Situation from the last game, pic related: the infantry unit wishes to declare a charge on the rear of the cavalry: wheel 1/2 BW, then charge 2.5 BW straight to contact with the nearest infantry base front corner. The BW markers show the distance (roughly, pic is not directly overhead). It is 3 BW from the far corner of the nearest infantry base to the rear of the nearest cavalry base along the 3 BW stick.

I maintained this was a legal charge, since the infantry unit had the distance and only needed to contact with a corner to make a contact and valid charge: the far base would ("must") push 1 BW forward after the initial contact was made, etc. My opponent disagreed that this was possible, claiming that the wheel would use up too much movement distance. But there is no minimum distance required to wheel, thus as I see it a 1/2 BW wheel is perfectly fine and there was no requirement to wheel more: just enough to allow sufficient frontal distance remaining and a corner to base contact.

I realise it's difficult to tell from the pic but any guidance would be appreciated.

CdlT

Except having two lines implies there is an option - does "all" refer to each sub-category of troops or to everything? Amending the ""All of none" box, to have a single "All or none" rather than one per troop type, would make things clear.

CdlT

That makes little sense to me: the resources required to have everyone on an FArm Hrs would have been horrendous.

At present an All/none for both types isn't entirely clear: adding a line to notes would be useful to make it more so. Or change the box reading "All or none" to be larger and encompass both versions.

CdlT

In the Middle Sassanid army list there is an option to re-grade Asvaran types from Formed Loose SSp/Bow to Formed Close Armd Hrs/FArm Bow: "Upgrade armour on all Asvaran and Zhayedan with bow".

As I read the option, you may re-grade one type only and need not necessarily do both, e.g. re-grade Average Asvaran with Armd Hrs and leave the Superior Asvaran & Zhayedan as Formed Loose SSp/Bow, or vice versa. It does say "All or none", with separate categories for each type, but my opponent was unsure if this was the intention and is legal so I'm asking for clarity.

CdlT

QuoteWhat about Tribal loose and Tribal close? Is there any point to them?

They don't have to remain stationary for a full turn and pay a high-value card to be in optimal formation, thus you will use them differently and re not paying for a Flexible grading.

Besides, Flexibles are not available to every army: only some "warband" types are graded Tribal Flexible, generally those thought capable of operating more...flexibly.

CdlT

Quote...if it stops the complaints...

The fact that you think this is about min/maxing and "complaining" in that regard is rather missing the point. This isn't about that when I raise a point: it is about trying to make the army list allow for more interesting and different combinations/configurations within both a historical context and game context. But they're just ideas...

CdlT

Quotethey do provide some differences and interesting list writing challenges IMO. YMMV.

They really don't: they take away from list-building variety and reduce each army to a more limited set of workable options.

CdlT

Quote
The classification of the legions and auxilia in this list seem to be to be a bit unfocused.

If any part of the Imperial Roman list need changes, it is the cavalry options and classifications above all else: the infantry is pretty decent as-is, if.


Short Spear Infantry should have the Shieldwall characteristic as an option, so too in the Foederate and early Eastern Roman/Byzantine lists, etc. Impact Weapon foot with Shieldwall would be broken.

I really do hate the way you are forced into building Superior Legionaries/Palatina in 8s, the 0-16 option should be expanded to 0-18 Veteran/Palatina/Superior foot in the Imperial Roman and Foederate Roman list so you can do 3x 6-base TuGs. I know you won't, I'll say it anyway.

The Imperial Roman list should have the options for Superior/Veteran Equites increased, 0-12 bases. Examples include the cavalry under Aurelian vs. Cataphracts at Lake Antioch, Constantine's veteran cavalry, etc.

There should be a Cataphractarii/Charging Lancer/call-them-what-you-like option. Currently it makes little sense that this troop type is an option in the Early Imperial list, then disappears, then re-appears in the chaos of the Foederate Period. I'm well aware of the confusion/debate over the exact terms and equipment/fighting style, but it makes little sense to force all Cataphractarii/Clibanarii units to only be FA/Long Spear as currently.

CdlT

QuoteGiven my flexible and loose army I decided on lots of terrain.

Don't: In MeG Romans are better in terrain than "barbarians". /facepalm

The problem is that Flexibles are a nice idea that is poorly implemented. To switch takes an entire turn, which is an age in MeG, and if Tribal Flexible you are subject to the whims of the cards and your opponent's ability to manipulate the deck by retaining as many reds and yellows as possible which (magically) then impairs the ability of your troops to make basic, low-level tactical decisions. Flexibles should be re-worked to correspond with something like Cantabrian, i.e. a movement reduction to switch wit some movement still possible.

Thus Infantry could deduct 1 BW movement, switch from Loose to Close Order (or vice versa) and then units could still move the reduced amount based on their current order. Flex Cavalry deduct 2 BW to go from Skirmisher to Loose (or vice versa), and then the units could still move the reduced amount based on their current order. Now you would have a rule that makes sense, adds utility and speeds up play whereas now flexible units, particularly Tribal Flexibles - aren't.

It won't happen, so Tribal Flexibles in particular will remain largely pointless.

CdlT

QuotePersonally, I think the list writer is being very generous in both allowing 2 TuG of "Huns" in the army and allowing one to be "skirmishers". While it has been a while since I read my Procopius, I can't recall any record of more than one "unit" of mercenary horse archers in the armies led by Belisarius (I stand to be corrected).

Two units is likely for Dara 530 AD where two separate groups of 300 Huns each were deployed, to the left and right of the infantry center.

CdlT

Quoteby shooting alone or also by combat/melee? Huns after all have ME or if skirmisher 'Huns' Cantabrian and so skilled.

Largely by shooting I would take from the sources. The Vandals had 2,000 horsemen dispatched on a right hook at Ad Decimum, they encountered the 600 Huns sent to cover Belisarius' left flank and were routed/destroyed. Outnumbered by more than 3 to 1...the tactics likely would have been the usual evade, mounted archery, disrupt and pick-off stragglers and only close to melee if favourable.

Procopius (History of the Wars III (the Vandalic War) xviii, 12-19:

QuoteAt the same time Gibamundus and his two thousand came to Pedion Halon, which is forty stades distant from Decimum on the left as one goes to Carthage, and is destitute of human habitation or trees or anything else, since the salt in the water permits nothing except salt to be produced there; that place they encountered the Huns and were all destroyed.

Procopius calls them "Huns" or "Massagetae" interchangeably, exact terms are not the issue: this was an expeditionary army so it's likely the best available were chosen. Losses were either very light or non-existent on the Hun side. Later in the campaign the Vandals attempted to bribe the Hunnic contingent to switch sides...indicating that they were seen as a potent force. Procopius when mentioning the Huns (or "Huns" if you prefer) generally has a high opinion of their combat ability. They ("Huns") are referred to often, in the Persian Wars, Vandalic War and later in Italy (Gothic War). Almost certainly different contingents of course, but mentioned in positive terms.

I would absolutely have an option to upgrade to Skilled (Flexibles) as their mounted archery skill is noted in the sources. The Eastern Roman/Byzantine army was increasingly reliant on mounted archery; they were no slouches in the field, the Bucellarii in particular noted for their mounted archery skill.

Quoteis the primary purpose of that line to make them skirmishers or make them cantabrian skirmishers? most lists limit skilled or cantabrian focus.

I have no clue on Early Byzantine army composition but your assumption seems to be 'Hunnic' cavalry could be either skirmishers or flexible types whereas my assumption is Byzantine armies preferred Hunnic mercenaries , the flexible types, but on occasion had to settle for other nomads, pseudo-Huns, to stand in for limited availability of actual Huns.

I can't speak to "purpose". Again, terminology or names is not the focus: effectiveness is demonstrated by the sources. My question was simply...If one unit is allowed to be Skirmisher, why not both? The Skirmishing Huns or Flexible Huns are exactly the same troops, the difference in classification is an artificial wargames-rules-thing, not reality. But it does affect the way the force is built and functions. If the answer to the question is just.... "err, because", then fine: I simply wondered why.

For the record:
(a) I don't have an Early Byzantine army (yet....) I just have an interest in the period.
(b) Cantabrian is absolutely a no-brainer upgrade and is too effective for it's points IMO. I would make it more expensive or change the upgrade to rule to make it "shoot on White, S counts as a wound, no upgrade vs. Superior", etc. etc. Just saying.

CdlT

QuoteAt this time Huns was a term for any nomadic horse archer.

I know.

QuoteI would turn it around, any reason why you should be able to regrade all your Huns (other than that you would like to!)?

Because the restriction is entirely arbitrary. What reason is there now for allowing one unit to be Skirmisher? The choice of the player would be to have Skirmishers or Flexibles, with pros and cons for both choices. But only one unit is allowed to be Skirmisher now - why?

What reason is their for them only to be rated Experienced Bow? At Ad Decium a mere 600 or so bested 2,000 Vandal Cavalry with little or no loss to themselves...doesn't sound like Experienced.

CdlT

In the Early Byzantine army list...is there any reason you can only re-grade one unit of Huns as Skirmisher Huns? Why not both?

CdlT

QuoteWould screw up their interaction with barbarian warband types.

For IW Legionaries, sure: they're good enough already. For later Short Spear/Darts Legionaries though? It should be an option there IMO for the more defensive fighting style.

CdlT

A couple of rules questions regarding: KaB test & distance, and shooting at pursuers-becoming-chargers.

Situation is four Loose Cavalry TuGs (Goths top, Romans bottom) fighting melee with one Roman archer TuG somewhat back to the right and another Roman Cav TuG more than 5 BW back at the rear.

Both Roman Cav TuGs up front break (during 2nd round melee). The left-most (blue cape) TuG routs 5 BW, the right-most routs 4 BW. The Archer TuG is within 3 BW of the right-most Cav TuG, so take a KaB test, and another(?) for friends passing through them on the rout move, I believe.


Q1. Do the archers and rear-most Cav TuG take KaB tests for the left-most (blue cape) Roman Cav unit breaking? Since although they are outside of 3 BW of the initial starting point, the are within 3 BW of the path of the rout and my opponent thought this qualified (i.e. he maintains that all units along the path of rout within 3 BW must take KaB tests). Per rules p. 165. point 5 I don't think so since it says the position at the beginning of the phase. But my opponent remembers Simon Hall playing it this way so I'm asking.

Q. 2 The right-most Goth TuG pursues into the Archer TuG, being resolved in the next Charge Phase. Can the archers shoot during that Charge as they usually could, or do the pursuers block their fire? i.e. Pursuit moves, p. 167, Point 8 (couldn't find that during the game!).

Situation recreated from memory, pic below is a guide to what I mean.



CdlT