I do find it mildly annoying that Instinctively General led armies tend to have the initiative verses Professionally led ones. The solution though is tricky. 

I do think LSp have an issue in Magna when they are often in 4's and the first loss will always reduce their combat factors.
So some sympathy for allowing them in 9's in Maximus .

I do quite like the idea that Pike and Lsp don't downgrade supporting files but that would require other changes I imagine.

RJC change does seem to clash with the way PA currently works.

 

Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 22, 2024, 10:01:51 AM

Quote from: Robin on November 22, 2024, 08:23:58 AM
If they rout an opponent - they will pursue.  If they contact an enemy UG during the pursuit then they will be removed.  If they don't contact an enemy UG then they carry on as normal.

So if they don't contact enemy in pursuit they go again ?

Yes.  It is as if the enemy ran before the chariots ever contacted.  Very rarely happens in my experience.

Richard


It strikes me as odd that they are removed if they contact an enemy during pursuit as any other unit would fight a charge impact round at the start of the next turn suggesting they are still moving. I assume in the rare case that they break an opponent in charge combat and pursue into a new unit in the charge phase they aren't removed and fight another impact?
From a game mechanic and value for money point of view I agree with Robin having them formed is too good as they can double move onto a flank which for me is too strong.

Paul

Win on their own is a high bar. But Numidian horse are arguably decisive in Cannae and Zama.

I am generally with Steve Stead on this.

I am quite adept at angling charges to step forward a file into enemy second or subsequent ranks but I don't think it should be allowed.
The base depth is very artificial and the interaction a bit messy. Perhaps a rule change to the stepping forward rules to stop files from a unit making frontal contact from stepping forward into the flank of their target?

I agree with dodgy flank contacts being worth a fix long-term.

Don't think the Swiss need a fix, well not as much as James IV 

This is as much a list question?

If declared at the start of a game (tournament) Qin DC infantry can nay MUST discard their armour when they charge gaining ME and FoF and becoming unprotected.

Must they also do this if declaring a countercharge or intercept charge?

Thanks Richard.

There seems to be a contradiction between the PDF and the answers to common questions

Excerpts from common questions

1. IF FOOT PURSUE AND CONTACT FRESH ENEMY IN THE FIGHTING PHASE...
"charge is defined in the glossary on p213  NOTE there isn't a definition of charge in the glossary of the PDF version

2. WHEN ARE SuGs NOT IMMEDIATELY DESTROYED BY BEING CONTACTED BY TuGs?
... If the SuG is pursuing ...

PDF p106
pursuing
10. If a new enemy is contacted.
10.1 Treat this as a charge move
note, no section 10 for pursuit before PDF

So Infantry that pursue into cavalry will count as moving or not.
SuG's pursuing into TuGs will be destroyed or not.

Relatively rare interactions but unclear to me, I maybe missing something.
     

Just a thought for simplification and consistency.

Make the bow armed version half long spear exp bow with shoot and shield cover half bow as they used to be with the NOTE: Long spear may only fight in one rank.  This seems to fit with various other troops who have a note that they can only shoot in one rank for example.

8 tugs of 12 is a lot. OTOH it is just one list. My feeling is that downgrading to poor is overused to make gamey lists. The unskilled poor combat shy archers as the "odd" unit to add a break point being the most common example. Stopping troops that are downgraded keeping combat shy would IMHO be a reasonable general rule for army lists. There is nothing stopping list writer from excepting units from this or having troops listed as poor with optional combat shy characteristics.

Final thought, although not having fleshed this out, I suspect allowing James IV pike ditch combat shy by downgrading them to poor might actually make the list better!

To add, shooting can only slow the first move of a double move so in some circumstances a unit nominally slowed by more than its move can still move. Not in a charge.

Personally I'm happy with the current level of complexity of the rules I do think there is room for minor improvements.

For example do we really need shoot and charge, charge only shooting and integral shooters all representing shooting during charges?

Where I do think the game as a whole is getting more complex/could perhaps be usefully simplified is with special rules that apply to individual list or a small group of lists and some characteristics.

Recently we have the new rule on bodyguards that still allow a floating CinC and shower shooting. I like these but is it possible that too many "special rules" will put off more potential players than enthuse current ones.

A similar "it could be simplified" argument could be made to barricades and obstacles and caltrops and stakes used rarely enough that maybe the nuances are wasted?

The shield cover and shoot and spear protection is another example of characteristics that affect a few lists that have come into the game since I started. These two are also representing fighting in slightly different ways that are also represented in other ways.

Individually and all together I am happy with these but I wonder whether they are playing to a vocal minority and/or UK competition habitués? and might put off newer players or those that don't play so regularly?

Nik,

I think your idea to limit a downgrade on combat shy troops so they just become poor and lose combat shy would deal with the admittedly  rare abuse of poor and combat shy.

I concede it would be purely on the grounds of game balance and not be a reflection on the two attributes.

Others

On the general point of updating/fiddling with lists I'm someone who enjoys that and plays a goodly amount. I concede too much of this could alienate some players.

I do wonder if there is a case for increasing the cost of certain combination of attributes.

I'm SURE the fierce Galatians SSp DC with ME are significantly better than their cost.
I suspect that Cataphracts with LS, Fully arm are somewhat better superiors a little more so.
Similarly with Superior ME legionaries.

It maybe that having +3 or more as a possibility in charge combat or +2 or more in melee combat needs a bit of a surcharge?

CL are less susceptible as long spear and pike are somewhat hard counters.
You could argue that shooty cavalry lists and Hammy like avoidance of very good infantry might be a counter too but I'm still inclined to feel a small points alteration is in order.

Somewhat as a reverse of this I must point out the most broken points currently is   James IV Scots with all the pike downgraded to poor.

I challenge anyone to come up with a TuG that can take that on point for point (Fierce galatians excepted )

One might view the Agrianians as being the ME of the companions/Agema cavalry killer stylee?

You CAN join a melee as a SuG as a supporting file. If Superior and ME you will even get a white dice unless target has a melee claim.