Minimal changes to 2020 lists + Points

[mad lemmey]

Fair enough

[Robin]

Just been looking at a Britcon list.
Perhaps it's just me. I would have thought the main army might have an Ally. Or a couple of internal allies. I never considered you could take basically 2 allies just because the dates cross. If they fought historically then fine but if not then sounds like a bit of a flaw. So you could also have the main army with smaller contingents than the allied contingents. Been playing for neay two years and never crossed my tiny brain cell. Just my opinion.

[nikgaukroger]

Just been looking at a Britcon list.
Perhaps it's just me. I would have thought the main army might have an Ally. Or a couple of internal allies. I never considered you could take basically 2 allies just because the dates cross. If they fought historically then fine but if not then sounds like a bit of a flaw. So you could also have the main army with smaller contingents than the allied contingents. Been playing for neay two years and never crossed my tiny brain cell. Just my opinion.

Whilst there certainly are cases where that happened, you are probably right that the lists are too relaxed about allowing multiple allies.

[Robin]

It's the same as Flames of War v4 as long as it's in the time frame it doesn't matter what sector it fought in, such as Panthers or Ferdinands in the desert. I have been picked up because of in my opinion badly worded explanations in lists. But allies that did not fight together 

[marshalney2000]

Just been looking at a Britcon list.
Perhaps it's just me. I would have thought the main army might have an Ally. Or a couple of internal allies. I never considered you could take basically 2 allies just because the dates cross. If they fought historically then fine but if not then sounds like a bit of a flaw. So you could also have the main army with smaller contingents than the allied contingents. Been playing for neay two years and never crossed my tiny brain cell. Just my opinion.

I do not know if it was my list you were looking at but certainly two allies were included. Mind you I think every Feudal German and Frisian army at Britcon also had two allies as they did at a Skulls.
I would not be unhappy to see some restrictions brought in. Honest soul that I am.

[IanN]

I'd point out that its really isn't difficult to get more than 1 unit of skilled currently. However, ...

The cost of bows is coming down, therefore, Shooty cavalry armies have some extra points to spend in 2020.

The points decrease for bows automatically brings the cost of skilled shooter down as it is a multiplier.

Aware of that Nik - point being that several Skilled are required and that does get expensive and reduces army size/unit size considerably so upgraded army badly outnumbered. As sad ... a small reduction would be good

[craig.w]

They are already shooting platforms and very controllable (as long as they have a shooting weapon). These are not gains unless they are becoming better shooters somehow (more skilled?). Devastating charger is not as good as the base factors they already get. It sounds like they are all becoming light chariots but with some more capabilities. More historical? Possibly. Better? hard to see how.

Martin

More historical, yes - which is better for a game based in history. Means that they will have to be used differently, as speedy mobile shooters primarily, combat troops a more secondary role.

So Indian chariots are now speedy skirmishers that move as fast as a Mongol on a horse? 

[nikgaukroger]

Depends on how the actual classification comes out in the wash. Note Richard's comment on Sumerian donkey carts for example on rating some as Close formation to keep movement down.

[craig.w]

I'm not really sure why there was a need for a change with chariots. After 3 years of tweaking they seemed to work well and be a bit distinctive.

Seems like yet another change when the rules are supposed to be almost finished.

What was the problem that needed to be fixed? Endless tinkering is really off-putting. (Not directed at you just a general gripe) It will mean more list changes...  this is supposed to be the final edition for 5 years and now a whole new classification system for chariots is brought in? Seems crazy.

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Will watch the chariot developments with great interest. Does making them all simply 'chariots' essentially turn them in to the current light chariots but with more upgrades? If so, given the potential loss of their base combat factors, it is hard to see this making them better. Will depend on how the whole package shakes out though. I find battle chariots pretty solid under the current rules.

Anything that might have an impact on the current prevalence of 'hordes'?

Martin

Except they were mainly mobile shooting platforms and the heavier ones become good at that to compensate.  So soften up and then charge. In ise I think this will be a big better.  Plus controllable.

They are already shooting platforms and very controllable (as long as they have a shooting weapon). These are not gains unless they are becoming better shooters somehow (more skilled?). Devastating charger is not as good as the base factors they already get. It sounds like they are all becoming light chariots but with some more capabilities. More historical? Possibly. Better? hard to see how.

Martin

You may be right.  But I find the Battlechariots are more of a liability today.  Not as good as most cavalry types but hard to control.  So my limited testing so far is that I prefer it as they can =now move 5 and evade.  this is what makes them decent missile platforms as they can get more shots in before charging.  Give it a try.  Felt a net + to me.

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Again cheap. For Average its 5 pts a base (2020) as is the difference between Close and Flexible.

Now in a way legionarii are hit twice by small additions, but even both together doesn't add up to a massive amount. When I looked at my Roman lists it'd get me an extra basic unit, however, I'd want to keep Flexible as I've found that to be useful so losing Shield Cover wouldn't really give much that'd be useful for my lists (YMMV and it may be useful depending on how you do your Romans).

FWIW I have found Shield Cover to be useful in a few games, and now that we know you can prompt through it I suspect it is more useful.

I don't think either flexible or shield cover are takes.  They are really great cheap alternatives.  Romans are at their best when they set up a terrain where they can take advantage of it a bit.  But even if they can't its 5pts a base for flexibles so not a heavy tax. So basically take them to a tax free environment ....  I increasingly place terrain as Romans against something I can't crush frontally easily.

S

[Simon Meg-Meister]

They are already shooting platforms and very controllable (as long as they have a shooting weapon). These are not gains unless they are becoming better shooters somehow (more skilled?). Devastating charger is not as good as the base factors they already get. It sounds like they are all becoming light chariots but with some more capabilities. More historical? Possibly. Better? hard to see how.

Martin

More historical, yes - which is better for a game based in history. Means that they will have to be used differently, as speedy mobile shooters primarily, combat troops a more secondary role.

So Indian chariots are now speedy skirmishers that move as fast as a Mongol on a horse? 

Yes indeed.  But they don't shoot or manoeuvre as freely of course.

[Simon Meg-Meister]

I'm not really sure why there was a need for a change with chariots. After 3 years of tweaking they seemed to work well and be a bit distinctive.

Seems like yet another change when the rules are supposed to be almost finished.

What was the problem that needed to be fixed? Endless tinkering is really off-putting. (Not directed at you just a general gripe) It will mean more list changes...  this is supposed to be the final edition for 5 years and now a whole new classification system for chariots is brought in? Seems crazy.

Exactly the reason for posting things early to see the reaction.  So happy to hear counsel and thoughts ...

This is the one big discovery of the last year.  Looking at the new historical evidence - there was a great talk last year the at the SoA - it seem Mortem et Gloriam was the only set that represented Light Chariots well. But it was also clear that a BattleChariot as a charging bulldozer never existed. Even the larger ones were designed to give bigger shooting platforms and crew for melee if needed.

So that is a bit inconvenient timing as either:
a) we don't change it and are stuck for 5 years with unrealistic chariot period
b) we fix it now so its set for 5 years

No perfect answer but I erred towards progressive given what we now know.  I rather like the SoA saying Mortem et Gloriam is the only set to get chariots right....

But keep the feedback coming as not locked in print yet.  That happens end of October.

S

[AntiokosIII]

@ Simon re Chariots; what you say about chariot scholarship is true...for now. Opinions on this seem to change every few years. People who don't think that 'heavy' chariots as impact weapons really existed will disapprove, but those of the old school will now have either useless lead of very different armies. These opinions seem to change every few years. It seems to me that anyone who claims to be certain about how chariots fought is really, really optimistic. I don't think that we really do know. Is the use of 4 horses backed up by a cart full of fighters charging home harder to believe than one horse with a rider armed with a lance? If chariots were simply transport for rich archers, why stay inside it to fight? Why not dismount to shoot?
I do not pretend to know any of these answers. I just think we should stay open to all possibilities and not foreclose any plausible explanation for how these thing fought.

[martymagnificent]

Will watch the chariot developments with great interest. Does making them all simply 'chariots' essentially turn them in to the current light chariots but with more upgrades? If so, given the potential loss of their base combat factors, it is hard to see this making them better. Will depend on how the whole package shakes out though. I find battle chariots pretty solid under the current rules.

Anything that might have an impact on the current prevalence of 'hordes'?

Martin

Except they were mainly mobile shooting platforms and the heavier ones become good at that to compensate.  So soften up and then charge. In ise I think this will be a big better.  Plus controllable.

They are already shooting platforms and very controllable (as long as they have a shooting weapon). These are not gains unless they are becoming better shooters somehow (more skilled?). Devastating charger is not as good as the base factors they already get. It sounds like they are all becoming light chariots but with some more capabilities. More historical? Possibly. Better? hard to see how.

Martin

You may be right.  But I find the Battlechariots are more of a liability today.  Not as good as most cavalry types but hard to control.  So my limited testing so far is that I prefer it as they can =now move 5 and evade.  this is what makes them decent missile platforms as they can get more shots in before charging.  Give it a try.  Felt a net + to me.

I don't find them a liability currently and the ones that have devastating charger (I imagine a lot of the former 4 horse battle chariots) will be a much bigger liability than they are under the current rules. They still wont be able to evade but will be much worse in the fight they can't avoid. Will devastating charger be free for chariots? You are probably making a chariot worse overall by taking it! It is even worse when you consider chariots are often a part of armies that need a serious shock arm to keep their (generally appalling) infantry alive. This new iteration of chariots will not be able to perform that role.

I suspect this will be a further reduction in the, already pretty limited, appearances of chariots in open comp.

Martin