Hi to all

I assume due to the above that there can be an Alexandrian Macedonian list without Alexander as the C-in-C, correct?

Hi to all,

We need a clarification on the detached Koursores special rule

Is this list eligible for two TuGs of Koursores

Thank you

[attachment deleted by admin]

Dear all,

Good morning,

Please note that we had a question regarding moving chargers after a counter charge is declared

As per example in page 64 of the rulebook a countercharge is declared by the parthian catapracts to the gauls charging, as per example due to that the gauls contact only one base of the parthian cavalry

And our question is, could the Gauls wheel from original path of charge so to to contact more bases of the parthian cavalry? is the wheel in the bullet 3.1 (moving chargers) applicable, or wheel is not possible since the Gauls contact at least one base of the Parthians that did the countercharge?

Ok so we almost all do not know how to use correctly the skirmishers

Can you explain to me then in MeG rules set how we would represent the right cavalry charge at Gaugamela? How can the skirmishers contribute in the melee battle in open terrain?

Did they leave the companions to fight the Persian cavalry alone, while agrianes were shooting from a safe distance? Could we represent them as an overlap in the melee on side to side edge with the companions? Could we without getting in contact with the numerical superior Persian cavalry?

Please explain...as maybe it is my limited knowledge on this

Well if you want to use the in front of the cavalry you need to go 4bw instead of 5bw, so you lose mobility on the striking force of the list

if you use them in rough terrain due to tugs vs sugs an average hillmen vs them will be green vs green in the charge phase & and the same in melee, the points for a group of 9 of hillmen is 540 and for a SUG of Agrianes 549, the first counts on the breaking point of the army and can be deployed and stand most infantry TuG charges, whereas the other cannot

last but not least the hillmen break on 4,5 whereas the agrianes on 3,5 and all of that if you are lucky to get terrain to deply them or sacrifice cavalry movement

for an average player it becomes impossible to play them or useless, whereas it should be a vital unit in the army

I think that the most underestimated unit in this army remain the agrianians

correct if i am wrong, but they cannot assist in the cavalry or infantry charges in the pivot role they seemed to have played, now they are evaporated if contacted in open terrain even if they are side to side edge with a Cavalry or infantry Tug

My suggestion is maybe giving them the option of unprotected TuG with the same quality and weapons, along with fleet of foot

otherwise from the current classification i suppose that they are intepreted as usefull only within terrain or other purposes, but even experienced shooting does not make them a game changer unit in that field

I completely agree with Roger's opinion on that, such major changes should be optional

These changes will bring imbalance in the match ups of existing army lists in the same manner each new edition of warhammer 40k brings

Since our aim as a community is not to sell minis or books in the thousands like the fantasy codexes, we should leave room for options in the army list

Last but not least, i am still not convinced that the changes in DC units did not came from players that pationately want to play less impetuous units to save cards for later manoveuring, that could simply exclude this units from their army lists (in most of them if not all, none of the units that changed were not compulsory)

They could simply take only one unit of cretan archers, or illyrians & hillmen instead of thracians, instead they are pushing on the wrong direction to have universal changes that for me are creating more problems in the community than solving them

Nik you know better than me that if positioned good the cretan archers can easily target the auxiliary units of the Roman army or roll a skull when charged in the plain by average legionaires (which means either stayed pinned on a white+ dice or risk a charge with potential green dice

As a tactic i was involved with superior legions, after i had cleared them from the softer targets

Now i do not have the tools to hit even the soft targets like average legionaires with shooting or with dc going on green vs green or to +2 from shatter

it is difficult now to win with some armies even the peripheral units, not the core veteran units

Historical results came not only from difference in the quality of troops in equal conditions match up

There are many cases that poor decisions on tactical level (how & when to use units) and/or strategical ones were the ones that decided the outcome

We can write an essay on the mistakes done by Greeks, Carthaginians, Gauls and etc in and out of the battlefield that Roman General exploited and maybe it was the mistakes of the opponent that give us the idea of many superior legionaries and not the actual training or experience of the Romans, but that is a debate for another time

My main point is that Hellinistic armies of the later period, especially the ones lacking heavy cavarly, relied in the combination of arms of these changing units not as reviewed above individually

It is different to worry for 2-3 units that can roll a skull in shooting or with the help of a shatter ability in the close combat

What i am merely saying is that certain professional led armies will rely in quantity rather than quality and that is not their point i think... we should play lowland gallic in that manner not the Later Macedonian or Bithynian Army

That is my point of view, because frankly i have seen many systems rise and fall (in numbers of players) and it all started with some minor changes at first that seemed irrelevant at the time

Exactly my point

Firstly not all changes done are in the wrong direction

Secondly for the Bastarnae & Galatian units i refer to the units in other armies not the main lists

Thirdly i understand the too many skilled shooter effect, but in most cases as they are foot SuG they can rarely be played as an aggresive unit, especially without terrain

Last but not least for Armies like Later Macedonian, no skilled cretans, no CLs, no dc thracians, 0 chances to win a MRR or a LRR, unless you consider that the Macedonians would lose in 90% of the encounters (speaking tactically on unit levels match ups not in grand strategy) there is no way a Later Macedonian can win a roman army, they have no skilled shooting (to get the bonus s vs lots of superiors) no dc thracians to counter pedites or average legionaries, no CLs at this period, it only comes down to the Galatian ally to do the business, and that again in numbers to sustain the impact of superior and exceptional legions

My point is that it will be easy picking for Hellinistic armies vs Romans, now the romas have to worry only for either some to none superior pikes and/or lancers if any... they can win simply by moving forward with little to no (if no CLs or Cataphracts) worries on the flanks

Hi Guys,

i think that after murdering the Bastarnae, Galatian, Cretan and Thracian units with these new changes, we either have to exclude Roman Armies from tournaments or there is no point playing Hellinistic armies without CL units,

Basically the flexible Roman legions terrain given, they can dominate the flanks (especially if no CLs or Cataphracts are present) and threaten the pikes, who can be pinned by hillmen or other expendable units

The situation gets worse especially for armies that lack superior pikes and CLs and Cretan archers with thracian dc units combo, was the only weapon to avoid massacre from Superior Legions

For lists like Pontic the ally with extra cavalry is the only way to be playble, for Bithynian there is no reason at all to play against Romans unless the white dice gods help you

i think that in the balance between players demanding more control on professional armies (frankly because many including me, do not play the movement cards correctly) and having a balance between the army lists, we had a wrong turn...please reconsider