AS parto of my notorious career as a Sassanid fanboy I have been reading THE SASANIOAN ARMY AT WAR by Michael Decker, pub 2022. Multiple sources state that the Sassanian army often contained Armenian troops, sometimes allied and sometimes part of the 'main army', The Middle Sassanid list, a favorite of mine due to my pathological obsession with Shapur II, allows an Armenian ally after 383 CE, but not before.

Decker mentions a Sassanid invasion in 359/360 CE accompanied by an Armenian army led by Armenian King Arshak. I have not tracked down Decker's source for this.  The reference is on page 67 of the paperback edition. He also mentions raiding into Armenia by Armenian exiles loyal to the Persians in 354 CE at page 87. Similar accounts may be found in the various works of Khavad Farokh.

I mention this because, while the frequency of Armenian changes of sides between Rome and Persia would try the patience of a saint attempting to fix the dates for allies, it seems clear to me from this and other sources that the date for Armenian allies might be just a shade too restrictive?
 I suppose I could just use some Armenian figures in place of Sassanids figs as Armenians serving under Sassanids command, but given the strength and persistence of Armenian independence sentiment, this does not feel quite right to me. Instead, might not the Sassanids be allowed a small *3-4 UG) Armenian contingent ant nearly any date? The force would be commanded by an internal Armenian ally, IMHO. This could capture the frequent presence of Armenians in the Army along with their occasionally fickle nature, since they tended to switch sides (to their own) once the Persians succeeded in driving the Romans out of Armenia.

What do you think?

Thanks, So slows from KaB's due to units breaking in shooting have a movement effect, but slows from KaBs due topounits breaking in melee never have an effect. Got it.

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.

When does a slow result expire and get removed? In a game yesterday we had a 2-wide cav unit take an S result on a morale test from a rout in combat, and evade from a charge in the charge phase next turn. Should the slow result have been in effect, or was it removed at the end of the turn.
My recollection had been that slaws were removed at the end of movement, but my opponent and I were unable to find the rule, so we allowed it to be removed at the end of the turn and thus was no longer there in the ensuing charge. Does anybody know how to play this game? Clearly I do not.
Thanks!

Quote from: lionheartrjc on February 27, 2026, 11:43:20 AMForts (any fortified settlement essentially) were a part of ancient warfare.

Rather than get rid of them entirely, the following changes might improve them:

1.  Any infantry in 1 rank defending the edge of a fort should count in good going.
2.  Any troops in 1 rank defending the edge of a fort should not downgrade for shooting through cover.
3.  An unfortified camp should be allowed to be deployed in a fort.

Richard

Number 1 and 3 in particular would add to the usefulness of a fort, especially no.3

IMHO forts should have stayed out of the rules. If depicted historically they would be perhaps unbalancingly useful as a spot to place a weak shooty unit. As they now work, they are nearly useless and in most situations a net minus.Although, OTOH, id did me a chance to put a Roman mile fort on the table that looked pretty even though all it did was occupy space. I won't be rolling for forts again in competition.

I have been reading and re-reading the rule on Forts as a terrain piece. It looks to me as if troops shooting from a fort automatically grant cover to the target, and get cover themselves. I think that the logic of such a rule is...far from intuitive, but I met with some other players over the weekend and we all seem to read it to say that people attacking a fort across open ground count cover when shot at from a prepared fortification. Are we right?
Are we alone thinking whiskey is an odd result?

Thanks, Nik. Chariots of Fire sounds like a chariot age theme. That would be fun!

There are a few events here that seem to look as if they are set for next September (ie Sept 2026), but they might have taken place. I can't tell for sure.
I plan to be in London next September (2026) for a wedding mid-month. I have some flexibility in my schedule on either side of mid-month. I would love the chance to play in an event or two if such are planned. Is anything planned in September?

What is the date on which the new rules and lists 'go live'?

Will 2026 rules sets be available for purchase ? Where and when will they be for sale?

Will the new charts be available for download as of yore? Or will we have to buy them? If we have to buy them, where?

Thanks
DLL

THANKS Richard!

Another problem has arisen. I downloaded the latest Army Builder and re-did the Early Seleukid list. Everything added in fine until I got to unit 8, which was an 8 stand unit of Thracians (Formed loose, Avg Protected, charge only Javelinmen, SS, ME) I entered the units and the AB showed a 4.5 break point, but showed zero points cost. While Iwould love some=e free Thracians, I seriously doubt this is correct. What did I do wrong?

I have put together 3 lists using 2026 list on the 2026 Army Builder. I used a unit of Light Horse in each. The scouting points I would normally expect for 6 skirmishing cavalry do not show up in the scouting points total. What have I done wrong? Is this a known glitch, or has my known low intelligence betrayed me again?

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 29, 2025, 07:23:37 AMThe modelling doesn't reflect the test gaming that I have done.  I think because with spear the not downgrading the supporting file can make such a significant difference. It is not only the combat claims but also how you can position your UGs.  If everything was simply equal units and in a straight line then your modelling would be more valid.

This is the portion

I was talking about when I spoke of outplaying your opponent. I am delighted to hear that I misunderstood.

Quote from: badhabum on October 11, 2025, 04:15:38 PMTo me it is ALL about game balance and historical accuracy . Sorry to disagree . IMO it is cheesy but if we may use it, we use it . Donwgrading why not, they have a bad day but no downgrading 2 characteristics

I do not understand this post. Would you consider explaining the connection between limiting downgrades and historicity ? I am sure I am unusually dense.