Why the gaesati couldn't be optionally be Fleet of foot?

They are unprotected, known to be fierce.
I believe they are also as well documented as early lybian and maya and other méso-américain on the subject?

Thx for advising.

The Gaesati apparently suffered from Roman javelin fire at Telamon.  They were apparently naked and their shields were not large enough to protect them.  They chared out but were unable to catch the Roman light infantry.
(This account is in Polybius I believe).

Any way it seems to justify making them unprotected but not giving them Fleet of Foot.

Richard

It seems they just didn't have the cards to prompt !

Agreed

Does anyone use them? I mean, they are pretty terrible.

Just because they are vulnerable to missiles and fight with the same effectiveness as ordinary warriors for a much higher cost doesn't make them terr... wait, you're right, they're terrible.

Quote from: AntiokosIII on September 24, 2019, 09:15:31 PM
Just because they are vulnerable to missiles and fight with the same effectiveness as ordinary warriors for a much higher cost doesn't make them terr... wait, you're right, they're terrible.

Normal warriors - Tribal Flexible, Average, Protected, Devastating Chargers - 73 points/base

Gaesati - Tribal Flexible, Superior, Unprotected, Devastating Chargers - 66 points/base

The latter are 1 better in Charge combat due to quality and the same in Melee combat due to better quality being offset by being Unprotected. More vulnerable to missiles of course.

Conclusion is to go galate...

I stand corrected. I imagined that Superior would outweigh Unprotected. Wrong again! The correction is appreciated.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 18, 2019, 06:44:55 PM
The Gaesati apparently suffered from Roman javelin fire at Telamon.  They were apparently naked and their shields were not large enough to protect them.  They chared out but were unable to catch the Roman light infantry.
(This account is in Polybius I believe).

Any way it seems to justify making them unprotected but not giving them Fleet of Foot.

Richard

seems to me it is best represented by the card system.

Not giving them FoF is based on happenings of one battle only. so why discriminate against them and thus make them less fun to play.

As this is the only account of the Gaesati we have it seems entirely reasonable to classify them based upon what happened in this one battle.  There is no discrimination here.  Troops that are unprotected do not have an automatic right to fleet of foot.  Fleet of foot would also distort how they might be used in a battle.

As I have repeatedly said, the aim of army lists is to constrain choices to give armies the correct historical feel.  I feel the current classification achieves this.

Richard