OK, I am in. Late as ever.

It looks like the post code in the first post is wrong though. I believe is should be PR2 3AE

The biggest change for the Etruscans is, IMO, that the infantry change is all or nothing.

I would happily use the new version.

Have I missed a new spreadsheet? My 2024 draft one has the infantry with Pilum at 115 not 117

Quote from: Hammy on November 15, 2023, 11:47:32 AM

Quote from: martymagnificent on November 14, 2023, 10:53:01 PM

I don't consider legionaries a problem in general. The multiplier for exceptional is, however, clearly too low. There are cases where it is cheaper to be exceptional than superior melee expert! There's a reason most players will always take every exceptional they can get.

I read this and thought surely not so I got out the new 2024 points just to be sure and yes, most of the time Exceptional seems to be cheaper than Superior melee expert. This is a fairly hefty problem but one I have never looked at because other than the Meerkats I don't use exceptionals

Whist true, fortunately the situation does not occur in the army lists (I believe).

A bit of theory hammer on the spreadsheet has a number where it is true but with the possible troops that are actually in lists (I have checked most but not all the lists) where there is an option for superior ME or exceptional not ME but otherwise the same it seems that the exceptionals are slightly more expensive but still a bargain compared.

Despite all that, the army results from numerous uses on https://www.dracostandard.co.uk/ArmyStats do not show any great benefit from using these armies.

Could it be that the points system does a half decent job of putting a value on the good Roman infantry?

I disagree with you on this : points alone are not enough to balance armies; one needs to look at it as to where these points CAN be spent as well, or then I’d like someone to explain to me why Mesoamerican armies are so rarely fielded, even when flavorful (such as Aztecs or Incas). Could it be that they CANNOT field anything that has a semblance of resistance against European lancers ?

I am on RJC's side here.

Of course the points aren't perfect for every possible match up. Devastating charging lancers vs pike for example. The mounted pay loads of points for something that is directly cancelled.

What the points do a very good job of is getting armies to have roughly equivalent power and even at the same points army A is significantly better than army B, army B will be significantly better than army C which could well be better than army A.

Compared to other games I play (for example Flames of War) the MeG points system is very good.

As for massively outmatched armies like meso americans, I think I managed to beat or at least very nearly beat Simon's Normans with my Libyans and that was back before the points made skirmishers a bit cheaper.

So the displaced SUG must be behind but may be displaced in any direction ( with usual restrictions, 1 BW max, shooting range and so on  )

If you move through then the SuG must go behind 4-F

If you move near a SuG then it can be displaced sideways 4-G

4.G, immediately after the diagram, says "a friendly SuG can be displaced by the minimum necessary, and up to 1BW, to make room ...".

And, as the OP said, 4.F.6.2 links to the glossary, which says "The shunting of an UG in any direction up to 1BW to make room ..."

Given that the PDF is intended to be a clarification, not a change, to the printed rules, it seems this limit was intended all along. I note also that TuGs obstruct SuGs that don't have enough move to get fully through them, so it seems intended to limit "voluntary" passing through in general.

It does but passing through friends is 4.F
The only reference to 1 BW is by use of the word displace and displace limits to 1 BW.
That is the whole point of my question.
I have never played (or noticed played) a limit of 1 BW to the displacement of a SuG that has been moved through by a TuG.