Mixed formations

[RichardThompson]

Arrian seems to overestimate the effect that these missiles (plus artillery, slingers, etc) will have "And the expectation is that the Scythians will not get close to the infantry battle formation because of the tremendous weight of missiles" - then goes on to say what to do if the charge presses home.

Allowing LF to shoot from the rear rank would help to produce the historical effect Arrian describes.

[shadowdragon]

Consider a long line of spearmen with a LF back rank.

If they faced skirmishers one rank deep then they would get to fire.

If they faced skirmishers two ranks deep then they would only get to fire if they overlapped the unit, or if the skirmishers had already lost a base.

Not perfect, but a small step forwards.

What????? They get to fire in the first case but not the second??? You've totally lost me.

More to the point, the opposing LF in one rank would be no threat to the mixed spearmen/LF. The opposing LF would be at best 8 bases - so 8 bases wide versus 4 mixed BG of 4 HF/MF and 2 LF. So, yeah, you could have 4 dice on the enemy LF BF of 8, while the enemy would only have 1 dice per mixed spear/LF BG. So, I'm not clear as to why this hypothetical and unusual case requires a change to the rules.

It might be a small step, but it's measured in nanometers. There are bigger fish to fry elsewhere.

[nikgaukroger]

It might be a small step, but it's measured in nanometers.

Indeed. This is a complete broken pencil

[RichardThompson]

Consider a long line of spearmen with a LF back rank.

If they faced skirmishers one rank deep then they would get to fire.

If they faced skirmishers two ranks deep then they would only get to fire if they overlapped the unit, or if the skirmishers had already lost a base.

Not perfect, but a small step forwards.

What????? They get to fire in the first case but not the second??? You've totally lost me.

More to the point, the opposing LF in one rank would be no threat to the mixed spearmen/LF. The opposing LF would be at best 8 bases - so 8 bases wide versus 4 mixed BG of 4 HF/MF and 2 LF. So, yeah, you could have 4 dice on the enemy LF BF of 8, while the enemy would only have 1 dice per mixed spear/LF BG. So, I'm not clear as to why this hypothetical and unusual case requires a change to the rules.

It might be a small step, but it's measured in nanometers. There are bigger fish to fry elsewhere.

OK, I'll try again.

Consider a unit of 8 spearmen with 4 LF in the back rank. They would get a maximum of two shooting dice.

If they were opposed by an enemy unit with up to 6 bases then they would shoot (because they could get 1HP3B)

If they were opposed by 8 bases (say 2 units of 4 LH in two ranks lined up opposite them) then they could not fire (because they could not get 1HP3B).

[shadowdragon]

OK, I'll try again.

Consider a unit of 8 spearmen with 4 LF in the back rank. They would get a maximum of two shooting dice.

If they were opposed by an enemy unit with up to 6 bases then they would shoot (because they could get 1HP3B)

If they were opposed by 8 bases (say 2 units of 4 LH in two ranks lined up opposite them) then they could not fire (because they could not get 1HP3B).

Okay, now I get you. In the first case the enemy wouldn't need to be in one rank, which is what confused me.

Of course, you're presuming that the new rule would be that you'd get 1 dice per two LF (i.e., the same as it is for LF for firing from the front two ranks). I think the authors have indicated - as you pointed out at the start - that, in their view, it would be less than 1 dice per 2 bases and therefore is inconsequential for the game. But even if they went with 1 dice for 2 bases, I'm much happier with the fact that the enemy need 4 hits out of 3 dice (for case 1) and out of 4 dice (for case 2) to cause a CT (they would only need 3 hits without the 3rd rank of LF) than I am in the chance of causing a CT on the enemy only in case 1 - because they're skirmishers and can b****r off any time they want.

[RichardThompson]

OK, I'll try again.

Consider a unit of 8 spearmen with 4 LF in the back rank. They would get a maximum of two shooting dice.

If they were opposed by an enemy unit with up to 6 bases then they would shoot (because they could get 1HP3B)

If they were opposed by 8 bases (say 2 units of 4 LH in two ranks lined up opposite them) then they could not fire (because they could not get 1HP3B).

Okay, now I get you. In the first case the enemy wouldn't need to be in one rank, which is what confused me.

Of course, you're presuming that the new rule would be that you'd get 1 dice per two LF (i.e., the same as it is for LF for firing from the front two ranks). I think the authors have indicated - as you pointed out at the start - that, in their view, it would be less than 1 dice per 2 bases and therefore is inconsequential for the game.

If the list authors believe there were enough bowmen to be worth representing and the player has paid the the points for an element of LF then I would let them shoot in the same way as other LF.

But even if they went with 1 dice for 2 bases, I'm much happier with the fact that the enemy need 4 hits out of 3 dice (for case 1) and out of 4 dice (for case 2) to cause a CT (they would only need 3 hits without the 3rd rank of LF) than I am in the chance of causing a CT on the enemy only in case 1 - because they're skirmishers and can b****r off any time they want.

From the Spearmen's point of view, getting the skirmishers to b****r off is the whole point of having the LF.

[lawrenceg]

Arrian seems to overestimate the effect that these missiles (plus artillery, slingers, etc) will have "And the expectation is that the Scythians will not get close to the infantry battle formation because of the tremendous weight of missiles" - then goes on to say what to do if the charge presses home.

Allowing LF to shoot from the rear rank would help to produce the historical effect Arrian describes.

Much of the " tremendous weight of missiles" came from separate missile-armed units and artillery behind and uphill of the heavy infantry IIRC, shooting overhead, as well as from the javelins of the heavy infantry themselves .

[philqw78]

From the Spearmen's point of view, getting the skirmishers to b****r off is the whole point of having the LF.

No, the point of the LF was to counter mounted charges.

[LambertSimnel]

From the Spearmen's point of view, getting the skirmishers to b****r off is the whole point of having the LF.

No, the point of the LF was to counter mounted charges.

If they needed help to hold off mounted charges then Defensive Spear, as it currently exists, doesn't feel like the correct grading.