Is there a problem with James IV Scottish downgrading pikemen?

[lionheartrjc]

Paul Stovell mentioned this.

Is there a problem?  Does it imply the maximum for this list is too large? 

[tarnowski1]

imo , no. Massed poor significantly weakens the pike and you still cant have more than 8 tugs of pike. Which you could do if they were all average , though smaller army obviously  

its an outlier gimmick due to the unique nature of the list. Plus mostly out of scope for the majority of MeG competitions. 

[badhabum]

I used it at Rueil, just for fun and as average.  I do not see any problems if those guys are being downgraded and acting to prevent it for a single list would feel strange. It's numerous if you downgrade it, more fragile vs good UGS and the command might become a problem ..so I would not worry

[paulstovell]

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!

[nikgaukroger]

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.

Can't disagree with that.

[rayfredjohn]

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!

Paul, there's nothing to stop competition organisers stipulating limits on downgrading in the rules pack.

[lionheartrjc]

To be clear, I am not intending to make any change.
The downgrade feature actually simplifies a lot (and I mean a lot) of lists where we can avoid including separate options to downgrade troops.

Personally I would happily scrap all the Renaissance lists from MeG.  They were only intended as a stop-gap before ReG came along.   I won't, but I wish I could...

[badhabum]

Those "renaissance" list are now fully part of MEG  and scrapping them of would not be a positive move as we have those  armies painted and based and that REG is a different game 

But what would you define as "Renaissance"

[nikgaukroger]

Those "renaissance" list are now fully part of MEG  and scrapping them of would not be a positive move

Richard said he won't be doing it. It is a non-issue.