2026 Proposed Amendments#4.3&4.5 New weapon "Spear" for Hoplites & Thureophoroi

[badhabum]

Dismountned LS : will they still be LS or spear ? The Tibetan exemple comes quickly to my mind
What about Asian LS ( warring states and the like just from memory )

[Count_bohemond]

Just making the game even more complicated. Don't like this change either

[badhabum]

I was thinking about Hannibal famed veterans, they will become much less powerful vs romans ..not sure it is a positive change

[nikgaukroger]

Currently Superior LSp are +2 in the charge phase if in 2 ranks, +1 if in 1 rank; +2 in the melee phase if in 2 ranks, +1 if in 1 rank.

Superior Spear classification would be +2 in the charge phase if in 2 ranks, +1 if in 1 rank; +2 in the melee phase if in 2 ranks or if in 1 rank fighting non-ME, +1 in 1 rank if fighting ME.


How is this "much less powerful vs Romans"?

[nikgaukroger]

I note in the army builder that LSp cost has been reduced (by 5 points) but the Spear classification is the old LSp cost so 5pts more base cost. Gut feeling that this isn't quite right – about the same would have been my expectation.

[SteveO]

How is this "much less powerful vs Romans"?

Well 'much' less powerful might be an exaggeration but given Romans are almost always ME, the +1 for one rank is unlikely to be applicable and any overlaps (which are likely to occur eventually) are effectively a +1 for the Romans.

[SteveO]

What about the spatans who are now LS + ME ?

Looking at the draft 2026 Spartan list, apparently not - the Spartiates have lost ME.

[badhabum]

Currently Superior LSp are +2 in the charge phase if in 2 ranks, +1 if in 1 rank; +2 in the melee phase if in 2 ranks, +1 if in 1 rank.

Superior Spear classification would be +2 in the charge phase if in 2 ranks, +1 if in 1 rank; +2 in the melee phase if in 2 ranks or if in 1 rank fighting non-ME, +1 in 1 rank if fighting ME.


How is this "much less powerful vs Romans"?

Facing lots of superior romans as the roman armies are slightly much overpowered with veterans

[badhabum]

I understand the intend but still remain sceptical
  At impact If in 2+ ranks, +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch, +1 vs others.
  In melee If in 2+ ranks, +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch, +1 vs others; if in 1 rank +1 vs foot cancelled by ME.

So the hoplites were THE heavy infantry but in MEG numerous lists do have ME
1105 Early Libyans do have up to 48 ME that would challenge hoiplites and cost far less ok They are tribal
1110 Nubian 18 ME
1202 Hyksos 48 ME
1203 Luwian Kingdoms

And to make it short : sea people, galatians, lusitanians full of ME . So the epitome of the heavy infantry is now more easily overpowered by many infantry armies and that's where it disturbs me.

The case of Hannibal's veterans is also a problem. Their main opponents are romans, all played ME so now Hannibal has not one unit that can overpower roman veterans .

Is the change a bad thing . I could live with it but there is the problem of the cancelation of the +1 vs ME infantry as it unbalances the game .

So is ME the problem or the new definition of the new weapon ?

If it's resolved then it's OK otherwise I would stick to the LS version.

Now staying in the spirit of the game why not add : In melee If in 2+ ranks, +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch, +1 vs others; if in 1 rank +1 vs foot cancelled by ME unless in 2+ranks

[nikgaukroger]

Now staying in the spirit of the game why not add : In melee If in 2+ ranks, +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch, +1 vs others; if in 1 rank +1 vs foot cancelled by ME unless in 2+ranks

If they are in 2 ranks their +1 is not cancelled by ME so your bit in bold is surely pointless.

[Hayung_is]

To throw my two cents in. I think many armies in MeG get too much melee expert and superior thrown in to balance the lack of depth in the roster. This can really skew what would otherwise be a solid infantry unit as being 2nd rate because it there is no way to stack bonus factors.

[LawrenceG]

To throw my two cents in. I think many armies in MeG get too much melee expert and superior thrown in to balance the lack of depth in the roster. This can really skew what would otherwise be a solid infantry unit as being 2nd rate because it there is no way to stack bonus factors.

Not sure what point the second sentence is trying to make.



In my experience it does seem to be a case of: if I buy a unit that doesn't have a +1 in melee, I ask myself not "How can this unit contribute to my victory?" but "How can I avoid this unit contributing to my defeat?"

[badhabum]

Now staying in the spirit of the game why not add : In melee If in 2+ ranks, +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch, +1 vs others; if in 1 rank +1 vs foot cancelled by ME unless in 2+ranks

If they are in 2 ranks their +1 is not cancelled by ME so your bit in bold is surely pointless.

Did I tell you about concentration problems

Still not sur the change is positive ..same price, but weakened .

[LawrenceG]

Still not sur the change is positive ..same price, but weakened

Spear

Difference from current long spear:

Does not cancel mounted preferred claims in charge combat

+1 when in a single rank vs foot (except ME)

Enemy support files get no downgrade.


New long spear difference from current long spear:

Enemy support files get no downgrade. (They get a cost reduction for this)



To me it's not that obvious whether the "better against some foot" outweighs the "worse against mounted" but I would have thought the starting point ought to be same cost as new long spear. 

[lionheartrjc]

Can I urge people to try the change before they comment.

To me it's not that obvious whether the "better against some foot" outweighs the "worse against mounted" but I would have thought the starting point ought to be same cost as new long spear.

This is a very astute comment.  The points change is the most difficult bit to test and I will admit to being uncertain about it.