Downgrading twice units is done only in order to get the extra breakpoint. Mob, rabble will always be part of some armies, but not all of them . Hence I think that if they should be available, they should be included in the list and not by downgrading twice some units .If you take a highly professional army, you pay for it and you get less TUGs but more and more people want the good army with high TUG numbers

Quote from: badhabum on September 16, 2025, 02:57:43 PMDowngrading twice units is done only in order to get the extra breakpoint. Mob, rabble will always be part of some armies, but not all of them . Hence I think that if they should be available, they should be included in the list and not by downgrading twice some units .If you take a highly professional army, you pay for it and you get less TUGs but more and more people want the good army with high TUG numbers

In my experience the most frequent use of downgrading twice is to minimize the cost of mandatory archers. I certainly see People take a single cheap TuG to get over the hump of the next odd TuG total to get their break point up. But I don't often see people go out of their way to add 2 worthless TuGs for an extra break point, they usually have something better to do with 204-276 points. And I don't think I've ever seen someone take 4 such TuGs. Usually when I see that someone has 2 worthless archers hanging out out by the camp (whether mandatory or not) I don't see that as being a particularly useful (and certainly not imbalanced) option. So I've just never seen this be much of a problem.

In terms of availability of mobs, I see that as what these archers are for. Not every army has access to crap archers and the ones that do have the ability to take some cheap TuGs to bulk out their numbers. This rule change mitigates the one thing those troops are good for.

Double downgraded skirmishers can be a nice cost effective way of bumping up scouting and PBS card numbers - not to mention the very useful meat-shield use.

Quote from: Manzikert on September 16, 2025, 06:20:51 PM

Quote from: badhabum on September 16, 2025, 02:57:43 PMDowngrading twice units is done only in order to get the extra breakpoint. Mob, rabble will always be part of some armies, but not all of them . Hence I think that if they should be available, they should be included in the list and not by downgrading twice some units .If you take a highly professional army, you pay for it and you get less TUGs but more and more people want the good army with high TUG numbers

In my experience the most frequent use of downgrading twice is to minimize the cost of mandatory archers. I certainly see People take a single cheap TuG to get over the hump of the next odd TuG total to get their break point up. But I don't often see people go out of their way to add 2 worthless TuGs for an extra break point, they usually have something better to do with 204-276 points. And I don't think I've ever seen someone take 4 such TuGs. Usually when I see that someone has 2 worthless archers hanging out out by the camp (whether mandatory or not) I don't see that as being a particularly useful (and certainly not imbalanced) option. So I've just never seen this be much of a problem.

In terms of availability of mobs, I see that as what these archers are for. Not every army has access to crap archers and the ones that do have the ability to take some cheap TuGs to bulk out their numbers. This rule change mitigates the one thing those troops are good for.

So I wanted to investigate my own claim here; and I can see grounds for concern. Just to pick a random example, the Tamil list (4702) has the potential to get 21 TuGs (1 4-pack of elephants, 10 6-packs of bladesmen, 8 6-packs of Double-downgrade archers, and +2 others). Now that does create one heck of an Achilles heel. One real unit getting into the back could take out that entire archer force. But I can see the potential for abuse.

I'm still not sold on the proposed solution. It might be easier to simply limit the number of such units in these lists. The Tamil have 90, but in a random assort of other lists I checked most didn't have more than 24, which has much less opportunity for abuse.

EDIT: So taking the time to do some more theory crafting I'm less convinced this is an issue. The Tamil army (which looks to be a sort of 'worst case scenario' here) does have the option to take 21 TuGs, 13 competent fighters and 8 worthless chaff for 11 break point. Or they can take 17 TuGs with 15 competent fighters and 2 worthless chaff for 9 break point, which frankly sounds way better.

Quote from: Manzikert on September 17, 2025, 03:36:56 AMThe Tamil army (which looks to be a sort of 'worst case scenario' here) does have the option to take 21 TuGs, 13 competent fighters and 8 worthless chaff for 11 break point. Or they can take 17 TuGs with 15 competent fighters and 2 worthless chaff for 9 break point, which frankly sounds way better.

15!?

What is your definition of "competent fighter"?

Quote from: badhabum on September 15, 2025, 10:09:46 AM

Quote from: Roger on September 15, 2025, 10:07:53 AM

Quote from: badhabum on September 13, 2025, 07:43:22 PM

Quote from: steads on September 13, 2025, 02:27:36 PM

Quote from: Count_bohemond on September 13, 2025, 08:17:07 AMDon't agree with this change either. Nothing wrong with the cheap units at the back.

Plus 1

Well I do agree . You may still downgrade the TUG but not "twice" You may have bad quality units but downgrading twice is a bit too much gamy

not sure double downgrades was un historical, as stalin was reputed to say "numbers have a quality of there own"  and the rational of veterans being upgraded to superior or/and mellee in the list also applies to decimated, or levee recruits in a long campaign, or even the leavening out of competent bowmen into one unit and their incompetent followers being given a stick and some string to be stuck out on the flank to look important and threatening whilst not having the with to hurt a fly

The the mobs should be available trough the lists

I think it would be a legitimate command decision to strengthen one unit at the expense of an other whilst deciding where and how your army is deployed, which in effect what has and indeed does happen, the decision is made to reduce points on a unit to enhance another, that in my opinin would be a command decision not a recruitment or system requirement

Quote from: LawrenceG on September 17, 2025, 09:48:53 AM

Quote from: Manzikert on September 17, 2025, 03:36:56 AMThe Tamil army (which looks to be a sort of 'worst case scenario' here) does have the option to take 21 TuGs, 13 competent fighters and 8 worthless chaff for 11 break point. Or they can take 17 TuGs with 15 competent fighters and 2 worthless chaff for 9 break point, which frankly sounds way better.

15!?

What is your definition of "competent fighter"?

The 15 are: 1 4-pack of elephants, 11 6-packs of melee expert infantry (one of which is superior), 3 6-packs of Devastating Charge infantry. All of it tribal, the melee experts are flexible. The army also has 13 command, so I didn't have to skimp on that.

My definition of 'competent fighter' would be anything with a +1 melee claim. The DC infantry aren't bad but they obviously don't meet that criteria. But in this context there's so much other stuff around that they should be free to for whatever job I need them to do. Push on a protected table edge, hold some terrain, exploit a flank, hold in reserve, etc. So I'm counting them in this context. Also worth noting I didn't spend a lot of time optimizing the list, just trying to maximize break point.

Quote from: Manzikert on September 16, 2025, 06:20:51 PMIn terms of availability of mobs, I see that as what these archers are for. Not every army has access to crap archers and the ones that do have the ability to take some cheap TuGs to bulk out their numbers. This rule change mitigates the one thing those troops are good for.

"Mobs" are usually TuGs of 10 or more.  Archers can be in 6's.  That is why downgrading twice is creating an unintended effect.  Any lists with "mobs" of archers generally already allow them to be Poor.  As Adrian proved, armies with massed tribal bow can be effective.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on August 31, 2025, 09:06:52 PMWhen downgrading troops, can downgrade troop quality or shooting skill but not both.

So "Average - Experienced Shooters" may be downgrade to "Poor - Experienced" or "Average - Unskilled", but NOT to "Poor - Unskilled".

I see this change as fundamentally wrongheaded, TBH.

If the problem is that you want people to actually use unprotected archers (the primary TUG type being used here), then make them worth using and that should nip the problem in the bud.

If the problem is that people are using unprotected archers to buy up one more break point for 215-300 points (depending on the archer's level of drill), I really don't see that as a problem.
Having seen armies run three units of ultra-downgraded potato-peelers (they needed 18 bases of unprotected bowmen to meet army minima), pretty much everyone involved has agreed that the 325-ish points would have been better spent on almost literally anything else.

I find it telling that I've rarely seen people voluntarily buy more than one unit of turbo-downgraded "KP" TUGs, and when they have, those players have dropped them like a hot rock in favor of an extra command card or other tools that make their actual fighting potential stronger.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 17, 2025, 05:07:41 PMAs Adrian proved, armies with massed tribal bow can be effective.

Can you add more detail to this? What army? When? Is the list on Nik's website?

Adrian came 4th from 16 at Helvetica (open comp) with Nubian.



Lists not on my blog I'm afraid.

Quote from: LawrenceG on September 18, 2025, 09:59:10 AM

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 17, 2025, 05:07:41 PMAs Adrian proved, armies with massed tribal bow can be effective.

Can you add more detail to this? What army? When? Is the list on Nik's website?

Helvetica Maximus 1st edition, June 2025.

As for the army, if you look at the Nubian 1110 list, there is not much to wrack one's brain about: the real tool is the Skilled shooters (TUGs and SUGs), and after them you take whatever you can/need to put around.

Antoine

Nubian like armies do have so many skilled archers, so many skirmishers and are big armies that they win by numbers and the quality of their shooting. Hammy did the same.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 17, 2025, 05:07:41 PM

Quote from: Manzikert on September 16, 2025, 06:20:51 PMIn terms of availability of mobs, I see that as what these archers are for. Not every army has access to crap archers and the ones that do have the ability to take some cheap TuGs to bulk out their numbers. This rule change mitigates the one thing those troops are good for.

"Mobs" are usually TuGs of 10 or more.  Archers can be in 6's.  That is why downgrading twice is creating an unintended effect.  Any lists with "mobs" of archers generally already allow them to be Poor.  As Adrian proved, armies with massed tribal bow can be effective.

I didn't realize 'mob' was already in the jargon. I was just using it to mean 'TuG that provides bodies but doesn't contribute to the fight'.

If someone is making effective use of massed tribal, Unprotect/combat shy, experienced bow I'd love to see how they did it! On paper they look terrible and my attempts at it have only confirmed that impression.

But I see that as a separate issue from 'is the ability to double downgrade a problem". I don't think that it is generally speaking. Though hypothetically I could see it being an issue in lists intended to be small elite armies. If for example Imperial Rome had access to 36+ bases of crap archers it would give the list the ability to trade a single legionary TuG for 5-6 TuGs of double downgrade archers and take an army from 5-6 break point to 8 which might be an issue. But even then it seems like it would be offset by having fewer fighting TuGs in an already small army and creating a massive 'points pituita' that has to be protected.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 17, 2025, 05:07:41 PMAs Adrian proved, armies with massed tribal bow can be effective.

OK, so they can be effective if they include 24 loose and 27 skirmish skilled bow, and 18 melee expert infantry.