I like this proposal.
It could be made even more simple by saying that only an M10 move can be used.

Thanks Richard

Just resurrecting this question as I have the same one. Thinking of Late Swiss.

Easy to fix. Just state in the characteristic that it is only available to experienced shooters.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on February 25, 2019, 04:50:50 PM
Medizing is not mentioned as an option so it gets none of the options mentioned for a specific nation.

Richard

The Thessalians Medized for sure. They were at Platea. Surely a contingent of a couple of SuG's of their light cavalry would not be out of order?

I see their point. Having Elamite cavalry being better than Scythian is probably a problem.

Quote from: craig.w on March 17, 2019, 07:11:49 AM

Quote from: Dru on March 16, 2019, 09:04:14 AM
So cav armies just default to the Magic Terrain. It's a no brainer for Loose Cav. Screws close foot and close horse.

Is it too broken? Too boring?

That it is called 'Magic Terrain' in the community is a sign?

Dru, when you start using cavalry armies you'll see why people choose it. If there is something that is broken it's river/coast, probably chosen by even more foot armies than uneven ground is by cavalry  If we take away uneven ground, maybe we should take away river/coast? How many battles were fought alongside a coast or impassable river?

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - let's not take away terrain that benefits mounted and leave in terrain that every man and his dog chooses if he has a foot army. Talk about boring!!

Agreed, happy for uneven to be fixed up but yes, coast should be much harder to get. Everyone will be happyI think if that is the case.

I love cavalry armies but yes, uneven ground messing with close foot but not worrying cavalry is an anomaly. The fact that it is the go to terrain choice for any cavalry army indicates a problem.

Thought as much, thanks.

The notes for this list say that;
Cavalry were unarmoured, carrying a bow, spear and sword.
The Elamite cavalry are listed as bow only. Are they supposed to have light spear as well or was it left out due to them not being deemed good enough with the spear to warrant it?

This bit puzzles me a bit. In the lists we have this under Allied forces;

4. Unless specified in the notes, the general must be the same type as the army commander in the main list but cannot be legendary.

The fact that it mentions Legendary makes me think that the "type" mentioned means that if the main army C-inC is competent/mediocre/talented then the ally must be the same. However, "type" could just as easily mean Instinctive or Professional - so the main army has professional then the ally must be also even if the allied army cannot have a professional.
It's all a bit confusing. Some guidance please.

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on March 05, 2019, 09:11:30 AM
Elephants and Caltrops
Caltrops give a barricade bonus vs. Ellies at the factors for other mounted - so +4. I will make a specific change in the characteristic sheet to avoid the current circularity that leads to 0 factor.

ADDED TO INTERIM CLARRIES

Thanks Simon. At the comp in Sydney over the weekend we figured that was your intent and played it that way. Needless to say my Elephants steered clear of Caltrops

There is currently a contradiction between the characteristics for Caltrops and the QRS at impact for barricades.
The Caltrops characteristics sheet states that they count as barricades against Elephants during the charge phase. Unfortunately the QRS only has factors against infantry (+2) and Cav/Cm/Ch (+4).
What should the factor be against Elephants? Since Barricades don't count against Elephants during the charge phase it will need it's own entry I assume.

We are currently in a position then that the rule as written is not being played in some places. There is no official errata or clarry for this. We have a competition in Sydney in 1 weeks time. As it stands what is written in the rules is the only "interpretation" available.

Quote from: RobAustin on February 21, 2019, 10:51:39 PM

Quote from: lionheartrjc on February 21, 2019, 07:10:08 PM

Quote from: marshalney2000 on February 21, 2019, 10:32:52 AM
On a separate topic, a discussion is taking place about defending a river bank. Adopting a similar logic to above then no bonus should be allowed for defending a river bank as the defenders would no doubt step back to allow them equal footing to the attacker.
I can see the logic of attackers assaulting a wood counting as being in the rough but the opposite of troops emerging from difficult terrain to fight troops on good ground just does not sit well with me.

Actually I cannot think of any account where the actual bank of a river is defended.  The aim was usually to attack the enemy as they were crossing such that a fraction of the force had already crossed.  You then drove them back into the river where they drowned.   The reason is quite simple, if you are stationary on the bank of the river you are easy to bypass.   If you are back from the river edge you retain manouvreability and can react to where they will cross.   Also river banks are irregular shapes so difficult to maintain a cohesive line in front of them.

Richard

Issus, off the top of my head.

Indeed.

To say not many armies defended river banks is missing the point a bit. There are countless occasions where armies defended a river bank. No battle happened because the opposition didn't try and cross, knowing they would be at a disadvantage. The battles where they got across and were then hit certainly happened but were a mix of clever generals trying to cut an army in two or the defending generals didn't get to the spot where their opponents crossed in time.