly let me say I think the triple alliance between the Danes, Frisians and Feudal Germans is a bit cheesy. Having said that nothing is more likely than the sun rising in the morning than that when an army does well and is popular questions begin to get asked. I am sure there are loads of other examples out there where allied combos are dubious or happened only once.
Must admit, one of my pet hates is when troops are downgraded in shooting ability and/or morale to save points and provide filler for the rest of the army which is normally of high morale and weapon skills at a level of par excellence only matched by the Old Guard. Then these units are then secreted away from harm. I saw this at Britcon and in other competitions. For once, why cannot the better troops be downgraded.
Quote from: marshalney2000 on August 20, 2019, 05:11:58 PM
Firstly let me say I think the triple alliance between the Danes, Frisians and Feudal Germans is a bit cheesy. Having said that nothing is more likely than the sun rising in the morning than that when an army does well and is popular questions begin to get asked. I am sure there are loads of other examples out there where allied combos are dubious or happened only once.
Loads I suspect.
As list review is underway I can assure you that no army is being targeted by the list team due to successful performances - not that I expect anyone to believe me on that if they find a change they don't like to one of their lists :o
Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 20, 2019, 05:43:53 PM
Quote from: marshalney2000 on August 20, 2019, 05:11:58 PM
Firstly let me say I think the triple alliance between the Danes, Frisians and Feudal Germans is a bit cheesy. Having said that nothing is more likely than the sun rising in the morning than that when an army does well and is popular questions begin to get asked. I am sure there are loads of other examples out there where allied combos are dubious or happened only once.
Loads I suspect.
As list review is underway I can assure you that no army is being targeted by the list team due to successful performances - not that I expect anyone to believe me on that if they find a change they don't like to one of their lists :o
Ok Nik. I was not being totally serious and indeed I have done this myself. From my point of view, average long spear cavalry are still far to cheap and have added terrain and other weapon cancellation bonuses which make them great value. Please do not change too soon though as I may use at Derby.
On allies I think our consensus is that a single ally may be used only unless the list specifies otherwise.
S
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 20, 2019, 09:50:18 PM
On allies I think our consensus is that a single ally may be used only unless the list specifies otherwise.
S
For clarity this needs to be spelled out in each list I.e. only one allied contingent is allowed (unless the opposite applies.
You have to write it only at the beginning of each BOOK not list !
Given how frequently players seem blissfully unaware of the sections on general rules for lists, allies, etc. it'd be better to say in each list if allies can be used together :P
Oh, that section...
Wondered what that was for. ;)
Quote from: mad lemmey on August 21, 2019, 10:25:21 AM
Oh, that section...
Wondered what that was for. ;)
QED Nik!!
I would just adjust the section on allies at the front of each pdf. Otherwise it would take ages for somebody to change every list.
Quote from: rayfredjohn on August 18, 2019, 05:15:27 PM
Quote from: craig.w on August 18, 2019, 04:49:17 PM
The changes to prompting through fire - this seems to be aimed at knight Vs horse archers (which I think is a bit of a problem now) but won't this also make foot even worse against horse archers ( hello FoG).
This was my feedback
The Issue with FoG was the speed being so slow and the car so manouvrable. I have never felt HA could handle big foot armies in Mortem et Gloriam as they just can't cause casualties fast enough. Might have a chance now. The ey will be how well the foot general manages their cards to prompt through fire.
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 12, 2019, 04:49:32 PM
PBS
1. First card/disc is played to see who chooses which of the defenders territory type is to be used. So you can play a RED to try to get this. Represents invader picking which bit to attack.
2. Professional armies get 7/6/5/4 for AC grade, Instinctive 5/4/3/2 with scouting included as today. No benefit for Subs. Simpler and more balanced advantage for Professionals. Points adjusted up 100 for instinctive generals as Pro one slose their boost for PBS.
1. what if both play red? will people not try to always play red? it will advantage the pro-gen a lot as he has more cards
2. i do not see why pro gets worse off to justify instinctive's points to go up
Quote from: Jilu on August 30, 2019, 04:38:19 AM
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 12, 2019, 04:49:32 PM
PBS
1. First card/disc is played to see who chooses which of the defenders territory type is to be used. So you can play a RED to try to get this. Represents invader picking which bit to attack.
2. Professional armies get 7/6/5/4 for AC grade, Instinctive 5/4/3/2 with scouting included as today. No benefit for Subs. Simpler and more balanced advantage for Professionals. Points adjusted up 100 for instinctive generals as Pro one slose their boost for PBS.
1. what if both play red? will people not try to always play red? it will advantage the pro-gen a lot as he has more cards
I believe that in the case of a draw Defender will choose.
Quote2. i do not see why pro gets worse off to justify instinctive's points to go up
Logic goes something like - as professional generals loose the PBS boost the points difference between Professional and Instinctive should be narrower, also it was felt that Insinctive generals were a bit too cheap currently so to tackle both of these Instinctive generals go up 100 points.
The professional have advantages both for PBS and during the whole game as the cic can give cards all around.
On another topic I hope décision to be taken soon on all pending subject (rule / list / budget as all 3 are being discussed)
Our club reopen tonight, the general feeling so far is that the rule is nice but utterly unstable.
Right now it is extremely complicate to form new players to MEG as there are bit and pieces of the rule scattered all around.
We have 2 coming events in France, one in October and one in November both close to paris.
It will be the very moments when we will ever recruit or loose our player pool.
Sharing ideas is good but taking position and sticking to the direction is what is needed today.
Simon has stated his timetable for the 2020 update, after that all should be nice and stable.
Then let's hope the « market reality « wait for him...
Quote from: Rino on August 30, 2019, 09:30:27 AM
Then let's hope the « market reality « wait for him...
What do you mean? Are players leaving MeG ahead of the update?
We lost already 3 players at our club over the last months and 2 more are balancing as every time they play the rules are different...
Many of the FOG players that were prime targets at the launch of MEG have been lost trough the years as they also grew tired of beta testing.
Interesting. And a real shame if true.
We haven't had the same feeling in the UK so much.
Perhaps it is the language.
Or perhaps there is less change language used in the UK.
It's not been beta-testing. That is very very much more variable than this.
I wouldn't feel at all comfortable hearing the Mortem et Gloriam optimisation process described that way.
It is something we all need to stop if it happens.
Even the grand total changes from launch is a pretty short list. Most of the rest is clarries.
Its actually a shorter list than the amendment sheet for many rules.
No set of rule has EVER been OPTIMISED in such a short time.
FoG never has been. ADLG not. DBM not.
The other question is that it was deliberately written in an easier style to avoid heavy language with then detailed calories on the website.
Perhaps this is not such a good idea.
Anyway once it is published in book form it is static.
This will be early part of next year as a book.
Final tweaks will be out in December.
Would like to understand all this better please.
S
As a general guide when asked about this I find the best answer is this:
The big plus is that Simon and the team listen and tweak rules and points to respond to players ideas and issues.
As a result it has really optimised the game and points making it the most characterful and well balanced ancients game ever.
The tweaks are all pretty minor and the core of the rules has been stable from the outset.
No other ruleset has been so responsive or so optimised.
So you basically have to decide whether to stick with the flaws in games or allow this to happen and enjoy the end result.
That said it was an exercise of faith to do this.
So am open to the idea that having it more rigid with flaws would have been better.
I just don't personally feel that way. Thoughts?
It does require ambassadors and players as well as me to market and respond this way rather than falling into the trap of seeing it as unstable or changing a lot.
DBMM and ADLG have lots of amendments. ADLG is 9 pages long. Tweaked twice in last 18 months. FoG 3 had a long correction list issued shortly after launch. DBM and DBMM had sizeable lists of tweaks. What am I doing wrong? It is of course a lot less work for me and the team to ignore all comments and not adapt anything.....
All thoughts welcome as now it's optimised as a game its time for a big push. About to invest substantially in doing so.
Si
Its easy to be positive about MEG - brought back my mojo for ancients and soon to do so for renaissance.
I chatted to some ADLG pals at Britcon and they didn't have any awareness of the MEG optimisation framework (they do now) but were sticking with ADLG because its what they know, they like it and lots of people play it.
I think the whole collegiate approach to MEG could be a really good way to break down those barriers.
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 30, 2019, 01:19:33 PM
That said it was an exercise of faith to do this.
So am open to the idea that having it more rigid with flaws would have been better.
I just don't personally feel that way. Thoughts?
Would have been a bad move IMO.
I don't intend to play the « bad French » nor to question the collaborative process, but just to share our reality in France.
As mentioned on a dramatic regularity by our friends from Belgium and ourselves we need stability and look forward for it with the next (and hopefully last) oncoming version.
Understood.
Ijust want to understand why it is seen as such a problem, as it surprises me given the modest levels of change.
Having just read other rules addendums there are lots of tweaks in them.
Arguably more than in Mortem et Gloriam since launch.
As you say, in any case the optimisation process is over I believe so not a big issue going forward.
It will take two things to grow a lot now.
A commercialised push from me ... more news soon.
And active promotion by players and countering of any false impressions.
I have remained a bit quiet in the first half of this year given a) injuries and b) lot of interesting discussions behind the scenes.
But all will burst into life in the next month or so.
Should give all fans of the system plenty to shout about.
Keep the faith ...
Si
Tell it, brother! Praise be! Hallelujah! ...oh, wait, you weren't ready yet? Sorry, I'll wait for the signal.
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 30, 2019, 01:14:03 PM
Interesting. And a real shame if true.
We haven't had the same feeling in the UK so much.
Perhaps it is the language.
Or perhaps there is less change language used in the UK.
It's not been beta-testing. That is very very much more variable than this.
I wouldn't feel at all comfortable hearing the Mortem et Gloriam optimisation process described that way.
It is something we all need to stop if it happens.
Even the grand total changes from launch is a pretty short list. Most of the rest is clarries.
Its actually a shorter list than the amendment sheet for many rules.
No set of rule has EVER been OPTIMISED in such a short time.
FoG never has been. ADLG not. DBM not.
The other question is that it was deliberately written in an easier style to avoid heavy language with then detailed calories on the website.
Perhaps this is not such a good idea.
Anyway once it is published in book form it is static.
This will be early part of next year as a book.
Final tweaks will be out in December.
Would like to understand all this better please.
S
I'm with the francophonie on this. The changes need to stop or you might end up with a committed core of UK players who play every week (it seems) and no-one else. We always seems to read that there are only a few 'minor changes' but take knights for example. Almost all move 5 now, therefore (in my opinion) making horse archer armies worse, as they get pushed off the table more easily. The few knights that are fully armoured horse are actually worse than the ones without armour. Similarly, a lot of horse archer armies were depowered by removing cantabrian from half of them. Now it seems that to counteract these changes and bump horse archers the rules for prompting through fire are going to be changed. Maybe it would have been better to keep knights moving 4 and not to chop all the cantabrian out? It's like a dog chasing its tail with the rules changes. One change causes another, which causes another. Now chariots are changing after 3 years. What happens if that change turns out to be a bad one and battle chariots are made worse? Will the rules change again, will point costs need to be changed? This all just in time for the supposedly 'final edition'. Uneven terrain has gone, how will that change cavalry armies? Worse off, surely, but how much worse off won't be known for a while - so then should we expect more changes?
To be honest, I don't really believe this will be the 'final edition', mainly because there are some changes going ahead that I think will have as yet unknown effects on how armies play. There is a lot bigger figure commitment in MeG than ADLG, if rule or list changes nerf lists (what will keil changes do for example?) then that is a lot of time and money wasted. Take Hephtalite or Gokturks, they are a couple of the unlucky nomad lists with unarmoured nobles. Just seems like a list change for no real reason apart from making them different (and rubbish). Unfortunately I was going to use Hephtalite and one of the players in our group was building a Gokturk list. RJC may say that they are ok, but sorry, when your best troops are only half protected, and your historical opponents are all protected shooters, it's not much fun. I have a whole truckload of 15th century Swiss and Italian troops in the painting queue, I'm wondering what changes to expect in the future.
'Perception is reality', as they say. If players perceive that the rules are 'beta testing' then they are, regardless of the intent of the author. I love MeG, it got me buying figures when I haven't had any desire to buy any for years. But I'm not sure I want to buy too many more in the next year or two, because sure as eggs RJC will change the lists I'm interested in, or a 'minor tweak' will come along that changes the way an army plays.
Just my 2c...
or maybe wait one year for V2.... and betatest more outside the tournaments
Thanks all.
I am, as ever, open to the feedback and counsel.
I see what you are saying in that what is a small change in the rules, actually feels a material change in the way some armies and games play.
So perception is reality as you say.
I want the rules to really blossom now so we don't want many changes going forward to anything.
It was a huge task to optimise things as we we have. And is a massive success.
We have the best balanced game and the best army feel ever and need to promote this.
I need to ponder a bit and decide what to do.
I am with the team in the UK next Sunday so we can discuss more thoroughly in person.
There is a real trade off now between tweaking to get things perfect as I see them or leaving them as they are.
Rule changes have largely fizzled out now.
The PBS tweak is just an improvement for variety. The reduction in prompting through fire something I considered last time and said I would do in two stages.
But neither are fixing something that is broken. Both are optimising something that isn't.
Perhaps the search for perfection is a step too far ....
I am going to create a separate post as a poll
IMPORTANT DECISIONS AND WANT TO GET THEM RIGHT WITH MINIMUM DISRUPTION TO CURRENT PLAYERS AND THEIR ABILITY TO GATHER NEW PLAYERS.
AS YOU SAY PERCEPTION IS REALITY.
Si
Please all see this important post from me.
A lot about to happen ... and listening as ever.
https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=722.0 (https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=722.0)
Si
Great weekend play testing the 2020 changes. Everything worked well. I was worried about prompting through fire but it only took a small mindset change.
Quote from: rayfredjohn on September 08, 2019, 04:58:51 PM
I was worried about prompting through fire but it only took a small mindset change.
Definitely falls into the refinement category and not a big change, but enough to balance things IMO.
I'd also add that no longer having Uneven affected my terrain choices - whilst, as it happens, to my disadvantage compared to the current position, it is better IMO.
I think they all played really well and its becuase they are allrather small changes anyway.
The chariots is a list change and much materials but I am now convinced it a net + for the period although always going to be a small net - if you liked it today for the "tanks".
Great team day and some good little bits came up that worked really nicely. Thanks all.
About to board.
S
About BREAK OFF: "2. Only Cv,Cm,Ch allowed to break off from equal speed opponents."
I wish you would retain the previous rule. It was the only way to re-fight historical battle like Chaeronia etc. That was a plus comparing with other rules.
Interesting.
Remind me about the details of Cheronae Kostas.
S
Was there any thought on changing flank marches to make them easier to arrive and when they arrive they are not blocked from coming on the table on the enemy half by enemy units not giving them enough room to arrive.
Has anyone used a flank march in a competition?
I have used them a lot.
But almost always with flexible cavalry.
Flank marches in MeG comps are really table extensions for the envelopment armies.
Done a chariot one once as well with Britons that worked a treat.
Compared to other rules it is:
- Much easier to flank march with flexible or skirmishers
About the same with cavalry
Much harder with others
Which is deliberate and feel right.
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on September 14, 2019, 10:21:06 AM
Interesting.
Remind me about the details of Cheronae Kostas.
S
Phillip used a strategem; he ordered his troops who were opposed Athenian to pretend a slow retreat. When there was a gap in the lines of the allies, he ordered his troops to stand and fight back.
See relative article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chaeronea_(338_BC)
Thanks Kostas
I see what you mean.
A bit hard to know if true or not and if so whether a break off or a fall back.
I would suspect more a fall back as a break off with a phalanx seems a recipe for a disaster.
Not averse to putting it back in though for rare occasions with KaB test on all.
S
This is indeed something I missed.
If no more break off for equal speed opponents , it means the impact weapon / devastating charger and so on value diminished drastically as you can't expect hitting your opponent that many time anymore.
Quote from: Rino on September 18, 2019, 01:14:09 PM
This is indeed something I missed.
If no more break off for equal speed opponents , it means the impact weapon / devastating charger and so on value diminished drastically as you can't expect hitting your opponent that many time anymore.
Is this a bad thing?
Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 18, 2019, 01:28:25 PM
Quote from: Rino on September 18, 2019, 01:14:09 PM
This is indeed something I missed.
If no more break off for equal speed opponents , it means the impact weapon / devastating charger and so on value diminished drastically as you can't expect hitting your opponent that many time anymore.
Is this a bad thing?
I reply by another question
The fact impact factors for infantry lose its weight in the game Is balanced into the new budget for 2020?
The question is not neutral as it has impact on the army played and on the additional mini to paint. Thx in advance for your enlightenment .
Well I'm happy with the draft points I've seen for 2020 - my Romans will not be complaining for example.
Good news then?
What abt the gallic ? They will be stuck to death once committed to combat.
Well as Tribal (i.e. most Gauls) cannot break off from equal speed opponents now I'd expect them to be exactly where they are now.
You have a point.
Maybe except the merx of Hannibal at Cannae
Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 18, 2019, 02:30:55 PM
Well as Tribal (i.e. most Gauls) cannot break off from equal speed opponents now I'd expect them to be exactly where they are now.
sorry but it was how I could imagine and represent successives waves of tribal assaults or roman manipular system , so two more categories of troops to the garbage :(
Punch "still no chance for a change of the thureophoroi?? ;) ;)"
I agree that hairy barbarian DC foot should not be well-trained enough to break off. I also agree that they are probably overpriced at today’s points. They ought to be cheap enough to field a second line, or at least overlap Romans or other foot armies by a lot, but are not. They are not maneuverable enough to avoid a straight up fight (unless played by a true wizard against an unskilled player) and they basically can’t win a straight-up fight. I don’t think the rules are to blame here. I think tribal DC foot are overpriced. Doesn’t bother me much as I don’t like playing them much, but there it is.
For example; I just pointed out a 10K Lowland Gallic list. I got 9 TuG’s of warriors (8’s) 2 of cav (6’s) and 3 units of foot skirmishers. The idea would be to run the foot 2 wide and 4 deep and just wear out the opposition. The problem is that you’re only 18 wide, and if you get an open flank your cavalry is not good enough to keep off the flankers. Oh, and if you decide you want to take poor leadership to maximize troops, too bad. The most 8-stand warriors you can have is 80, one more group than I used. This is why nobody runs
Hairy barbarians. They cost too much for what they do. IMHO. Look, as I said, I wouldn’t enjoy using the army if they WERE cheaper, it’s not a style I like. People who DO like them won’t use them, though.
Re the proposed changes to Flank Charges:
"Flank Charges fixed to remove the cheesy one
This is rthe occurs when you are just past the line but there is enemy support nearby so it feels wrong.
1.Retain the line as today as it is simple, but add a second condition that there must be a 1BWx1BW empty space on the flank to be charged."
Will you be able to make an intercept move which doesn't actually intercept the path of charge, but which comes into that 1BW x 1Bw empty space?
Would that nullify the flank charge? If so, what happens?
There are no planned changes to the intercept rule so you will still need to move into a position where the chargers will contact you, therefore the question is moot :)
And to preempt the obvious question I don't think the intercept rule should be changed to include the 1BWx1BW area.
Indeed on the flank march.
On the break off I think we will leave the infantry break off in for those using such armies that way - rare though they are.
S
break off vs equal speed opponent - drilled only
that would fix some of the percieved problems
hairy warband types cant anyway, its only really (good quality) legions and Almughavers, and occasionaly pointy stick types, who really want to do this.
most of them are drilled
FYI almugavar are most part of the time formed.
The gallic merx of Hannibal were also formed.
If there are KAB involved I don't see the point to restrict it.
Otherwise point système should be reviewed accordingly.
Simple
Romans at Pydna. We used this in my historical refight, as the Romans initially engaged the Pike, then broke off and retreated to the uneven ground. Then the Pike advanced into it.
Most Barbarian DC INF troops are crap. it will make them worse if they cannot break off.
Honestly, i think that barbarian armies are way to bad to be effective. Especially antiquity armies.
being mostly AV DC only makes them fragile,
if the aim is to make things fun....i am afraid it is not what is achieved.
They can't generally break off now.
I'd tend to agree that they are not currently a great option.
Seems a recurring theme in ancients wargaming. I don't think I can recall a system where charging warbands are a good option.
Martin
IRR A or B warbands in the 7th edition were fun.
I think warbands are under rated and undervalued.
the Galatians have feared warriors...and were gallic...
somehow they are better than all the others.
no AD warbands are any good in the antique era. not even the feared germans.
i agree...yes republican romans were good at beating warbands. but the difference in quality in meg makes the barbarians no match at all.
SUP IW ME close romans vs AV loose or close DC...the odd are far from even or fun.
even the barbarian supporting cav is ... well...weak..not much useful.
we do see very few barbarian armies in tournaments, perhaps some with chatiots, but mainly because they have lots of chatiots.
They are better than they were in MeG, thanks to the points reduction on devastating charger. I still find armies built around them a challenge to use. If you want to run an infantry horde you are much better off with cheap Longspears or something similar.
Martin
Quote from: martymagnificent on September 20, 2019, 12:36:47 AM
They can't generally break off now.
I'd tend to agree that they are not currently a great option.
Seems a recurring theme in ancients wargaming. I don't think I can recall a system where charging warbands are a good option.
Martin
I actually really like my Gauls and Britons.
Takes a certain bottle and a good army design.
They are getting a bit of points reduction, but am yet to work out my new versions.
S
I have enjoyed my Gauls. I have won more with them than lost. Putting the warbands in TuGs of 9 and running them three deep gives them staying power. Granted, I have not really played with them against Knights, etc.
It is a little frustrating that when I meet other barbarians they are almost all better then Gauls. Seems most have something in addition to DC, like Short Spear, or whatever.
Terrain Sizes
Has there been any discussion of just having one range of terrain size, instead of one for compulsory and one for optional? Not really sure that it has enough game effect for the pain that it is in creating, storing and transporting terrain pieces, especially t3D things like hills, etc.
Quote from: RobAustin on September 20, 2019, 03:42:32 PM
Terrain Sizes
Has there been any discussion of just having one range of terrain size, instead of one for compulsory and one for optional? Not really sure that it has enough game effect for the pain that it is in creating, storing and transporting terrain pieces, especially t3D things like hills, etc.
Well, it had some real impact on game, at least my personal experience of it.
Ask those who went in uneven when I was playing normans.
Who said I was still sour from my mourning of uneven?
well he was right!
Have a good weekend all of you!
Cheers
Quote from: RobAustin on September 20, 2019, 03:42:32 PM
Terrain Sizes
Has there been any discussion of just having one range of terrain size, instead of one for compulsory and one for optional? Not really sure that it has enough game effect for the pain that it is in creating, storing and transporting terrain pieces, especially t3D things like hills, etc.
Just make them all between 6x6 and 8x8 and they work for both ;D
That is what we mostly do. So why have a rule that people largely don't use?
We use it in our club and for the tournament.
Ask punch if he prefer big or small terrain when he put its early lybian army on the table.
Quote from: RobAustin on September 20, 2019, 05:35:14 PM
That is what we mostly do. So why have a rule that people largely don't use?
Must admit that it doesn't seem to add much if anything, I'd be perfectly OK with compulsory and optional having the same size range.
We made some check early on when we were young Spartans.
Depending if you want terrain or not the size matters.
Big terrain doesn't necessarily fit.
Small one could be considered as a second best if you want to make sure to keep it on the table.
Honestly I like it, but this is a personal thing. this is a subtle detail that make meg meg.
As Nil pointed one player can disregard it by taking std terrain (one fit all), no reason depriving the other player from toying with a truckload if terrain.
Well as long as it doesn't delay the (main) game.
Just allow from 4BW to 10BW for all. Then everyone can have everything they want.
Personally, I like the current system. I think the really large pieces should be limited to compulsories, otherwise you get too much clutter. Just my preference.
Quote from: AntiokosIII on September 20, 2019, 07:24:33 PM
Personally, I like the current system. I think the really large pieces should be limited to compulsories, otherwise you get too much clutter. Just my preference.
+1
Quote from: AntiokosIII on September 20, 2019, 07:24:33 PM
Personally, I like the current system. I think the really large pieces should be limited to compulsories, otherwise you get too much clutter. Just my preference.
+2
+3 and I get a lot of votes ;)