Just to stall. Sometimes it is advantageous to get the opponent to move something before you then you react to it.

Does that really count as a trick? The same principle applies during normal movement. If you still have things you want to do, passing is a risk you would presumably be taking to gain advantage by making the opponent do something first. If it doesn't work out, tough sh1t

In similar vein, declaring your forced charges can be useful in order to stall before you make a decision on one really critical charge.

Or am I missing something?

I am on the fence regarding whether an undeclared forced charge should also get to do charge & shoot. There is an argument that they should, for consistency. There may also be an argument that they are charging in a hastier, less organised and planned fashion, so do not take the opportunity to shoot.

The more historical inffo, the better IMO 

The downside of course being the effort required. Even if only a small number of lists is covered, that's a positive step.

Another potential downside is how big the additional blurb would be for e.g. Romans!

I spent a bit of time a few years back (as part of a campaign I was intending to put together) gathering all of the information I could find about the battles fought between Romans and Goths between the Danube crossing in 376 and Adrianople in 378. Including what is known about the forces involved and the commanders on both sides. That's quite a bit of information just for two years, and a limited geographic area!

It even more-or-less says so in the lists themselves!

(If you are being picky, it says "Feel free to vary troop classifications...", but not that quantities may be changed or that new troop types added. Perhaps the wording here could be made more explicitly permissive?)

I agree MeG is not simple - but I wouldn't call it over-complicated. If I wanted a simple ruleset there are plenty to choose from. I have tried a few and found them unsatisfying, and wouldn't choose to play them again.

There are definitely areas in the writing of the rules that could be improved. More attention could have been paid to making clear definitions of key game terminology. Proof-reading could have been better. But any rules not written in some sort of extremely formal language are going to suffer from some amount of inherent ambiguity.

Clarifications and errata are important to try to resolve mistakes or ambiguity, although clearly too clarifications/errata many become problematic in themself.

Rules as downloadable PDFs which can be modified more more quickly may help in this regard, but of course most of us have bought printed rulebooks and don't want to be replacing those too regularly!

I personally think shooting effectiveness is about right. I have a couple of minor quibbles, which to be fair are maybe just based on my expectations having been set by previous rulesets:
- shooting should in general be more effective against mounted than foot (except where the horses are armoured).
- skirmishers should not in general outshoot non-skirmishers of equal ability (which they do if both are unprotected, but they don't if both are protected).

I don't see a problem with the mass of common unprotected foot archers being ineffective in combat, as I am not aware of historical sources suggesting such troops were particularly effective if their shooting failed to prevent a better equipped enemy from closing with them. Any bow-armed troops which did perform better in combat are presumably classified accordingly, e.g. being given protected, short spear, etc. The existence of sparabara etc. (or use of stakes or other obstacles in some battles) does imply that pure archers were recognised to be weak.

I'll also suggest that Greek hoplites historically being encouraged to close quickly with Persians does not IMO provide evidence that shooting should be made more effective in the game. You can argue about whether or not the interaction of charge distances, slowing effects of shooting, and the ability of the shooters to withdraw and keep firing produce something close to the historical effects.

I'm not sure that there shouldn't be more opportunity for archers to shoot over friendly troops in support - is there evidence that this could only be done by specialised mixed formations? (Obviously it should be less effective, I don't know how the rules would reflect this without making it too weak to be worthwhile).

...should be in a separate topic to the proposed list changes themselves. Amongst other reasons, most of us cannot comment in a pinned thread!

So here I go...

Whilst I can see the point of view that list changes are a disturbance,  my personal preference  is to change lists periodically. Maybe not as frequently as every year, but we should be able to address what come to be seen as mistakes in lists. Who makes that decision? Well I would rather place it in the hands of the official rules authors and list researchers than invoke some sort of democratic vote!

I don't agree that all changes should be optional, or that maximum and minimum quantities should not be adjusted. Options should be for where it is considered that different interpretations are equally valid, not simply to allow players to avoid changing existing armies.

Most troop reclassifications do not require figures to be changed IMO.

Changing maximum and minimum quantities is more impactful, but if I need to paint a few more figures as I reconfigure my army so be it. It's happened before and it will happen again.

I will also point out that there is nothing stopping players from agreeing not to stick to the latest list version in friendly games; the same goes for tournament organisers. I personally  wouldn't have a problem with an opponent using an older "version" of an army against me.

One suggestion - perhaps the older (deprrecated) versions of lists should remain available for download, to make it easier for players to reference and use them if desired. This seems like a better approach than cluttering all lists with enough options to allow players to build old or new interpretaions from one list (or even a mixutre of old and new interpretations for different troop types.

All my opinion of course, I realise there are people that disagree. But  we should all be heard

My UG is facing your UG, but at an angle, and I declare a charge.

Front left corner of my UG contacts front right corner of your UG.

If my charge path was slightly further to my left we would have combat: my front edge would contact your front corner.

If my charge path was slightly further to my right we would have combat: my front corner would contact your front edge.

It doesn't seem reasonable that by some fluke of geometry we could end up perfectly corner-to-corner and the result is no combat.

Lawrence makes a good point, otherwise there is potential for cheese.

Oh I know - twice as hard for me as I have only been playing solo lately!

But hence my suggestion to count the under strength UG as originally the next permitted size up. No harder than remembering the original sizes of your UGs if fielded at full strength, surely?

I totally agree with you there - caught implies something that was trying to escape. But of course unless terms are rigorously defined in the rules there will be difficulties, as with the discussions regarding what exactly is meant by fighting.

1. "10 BW x 10BW" clearly (to me, anyway) implies a rectangular shape. I agree it could be more specific, but it seems perverse to interpret it is referring to a circle!

3. Agree beforehand is definitely recommended. Or you run the risk of coming up against a player who insists, mid tournament game in a critical combat, that if the hill is represented in stepped fashion, your unit can only claim uphill bonus if the line of fighting is precisely on a step boundary. Grrr.

 

(or  if you prefer  )

Seriously though, I do wonder if a player should be allowed one understrength UG. To keep things simple and avoid need for additional memory/record keeping, it would be counted as the "proper" UG size when determining break point etc.

e.g. list says my cataphracts can be fielded as 4s or 6s. If I select a UG of size 3, it will break after 3 wounds. If I select a UG of size 5, it will break after 5 wounds.

I suppose it is quite likely this has been discussed before!

I hope my comment wasn't taken as arrogant, passive aggressive, snide etc. If so, apologies. It was intended as a teasing way of expressing a disagreement and a bit of frustration.

So let me just say, very plainly and hopefully politely, I am quite happy for there to be a period of list stability in lists... but can we please be consistent with what we are asking for?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall "Mr. Stability" bahdahbum spends quite a bit of time in these forums arguing for lists to be changed