A friend & I just had a first game (Roman v Seleucid 190 BCE) using the proposed 2026 amendments which on the whole all seemed to improve the game.

One unexpected thing that came out of it was in respect of amendment 5.5 regarding the 'not downgrading overlaps' rule v Pike etc. We had a melee between some legionary TUGs and a couple of spear-armed Thureophoroi TUGs who were both deployedside-by-side four wide and two deep. As the melee progressed a couple of 'internal' gaps appeared in the Thureophoroi ranks where both the bases had been destroyed (as the Romans had the melee expert characteristic which negated the Spear combat claim when in one rank this happened quite quickly once a base had been lost). The new rule meant that these "internal" overlaps were super effective and resulted in the Thureophoroi being rapidly polished off.

As I understand it the idea of the not downgrading is to make players deploy pike blocks etc in wide blocks with guarded flanks which is all well and good but I wonder whether the above effect has been considered? This also occurred against the Seleucid pike phalanx, it just took a bit longer to manifest due to the extra depth of the pike-armed TUGs.

I thought I had but obviously I hadn't! All good now.

There is another possible problem with the Excel version. When selecting the 'Charge only' option in the shooting skill field the cost per base reduces to zero. All the other options appear to generate the correct cost per base.

Assuming you are referring to infantry units I would support such a change. I have found that long spears in units of four get swept away quickly by devastating chargers in Magna, this change would go some way towards countering that.

Alternatively, and preferably, in order not to have an artificial difference between units keep them in fours and allow infantry long spear units in Magna to keep their +1 combat bonus when only one rank deep. This can be justified by the assumption that individual bases in Magna represent more men than bases in Maximus so are in more ranks.

We have just played a Viking v Anglo-Saxon battle and a question came up as to when the Shieldwall characteristic is lost.

A Viking unit with Shove was fighting an Anglo-Saxon unit deployed two-deep which had the Shieldwall characteristic. A file of the Viking unit rolled a skull, destroying one of the bases of its opponent, leaving only one base left in the opposing file of the the originally two-deep Anglo-Saxon unit. So did the Anglo-Saxon unit still benefit from the Shieldwall characteristic as it was only one deep after the die rolls?

To us it seemed that the Shove shouldn't be cancelled as the Skull die-roll represented the Vikings breaking through the line and causing mayhem, but is that the intention of the rules?

Having considered the ruling there's just one point about the clarification I am still unsure of regarding MF1 moves that I'd like further clarification of please just so it's 100% clear.

Where, as in my original case, my opponent did an MF1 move to place a cataphract base opposite and in front to front edge contact with my left-hand Auxilia base that wouldn't otherwise have had an opposing file to fight are you now saying that there will not be a combat in the following charge phase between those two bases as they weren't in contact at the point in time the Auxilia charged or are you saying there will be but the cataphract will be subject to the flank penalty?

No problem, thank you.

Regarding my original post was any official conclusion/consensus reached on this question?

I would like a bit of clarification please on whether UGs which have the Shoot and charge characteristic (&/or UGs armed with missile weapons generally) are able to shoot at chargers in sub-phase 2.5 if they have countercharged or intercepted in sub-phase 2.4?

Section 5.J point 3 and Characteristics section Appendix 1.L Shoot and Charge point 4. both state that Shoot & charge cannot be used with a counter-charge or intercept due to hurried nature etc. But is that referring to prohibiting the UG from shooting when the countercharge/intercept itself is declared, such as would normally take place when a charge is declared by an UG with Shoot & charge, or additionally to later in the phase when shooting at enemy UGs that have declared charges, or both?

Point 6 of Appendix 1.L states that files of charge-only shooters only shoot when standing to receive a charge or charging, so perhaps are treated differently to other UGs with missile weapons (with Shoot & charge or otherwise) that countercharge or intercept but there doesn't appear to be a similar restriction with the Shoot and charge characteristic.

Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere.

Thanks for the clarification.

I don't blame my opponent as I was teaching him to play! Duh.

I just want to ask a question to get a bit of clarity on charging only shooting by a unit that is required to make a forced charge. e.g. one of the regraded warriors that now have charge only shooting and are within one base width of the enemy.

My opponent in a recent game to test out the new 2024 changes to barbarian warriors kindly pointed out that as I had three Gallic warrior TUGs within one base width of his infantry they had to force charge as they were charge only shooters and so not exempt from doing so and also because I hadn't announced the charge or held them in sub-phase 2.2 they would have to mark the charge in sub-phase 2.3 which meant they couldn't shoot either as that option is only listed in 2.2.

Now, it was entirely my fault for missing it so I could only blame myself but I thought I would post it here just to ask if this was the intention i.e. forced chargers marked in sub-phase 2.3 are not allowed to shoot prior to charging whereas forced chargers marked in 2.2 are.

I see that the option for separate SUGs of Leves has disappeared from the Camillan Roman list and they are now incorporated into Hastati bases, presumably on a similar basis to the option to incorporate handgunners into the front rank of medieval/Renaissance Swiss and similar pike blocks. An interesting idea, particularly as they have the Shoot and Charge characteristic.

1. The note in respect of Rorarii not exceeding the number of Leves is still at the foot of the list. Is this intentional or should it be removed? If intentional should it read 'Hastati with leves' bases rather than just Leves?

2. The Special Rule note underneath states that Hastati bases should be easily distinguished from Principes and Triarii. Should this be now changed to read 'Hastati and leves' bases? Presumably one way to do so on table would be to put one or two figures of Leves mixed in with the Hastati.

3. The Troop notes section on the previous page mentions that Leves formed a quarter of each legion, perhaps some mention of this new treatment should be made given that there are no longer any separate bases?

I'm afraid I'm not well versed enough in ancient history to be able to comment on which other troops may qualify.

The only thought that occurs to me is that to acquire such an exceptional skill worthy of qualifying I would assume (perhaps wrongly) that it would only be by constant drilling in the art of rapid bowfire, which would imply it should only be available to those troops that spent significant amounts of time doing so as a unit?

Interestingly those Sassanid Asavaran in the list with the characteristic are formed but not drilled which rather contradicts this, shouldn't such troops also be drilled?

I thought I would ask this question out of curiosity, and admittedly total ignorance of Sassanid Persia, but why is "Shower shooting" restricted to the Sassanid Persians?

Were they the only nation to ever develop what appears to be the best shooting technique in history, one which appears to have died out with their demise? I thought the English & Welsh longbowmen were pretty good at that sort of thing too for example, I'm sure they would have been most grateful for a technique that added additional slowing effects to foes charging towards them.

Thanks Richard

Actually. having looked more closely I can see that you have covered the point in a different place, below the line for the separately deployed triarii. I would be obliged if you could look into my second point though.

Incidentally you may wish to look at the Maximus Campanian list as triarii in that list may currently deploy in separate TUGs of 2 as well as 4. As there is no special exception to the 2-wide minimum for TUGs, as for example list 5414 Yorkist English, it means if the option for a TUG of 2 is taken they must deploy 2-wide and 1-deep which seems a bit odd. (Far better to give them the option of 4 and 6 as I'm suggesting for the Romans  ).