Summary of Proposed Changes

[batesmotel]

One of my initial concerns, and like I've said I want to playtest it before whining too much (but they didn't let me in to the playtest group so OF COURSE now I'm whining) is elephants not being supportable by generals.

For western elephants this might make a decent deal of sense, but for eastern elephants it definitely does not.

Consider basically any of the eastern Elephant armies, the example we always use being Classical Indian.


In your standard Classical Indian army, your fighting force is 5-6 units of elephants, and 1-2 units of heavy chariots. VS say, Romans or Pike, you will try hard to only fight with these units, and keep all of your foot (unprotected) back for rear support and overlaps.

What are the generals supposed to do in such a situation? Obviously one hangs out with the chariots, but the rest are merely cheerleaders.

Normally, I will keep generals with elephants above all else, because those rerolls protect against freak accidents resulting in death rolls and the units exploding. Again, for a western army with one or two units of ellies this might seem a little gamey, but when you are running 300 points of the beasts and they are nearly the entire front line of your army, it becomes required.


It deserves playtesting, because while this weakens elephants in melee, the other changes have made them much scarier on impact (3 dice and an extra -1), and I need to see how that ends up. But I am slightly concerned that at the end of the day I will prefer the old elephants.

Could be that another beta test phase is going to work on how to integrate Ellies into the Eastern armies too. Who knows what the writers are brewing up.


The other ones I am slightly concerned about are the Longbow vs. Armored Knight bits, and the LH cohesion test for evading off table bits. I see the logic behind both, but feel in both cases they might be too severe a reaction.

LH got hit hard by this ruleset.

I could certainly see modifying the change for elephants to allow specific armies with elephant mounted generals to still be able to be able effect elephant combat dice. As far as longbows, my impression is that they aren't that vulnerable to cavalry now so shouldn't be all that vulnerable to the faster armoured knights.

Chris

[marty]

I like the proposed changes in general but It is perhaps a little concerning that an armoured cavalry man (say an eastern nomad with full lamellar for man and half his horse, armour put on this earth primarily to stop arrows) gets hit on a 4 by bow and so does a protected cavalryman (say a gothic lancer with helmet and shield).

I understand this is perhaps part of a push for nomad armies to field more of their mounted as cav rather than LH (and perhaps to make the upgrade to armoured less of a no brainer) but think it stretches credibility a little. It also forces the rules in to a position where it is more difficult to represent the armour peircing qualities of LB

Martin

[david53]

It seems like this is a general reduction of shooting effects versus mounted. Unprotected and protected mounted look more viable now since they will have the same vulnerability against bows/slings/javelins as unprotected and protected foot. The longbow change just looks in line with that.

Chris

The changes in turn and move will make shooty cavalry more viable now they can pull back a bit.

But it's really going to favor drilled shooty cavalry over undrilled with CMTs being required and drilled still passing CMTs on 7 vs 8 for undrilled. The 1 point extra for drilled cavalry is definitely a bargain at this point.

Chris

Yes but consdiering that V1 left Shooty cavalry Drilled or undrilled a bit stuck.

If approched by eenemy LH could move back and still face enemy and shoot.

All cavalry could do is turn around and wait for the charge or stay and shoot and hope to get away from the charge.

They were a troop type most people including myself could'nt work out how to use.

But now I hope you will see more Shooty Cavalry on the table with the same options as LH now

[philqw78]

But it's really going to favor drilled shooty cavalry over undrilled with CMTs being required and drilled still passing CMTs on 7 vs 8 for undrilled.

Are you sure abou that? That may change too. The list was proposed and not complete.

[david53]

But it's really going to favor drilled shooty cavalry over undrilled with CMTs being required and drilled still passing CMTs on 7 vs 8 for undrilled.

Are you sure abou that? That may change too. The list was proposed and not complete.

Its not realley

What it is doing is allowing shooty cavalry both drilled and undrilled a chance to be used as LH are now.

The idea that a line of shooty cavalry could'nt do what LH do ie turn move and turn back seemed strange to me.

If this stays in along with the 180 degree turn I would hope to see more shooty Cavalry on the tables.

In the past once the enemy came real close ie 1mm away what could they do? now you have an option.

This too me is one of the best changes in V2.

[TimSnoddy]

Jumping to a completely different tack I wonder how the changes will affect one of the killer armies in my local competion scene superior pike as personified by the Swiss. Several changes seem to help them, they now become even less vulnerable to bow fire, getting a +1 against skirmishers means LH armies have it even harder against them. Their large groups of 8 help them as they have to take 4 hits instead of 3 to take the cohesion modifier and if they win impact in which they are double plus the opponent suffers a minus in his cohesion test. Also the max breakpoint thing will help them. They can get close to max at 800 points and maybe I am missing something but is there any or much point in their opponent taking more than 16 battlegroups? They are generally considered unstoppable in a frontal fight historically or on tabletop so reducing breakpoint from 5 to 4 will have little effect. Who do they fear besides other Swiss? I am also surprised there is nothing to help field generals who are rarely played.

[Strategos69]

Jumping to a completely different tack I wonder how the changes will affect one of the killer armies in my local competion scene superior pike as personified by the Swiss. Several changes seem to help them, they now become even less vulnerable to bow fire, getting a +1 against skirmishers means LH armies have it even harder against them. Their large groups of 8 help them as they have to take 4 hits instead of 3 to take the cohesion modifier and if they win impact in which they are double plus the opponent suffers a minus in his cohesion test. Also the max breakpoint thing will help them. They can get close to max at 800 points and maybe I am missing something but is there any or much point in their opponent taking more than 16 battlegroups? They are generally considered unstoppable in a frontal fight historically or on tabletop so reducing breakpoint from 5 to 4 will have little effect. Who do they fear besides other Swiss? I am also surprised there is nothing to help field generals who are rarely played.

When I finished reading the interpenetration part, it made me think that pikes could get some advantages from ahistorical deployments (two lines). I would like to test it first but it can be worth trying (first line of medium foot and then the pikes). Historically I don't know of any interpenetration of that kind (it happened with light foot, but not with heavy, even pikes did not interpenetrate). A simple fix for that is banning pikemen from benefitting the interpenetration rule. Also maybe the movement should be splitted between pikes (as the former HF movement) and the rest (4-4-3-2). This would be reasonable as we know keeping a pikemen formation was harder than others, so it would be likely that movement would be slower.

[waldo]

9. Armoured knights move 5 MUs in open. [Needs to also go in QRS]

19. Shooting POAs changed: [Need to also go in QRS].
i. Shooting POA vs Unprotected Cavalry not in 1 rank reduced to +
ii. Shooting POA vs Protected Cavalry not in 1 rank removed.
iii. Shooting POA vs Armoured Cavalry not in 1 rank, and Armoured knights removed. [Note that it would be illogical to keep this for longbows if losing the + POA for bows vs Protected Cavalry. They had it before because of armour-piercing capability, not because of superior rate of fire over other bows.]

So Armoured knights become longbow killers? Interesting why the Welsh came up with a longbow 50 years before there was a need for it...ahead of their time.

From the games I have played and seen it hasn't seemed that MF bow/longbow are some super troop needing to be de-powered.

Walter

They are no different than Armoured Cavalry? Except they are more vulnerable to shooting, being wider.

It isn't about de-powering MF Longbow it is about uppowering Armoured Knights who at the moment are rarer than fairies.

No different but for getting 2 dice per base. To say they are no different from armoured cavalry is like saying cataphracts are no different from heavily armoured knights.

I understand that armoured knights are a rare beast but I think that is more because of unhistorical match-ups (especially in tournaments) than their ineffectiveness against historical opponents. Making longbows less effective and armoured knights move faster is not going to stop their main problem - they can't compete against heavily armoured ones. But they are considerably better than heavily armoured knights against longbows and much better than they were against normal bow. Charging in without enduring a short range shot (or at most one) is some advantage to have over copping two guaranteed short range shots.

To have a longbow shooting with the same effect against cavalry carrying only a shield as against knights with plate armour and barded horses sounds a bit far-fetched. Now a crossbow is exactly the same as a longbow against all cavalry/knights bar unprotected in more than one rank. So much for that higher rate of fire.

Walter

[batesmotel]

But it's really going to favor drilled shooty cavalry over undrilled with CMTs being required and drilled still passing CMTs on 7 vs 8 for undrilled.

Are you sure abou that? That may change too. The list was proposed and not complete.

Its not realley

What it is doing is allowing shooty cavalry both drilled and undrilled a chance to be used as LH are now.

The idea that a line of shooty cavalry could'nt do what LH do ie turn move and turn back seemed strange to me.

If this stays in along with the 180 degree turn I would hope to see more shooty Cavalry on the tables.

In the past once the enemy came real close ie 1mm away what could they do? now you have an option.

This too me is one of the best changes in V2.

I definitely like this change for shooty cavalry as well, but given my druthers with the current draft, I'd much rather do it with drilled ones than undrilled for only a point more per base.

Chris

[bahdahbum]

The changes in turn and move will make shooty cavalry more viable now they can pull back a bit.

They already seemed very viable to me . Now it will be even more difficult to hope to win . Before, you had to come quite near them, survive morale test, charge and hope to catch them . Then , you begin it all again . Now they will be able with a bit of luck to shoot every turn as they will manoeuvre, always being 2MU + from you and catching them will be very difficult indeed .

But that's wargame .

[babyshark]

Jumping to a completely different tack I wonder how the changes will affect one of the killer armies in my local competion scene superior pike as personified by the Swiss. Several changes seem to help them, they now become even less vulnerable to bow fire, getting a +1 against skirmishers means LH armies have it even harder against them. Their large groups of 8 help them as they have to take 4 hits instead of 3 to take the cohesion modifier and if they win impact in which they are double plus the opponent suffers a minus in his cohesion test.

I believe I spot an error. Pike (8 base BGs, 2 wide by 4 deep) get a -1 on CTs caused by shooting at 3 hits, not 4. "Hits per x bases" only counts bases in the first three ranks. Still, it is not easy for skirmishers alone to disrupt pikes.

I am also surprised there is nothing to help field generals who are rarely played.

That is a tough one. They are valuable as subgenerals when one wants to FM but otherwise not quite good enough.

Marc

[rbodleyscott]

It isn't about de-powering MF Longbow it is about uppowering Armoured Knights who at the moment are rarer than fairies.

And Dave should know.

[rbodleyscott]

I suppose the written rule will explain further, but I would think the column exception would apply to 2 paks of spear (e.g., Roman triarii).

Indeed, an oversight. Please point out any others you may discover.

(We especially want to exclude elephants from the exception)

[rbodleyscott]

Consider basically any of the eastern Elephant armies, the example we always use being Classical Indian.

In your standard Classical Indian army, your fighting force is 5-6 units of elephants, and 1-2 units of heavy chariots. VS say, Romans or Pike, you will try hard to only fight with these units, and keep all of your foot (unprotected) back for rear support and overlaps.

What are the generals supposed to do in such a situation? Obviously one hangs out with the chariots, but the rest are merely cheerleaders.

It is difficult to see how even an Indian elephant general could make elephants do more damage to the enemy (score more "hits"). Neverthless, he still affects their cohesion tests.

[rpayne]

Consider basically any of the eastern Elephant armies, the example we always use being Classical Indian.

In your standard Classical Indian army, your fighting force is 5-6 units of elephants, and 1-2 units of heavy chariots. VS say, Romans or Pike, you will try hard to only fight with these units, and keep all of your foot (unprotected) back for rear support and overlaps.

What are the generals supposed to do in such a situation? Obviously one hangs out with the chariots, but the rest are merely cheerleaders.

It is difficult to see how even an Indian elephant general could make elephants do more damage to the enemy (score more "hits"). Neverthless, he still affects their cohesion tests.

It is equally difficult to see how any general makes any unit score more "hits".

Is the reroll factor coming from his affect at rallying his men to greater heights? If so, the majority of Eastern elephants contain quite a few retainers, guys up on top of the thing shooting arrows, bodyguards, etc. They would all be emboldened in this way.

The elephants themselves are extremely loyal to their controllers, who would be emboldened to get the elephant to work harder or not freak out as easily.


Or is the reroll factor coming from the personal prowess of the general himself and his retinue of bodyguards fighting on the front lines? Probably the case with some of the more barbarian armies, and makes a bit of sense considering the general has a chance of getting killed. In this case, generals who are on elephants themselves would likely qualify, as an extra elephant with handpicked guardsmen is likely a help.


I don't think you can make a definite argument on either side of the spectrum here, really. By the same token, if they cannot push the elephants to fight any better, how can they push them to do better on their CMTs and CTs?


On the subject of elephants, a minor issue: Why do Heavy Weapons not get a POA on impact vs. ellies? I realize it is because they are mounted, but it seems unfair that they are the only sort of formed foot that does not get a POA vs. them. I doubt we have much to go on historically (other than Indian nobility favoring two handed clubs over swords in earlier periods) but it makes sense that halbards and such would be useful vs. elephants on a charge.

Something that's always bugged me but now that elephants are getting 3 dice on impact it seems like the right time to mention it. Elephants vs. equal frontage HW would be 6 dice on 4's vs. 4 on 5's, likely to cause a -4 test.

[shadowdragon]

I suppose the written rule will explain further, but I would think the column exception would apply to 2 paks of spear (e.g., Roman triarii).

Indeed, an oversight. Please point out any others you may discover.

(We especially want to exclude elephants from the exception)

I would think any 2 base BG except for elephants, chariots, knights, artillery and battle wagons would not count as a column.

[bahdahbum]

I would think any 2 base BG except for elephants, chariots, knights, artillery and battle wagons would not count as a column.

I would agree

[rpayne]

Is it even possible to have 4 bases of unbroken Pikes any more anyway?

Far as I know the smallest Pikes come in is 8's, and there are no Elite Pikes, and Superiors break on 50% now.

[bahdahbum]

Yes I did the same calculation but would let it be while we are still testing the 50 %autobreak rule for superior units ( Which I find very interesting )

[rbodleyscott]

Is it even possible to have 4 bases of unbroken Pikes any more anyway?

I thought there were some army lists with 4 of them, but I may be misremembering from DBM days.