Points cost for foot with Light Spear

[MNFS]

Considering how useful Light Spear is for foot, is there a strong argument for making it cost at least 1 point? Dom Romans may lose a BG by doing this... Thoughts?

[hammy]

Light spear is not as good as impact foot or offensive spear so if you make light spear cost 1 point then you need to make the others cost more. That then has a knock on to other point values and all in all things need a lot of change.

Granted as a 'freebie' it is very nice. It is probably worth about half a point but that is getting rather fiddly.

[pease1]

Actually half a point isn't all that fiddly for rules that require battle groups to (almost always) have an even number of bases.

Of course I'm not of the mind that it needs changing either.

[kevinj]

Granted as a 'freebie' it is very nice. It is probably worth about half a point

I agree, it's a nice to have but most of us don't look at a list and start with "How many free Light Spear foot can I have?"

I think there's a better case for Cavalry Light Spear being free as they seem to be very much the unwanted relation of the mounted world.

[hammy]

Granted as a 'freebie' it is very nice. It is probably worth about half a point

I agree, it's a nice to have but most of us don't look at a list and start with "How many free Light Spear foot can I have?"

I think there's a better case for Cavalry Light Spear being free as they seem to be very much the unwanted relation of the mounted world.

Nah, light spear mounted are great. No really they are.....

The aren't shock so they can evade when they get into a mess and they get a better POA than lancers against several troop types. The main problem is finding an army that can have plenty of decent light spear cavalry.

[nikgaukroger]

The aren't shock so they can evade when they get into a mess and they get a better POA than lancers against several troop types. The main problem is finding an army that can have plenty of decent light spear cavalry.

Early Russian and Early Polish probably

[spikemesq]

Nah, light spear mounted are great. No really they are.....

The aren't shock so they can evade when they get into a mess and they get a better POA than lancers against several troop types. The main problem is finding an army that can have plenty of decent light spear cavalry.

Kushite Egyptians can bring quite a few Cv/Arm/Sup/Undr/LSp/Sw.

Against which troops do LSp Cv have a better POA than Lancers? LSp does count in terrain (where Lances do not), I suppose, but you have to sacrifice 1:3 dice to get that.

Other foot will have a POA for charging LSp Cv that they would not get against Lancers.

Lancers lose the POA against El, SCh, BWg, and non-charging steady Sp/Pk

LSp Cv seem to suck against these also:

vs. El = LSp won't count because El has the +.

vs. SCh = same result

vs. BWg = same result

vs. Sp/Pk = if these are MF then the LSp comes out ahead because the mounted v. MF and Steady Sp/Pk cancel, allowing the LSp to add a POA.

I suppose LSp Cv ekes out a POA against this when uphill and Lancers would not.

What else is there?

Spike

[david53]

The aren't shock so they can evade when they get into a mess and they get a better POA than lancers against several troop types. The main problem is finding an army that can have plenty of decent light spear cavalry.

Early Russian and Early Polish probably

Polish 18 IIRC and a few Spainish type armies, not as good when used by LH compared to CavalryIMO.

[johno]

Early Rhoxolani Sarmatian - more Superior cavalry with Bow*, LSp, Sword than you could possibly want, plus a few horse archers and armoured lancers to back it up.

johno

[hammy]

Against which troops do LSp Cv have a better POA than Lancers?

Against heavy foot spears and pike light spear cavalry are the same as lancers but will never be forced to charge to their doom

Against bow sword cavaly the same is true and not being forced to charge means it is more likley you will be able to block the evade of the shooty cavalry.

Against medium foot spear light spear cav are better and they are the same as lancers against light spear and impact foot medium foot.

I am serious in that I think light spear is well worth the point. I have won a lot of games because my opponents had lancers and they could be pulled out of possition and made to move into silly places. The same never happens with light spear cavalry.

In a lot of ways the biggest loss for the light spear cavalry is the -1 on CT but they get that against MF anyway so it is not that bad a loss.

[spikemesq]

Against heavy foot spears and pike light spear cavalry are the same as lancers but will never be forced to charge to their doom

But Cv without any impact POA are the same as Lancers here. So why the extra point.

Against bow sword cavaly the same is true and not being forced to charge means it is more likley you will be able to block the evade of the shooty cavalry.

Lancers get a + here and LSp don't.

Against medium foot spear light spear cav are better and they are the same as lancers against light spear and impact foot medium foot.

True on MF Sp. Otherwise, any non-lancer Cv are the same as Lancers here with or without the point for LSp.

I am serious in that I think light spear is well worth the point. I have won a lot of games because my opponents had lancers and they could be pulled out of possition and made to move into silly places. The same never happens with light spear cavalry.

In a lot of ways the biggest loss for the light spear cavalry is the -1 on CT but they get that against MF anyway so it is not that bad a loss.

I agree that non-shock cavalry is useful. But in most of these cases, unarmed Cv is just as good as LSp Cv (i.e., not-shock and getting no benefit from the LSp. So what justifies the extra point for the LSp?

Spike

[philqw78]

Against bow sword cavaly the same is true and not being forced to charge means it is more likley you will be able to block the evade of the shooty cavalry.

Lancers get a + here and LSp don't.

Yes they do. Light Spear get a plus as without it they would be even against bow sw cav. They do not inflict a - in CT though.

Against medium foot spear light spear cav are better and they are the same as lancers against light spear and impact foot medium foot.

True on MF Sp. Otherwise, any non-lancer Cv are the same as Lancers here with or without the point for LSp.

No. Bow/SW Cav are even v's most MF (Off Sp, Def Sp, IF, Lt Sp) and where the BW Sw are even Lt Sp will be plus (as are lancers). Where Bow/Sw cav are at plus the Lt Sp is also at +. All inflict a minus on the CT v's the MF. Basically Lt Sp is the best mounted weapon for use against MF.

[kevinj]

OK, I'll accept that there are circumstances where Cav with LS are better off than those without. However, my original point was based on the fact that those circumstances are far less common than where Foot with LS benefit over those who have no impact weapon. Therefore, as the Foot get the LS for free, it's a reasonable argument that the Mounted should as well.

[NickW]

Can't see why you can't make light spear 0.5 points. It's worth something so should cost something. All battle groups with LtSp will have an even number of bases with them.

[hammy]

Against bow sword cavaly the same is true and not being forced to charge means it is more likley you will be able to block the evade of the shooty cavalry.

Lancers get a + here and LSp don't.

Are you willing to bet on that one

The whole point of the light spear POA is that if the combat is even then the light spear grants a +. It is impossible for light spear cavalry to be at even apart from against other light spear cavalry.

I agree that non-shock cavalry is useful. But in most of these cases, unarmed Cv is just as good as LSp Cv (i.e., not-shock and getting no benefit from the LSp. So what justifies the extra point for the LSp?

The POA tie break against everything that cavalry with no POA would be evens against i.e. other cavalry with no POA, medium foot with a POA and on the odd occasion where there is an extra POA the tiebreak can help.

[hammy]

OK, I'll accept that there are circumstances where Cav with LS are better off than those without. However, my original point was based on the fact that those circumstances are far less common than where Foot with LS benefit over those who have no impact weapon. Therefore, as the Foot get the LS for free, it's a reasonable argument that the Mounted should as well.

In effect when compared to foot light spear mounted light spear is pretty much a half point option.

Consider protected medium foot swordsmen at 6 points. Is light spear worth a 16% increase in cost? As most foot are protected (at least in the army lists if not on the table) this is probably the figure you should look at.

Compare with armoured average or superior protected cavalry swordsmen costing 11 points then the 1 point exra for light spear is only a 9% increase.

[ShrubMiK]

Don't forget the possibility of a BG of 6 or 10 with 1/2 armed with LS? (e.g. Achaemenids)

Not that it matters really. If I'm putting an 800 point army together the chances are I'll leave a point or several unspent. What does it matter if the army actually costs 795.5 points rather than a whole number?

I've pointed out Achaemenids before as a bit of an oddity for free LS.

IIRC, Immortals get LS, Bow for both ranks, other Sparabara foot get Bow, LS front rank and Bow only rear rank. Yet of course rear rank costs the same in both cases.

If they stay formed in two ranks, often it won't matter whether or not the second rank has LS. They still contribute dice to combat in the same way, and the POAs are as for the front rank troops so no difference. If attacked from the rear or a front-rank bases is destroyed, it starts to become important. But the complication is that in other (i.e. "normal") circumstances, the Sparabara are not disadvantaged compared to the Immortals for not having second rank LS. Therefore the Immortals might question why they should pay an extra point (or half point) for something that is often not a benefit.

Swords have a similar issue. Spears and Pikes do not, since their POAs depend on rear ranks having the appropriate weapon.

Not saying it is a _big_ problem mind you, and I certainly can't suggest any good way to "fix" it without completely changing the way the combat rules work. Just an oddity.

[kevinj]

Consider protected medium foot swordsmen at 6 points. Is light spear worth a 16% increase in cost? As most foot are protected (at least in the army lists if not on the table) this is probably the figure you should look at.

Compare with armoured average or superior protected cavalry swordsmen costing 11 points then the 1 point exra for light spear is only a 9% increase.

So that's an Impact POA every time (unless I'm crazy enough to charge shock mounted) for 16% extra, compared to an impact POA against:

other cavalry with no POA, medium foot with a POA and on the odd occasion where there is an extra POA

which costs an extra 9%. In my opinion the relative benefits to each for those costs would be reasonable, which was the basis for my view that they should cost the same for both and, given that it's generally regarded as a reasonable 0 point cost for foot, should be the same for mounted.

[hammy]

If they stay formed in two ranks, often it won't matter whether or not the second rank has LS. They still contribute dice to combat in the same way, and the POAs are as for the front rank troops so no difference. If attacked from the rear or a front-rank bases is destroyed, it starts to become important. But the complication is that in other (i.e. "normal") circumstances, the Sparabara are not disadvantaged compared to the Immortals for not having second rank LS. Therefore the Immortals might question why they should pay an extra point (or half point) for something that is often not a benefit.

Swords have a similar issue. Spears and Pikes do not, since their POAs depend on rear ranks having the appropriate weapon.

It is all well and good having no sword POA for rear rank bases until you lose a base in the front rank or get charged in the flank or even worse rear.

[ShrubMiK]

Yep, agreed. I even said that myself

I'm just pointing out another place in the rules where you statistically don't get the same return on investment for the same number of points spent in different places. Or looking at it another way...(if an army list permitted it)...would it be more cost-effective for me to have a BG of 4 with LS+Sw and a second BG of 4 with Sw only; or 2 BGs each with front rank of LS+Sw and rear rank Sw only?