Re: Changes to "barbarian mercenaries" vis a vis Romans

[GPAKOS]

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

[daveparish]

I don't think this change to barbarians came from any player seeing an advantage. My impression is that it came from a changing interpretation by academic historians - who felt that  Roman accounts of "impetuous" barbarians were just Roman propaganda.

This is one difference between MeG and Warhammer. In Warhammer the rules writers can change the history as they want (I assume, I've never actually played it) while in MeG there is a past reality we are trying to reflect. RJC does keep up with academic historical accounts - and my impression is that this is what drives "tweaks" like these.

[nikgaukroger]

I think on the academic side the whole idea of impetuous barbarians who can sweep away enemies has been seen as a Graeco-Roman trope that doesn't bear close examination for a long time now. Wargamers on the other hand like to cling to it - hence as I said a bit back, we are actually wargaming the Graeco-Roman trope and not not history    But as the trope is so deep rooted it is being left in the lists for "barbarian" armies with the other view as an option; the mercenaries are, of course, a different matter and are the ones so vexing some on the European continent (other continents may vary  ).

The impetus for this seems to have been a discussion on the MeG Podcast about the Gauls in Hannibal's army - although I'm sure it had been mentioned before.

[Roger]

As I read all of the various comments and suggestions not just in this thread but others as well,
there are so many different little nuances and interpretations of the historical basis of lists even as we also accept and live with some lists that are more Hollywood than Oxford, that it reinforces my belief that after 5 years of fine tuning, the evolution of the lists has to evolve!

Lets move from the "nerfing syndrome of absolutes" to an "options to enjoy alternatives" this will allow a more healthy conversation and opportunity to enjoy without alienating players, new or old in the process.

[LawrenceG]

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

The trouble with making changes optional is you can end up where everyone has so many options that all armies are the same.

The changes won't make much difference to balance in army matchups because the change in capability of units is balanced by the change in the points you pay for them. They might mean you need to adapt your tactics, which is annoying when your army was at a sweet spot, but war is hell.

The specific change under consideration in this thread (it seems to me) will not make much difference anyway. If the barbarians are close enough to have a forced charge as DC, the Romans will probably want to charge them anyway. A white shot followed by a white has the same expected number of wounds as 1 green. You miss out on shatters, but they only happen 1 time in 3 and often don't change the results of the neighbouring files.

[lionheartrjc]

As I read all of the various comments and suggestions not just in this thread but others as well,
there are so many different little nuances and interpretations of the historical basis of lists even as we also accept and live with some lists that are more Hollywood than Oxford, that it reinforces my belief that after 5 years of fine tuning, the evolution of the lists has to evolve!

Lets move from the "nerfing syndrome of absolutes" to an "options to enjoy alternatives" this will allow a more healthy conversation and opportunity to enjoy without alienating players, new or old in the process.

Generic Army List
Generals:  Any
Camps:  Any
TuGs:  0-25,  Troop Type: Any  Armour: Any  Quality: Any  Formation:  Any  Shooting Weapon and Skills:  Any  Melee Weapon: Any  Characteristics:  Any
SuGs:  0-25   Troop Type: Any  Armour: Any  Quality: Any  Formation:  Skirmisher Shooting Weapon and Skills:  Any  Melee Weapon: Any  Characteristics:  Any

Okay, problem solved!

My point is that the whole purpose of army lists is to impose constraints.  (It sure isn't to win a popularity contest!).  MeG army lists actually provide a lot of options, you can downgrade quality and shooting skill.    How many options for each troop type should be allowed?    Where I feel it is appropriate I have allowed options.  I don't feel it is appropriate for these mercenaries and I have yet to be sent any argument that actually makes me feel I should change my mind.

Richard

[Roger]

That is exactly my point, "appropriateness" has become a matter of opinion, other wise 5 years ago it would already be in the list as a result of research?

I have no problem with somebodies opinion of appropriateness, but lets accept that it is an opinion.

if that opinion is going to change a list at least trial it as an alternative for a year as a an option to see how popular that configuration is rather than imposing it

[Roger]

We have 600 + lists that are for the purposes of wargaming pretty accurate, This constant striving for Historical accuracy is losing the point of what the list are for ! and more crucially unachievable, the level of accuracy you are looking for would eventually lead you to lists for every battle,

Surely good enough is good enough?

For the purist by all means add options, but a constant tinkering in the name of Historical accuracy is for academics and NATO not to play a game with mates

[nikgaukroger]

Surely good enough is good enough?

The view is that in some place the lists are not yet good enough.

Information and interpretations are continually appearing and evolving within and without of academia.

To say "historical accuracy" is for academics is quite amusing for ancient/medieval history as the honest answer to a huge array of questions is "we don't really know" as any credible and honest historian will admit - hence the ever changing views 

[Jilu]

We have 600 + lists that are for the purposes of wargaming pretty accurate, This constant striving for Historical accuracy is losing the point of what the list are for ! and more crucially unachievable, the level of accuracy you are looking for would eventually lead you to lists for every battle,

Surely good enough is good enough?

For the purist by all means add options, but a constant tinkering in the name of Historical accuracy is for academics and NATO not to play a game with mates

imv, changes should avoid downgrading, best would be to level up armies that seem a bit to weak

[nikgaukroger]

imv, changes should avoid downgrading, best would be to level up armies that seem a bit to weak

What constitutes downgrading can clearly be subjective as demonstrated by this whole topic.

Likewise, I'd suggest whether an army is "weak" is going to be too.

[Roger]

I am sure you are right, we "don't really Know" but i wonder how many " don't really care" ?

Maybe it would be step in the right direction if appropriateness was polled instead of imposed?

[Princeps]

[...] but war is hell. [...]

Certainly for those involved in the actual fighting, and this is a game made to be enjoyed, right ?

On another level, everyone seems to agree that good enough is good enough, but no agreement on whether good enough has been reached ... Which brings me to this : if not now, when will it be "good enough" ? What are the criteria for the endgame ? How is it intended to assess whether the objective has been reached ?

Cheers
Antoine

[nikgaukroger]

On another level, everyone seems to agree that good enough is good enough, but no agreement on whether good enough has been reached ... Which brings me to this : if not now, when will it be "good enough" ? What are the criteria for the endgame ? How is it intended to assess whether the objective has been reached ?

Given the ever changing nature of what we have to draw on, plus the number of lists that have never been reassessed and are based on often very old assumptions, I'd plump for never.

The only constant is change   

[Roger]

Heraclitus also believed opposite things are identical, so that everything is and is not at the same time.
So list are indeed good whilst at the same time being inaccurate