2020 rule tweaks

[DracoStandard]

break off vs equal speed opponent - drilled only

that would fix some of the percieved problems

hairy warband types cant anyway, its only really (good quality) legions and Almughavers, and occasionaly pointy stick types, who really want to do this.

most of them are drilled

[Rino]

FYI almugavar are most part of the time formed.

The  gallic merx of Hannibal were also formed.

If there are KAB involved I don't see the point to restrict it.
Otherwise point système should be reviewed accordingly.

Simple

[RobAustin]

Romans at Pydna. We used this in my historical refight, as the Romans initially engaged the Pike, then broke off and retreated to the uneven ground. Then the Pike advanced into it.

[Jilu]

Most Barbarian DC INF troops are crap. it will make them worse if they cannot break off.
Honestly, i think that barbarian armies are way to bad to be effective. Especially antiquity  armies.
being mostly AV DC only makes them fragile,

if the aim is to make things fun....i am afraid it is not what is achieved.

[martymagnificent]

They can't generally break off now.

I'd tend to agree that they are not currently a great option.

Seems a recurring theme in ancients wargaming. I don't think I can recall a system where charging warbands are a good option.

Martin

[Jilu]

IRR A or B warbands in the 7th edition were fun.

I think warbands are under rated and undervalued.

the Galatians have feared warriors...and were gallic...

somehow they are better than all the others.

no AD warbands are any good in the antique era. not even the feared germans.

i agree...yes republican romans were good at beating  warbands. but the difference in quality in meg makes the barbarians no match at all.

SUP IW ME close romans vs AV loose or close DC...the odd are far from even or fun.

even the barbarian supporting cav is ... well...weak..not much useful.

we do see very few barbarian armies in tournaments, perhaps some with chatiots, but mainly because they have lots of  chatiots.

[martymagnificent]

They are better than they were in MeG, thanks to the points reduction on devastating charger. I still find armies built around them a challenge to use. If you want to run an infantry horde you are much better off with cheap Longspears or something similar.

Martin

[Simon Meg-Meister]

They can't generally break off now.

I'd tend to agree that they are not currently a great option.

Seems a recurring theme in ancients wargaming. I don't think I can recall a system where charging warbands are a good option.

Martin

I actually really like my Gauls and Britons. 
Takes a certain bottle and a good army design.
They are getting a bit of points reduction, but am yet to work out my new versions.

S

[RobAustin]

I have enjoyed my Gauls. I have won more with them than lost. Putting the warbands in TuGs of 9 and running them three deep gives them staying power. Granted, I have not really played with them against Knights, etc.

It is a little frustrating that when I meet other barbarians they are almost all better then Gauls. Seems most have something in addition to DC, like Short Spear, or whatever.

[RobAustin]

Terrain Sizes

Has there been any discussion of just having one range of terrain size, instead of one for compulsory and one for optional? Not really sure that it has enough game effect for the pain that it is in creating, storing and transporting terrain pieces, especially t3D things like hills, etc.

[Rino]

Terrain Sizes

Has there been any discussion of just having one range of terrain size, instead of one for compulsory and one for optional? Not really sure that it has enough game effect for the pain that it is in creating, storing and transporting terrain pieces, especially t3D things like hills, etc.

Well, it had some real impact on game, at least my personal experience of it.
Ask those who went in uneven when I was playing normans.

Who said I was still sour from my mourning of uneven?
well he was right!

Have a good weekend all of you!

Cheers

[nikgaukroger]

Terrain Sizes

Has there been any discussion of just having one range of terrain size, instead of one for compulsory and one for optional? Not really sure that it has enough game effect for the pain that it is in creating, storing and transporting terrain pieces, especially t3D things like hills, etc.

Just make them all between 6x6 and 8x8 and they work for both 

[RobAustin]

That is what we mostly do. So why have a rule that people largely don't use?

[Rino]

We use it in our club and for the tournament.

Ask punch if he prefer big or small terrain when he put its early lybian army on the table.

[nikgaukroger]

That is what we mostly do. So why have a rule that people largely don't use?

Must admit that it doesn't seem to add much if anything, I'd be perfectly OK with compulsory and optional having the same size range.