The delay in v2 rules affects decision to acquire new armies

[peterrjohnston]

Hopefully none of the lists will be changed using the 'new' rules as publication method.

It appears likely that some changes from the beta will remain when v2 is published - such as the Superior warbands and the LH option for Byzantine koursores.

Including gutting Dailami or no?

[nikgaukroger]

Hopefully none of the lists will be changed using the 'new' rules as publication method.

It appears likely that some changes from the beta will remain when v2 is published - such as the Superior warbands and the LH option for Byzantine koursores.

Including gutting Dailami or no?

Garlic munchers will be glad to hear that one has been discarded (I think).

[hazelbark]

It appears likely that some changes from the beta will remain when v2 is published - such as the Superior warbands and the LH option for Byzantine koursores.

Good news for the barbarian foot.

[Delbruck]

It appears likely that some changes from the beta will remain when v2 is published - such as the Superior warbands and the LH option for Byzantine koursores.

Good news for the barbarian foot.

So, what is the story with superior warbands?

[nikgaukroger]

It appears likely that some changes from the beta will remain when v2 is published - such as the Superior warbands and the LH option for Byzantine koursores.

Good news for the barbarian foot.

So, what is the story with superior warbands?

Some (most?) of the classic warband armies (e.g. Early Germans) will be allowed something like 1/3 of their warband BGs to be Superior.

[Delbruck]

Good news for the barbarian foot.

So, what is the story with superior warbands?

Some (most?) of the classic warband armies (e.g. Early Germans) will be allowed something like 1/3 of their warband BGs to be Superior.

Will superior Romans still be skilled swordsmen?

[grahambriggs]

Chinese MF are not going to be reclassified as HF.

We have also decided to leave the existing optional MF/HF status for thureophoroi etc and Roman auxilia.

Hoo-f****g-ray

Careful. He hasn't actually said what Chinese MF will be reclassified as

[hazelbark]

Careful. He hasn't actually said what Chinese MF will be reclassified as

Trouble maker. Perhaps they will be reclassified as Knights.

[philqw78]

Jaguar or Eagle?

[marty]

D

elbruck wrote:
hazelbark wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:

It appears likely that some changes from the beta will remain when v2 is published - such as the Superior warbands and the LH option for Byzantine koursores
Good news for the barbarian foot.
So, what is the story with superior warbands?
Some (most?) of the classic warband armies (e.g. Early Germans) will be allowed something like 1/3 of their warband BGs to be Superior.

Hopefully without been restricted to minimum size battlegroups because it doesn't really help if this is the case. I'm not all that interested in using a 6 el warband, superior or not.

Martin

[philqw78]

Hopefully without been restricted to minimum size battlegroups because it doesn't really help if this is the case. I'm not all that interested in using a 6 el warband, superior or not.

Martin

Especially when they end up fighting their favourite enemy at double minus

[PaulByzan]

How about the mentioned change of the current half lancer/half bowmen Byzantine cavalry to all lance, bow* for all periods up to the Nikephorian? Makes much more sense.

Paul G

Hopefully none of the lists will be changed using the 'new' rules as publication method.

It appears likely that some changes from the beta will remain when v2 is published - such as the Superior warbands and the LH option for Byzantine koursores.

[madaxeman]

Hopefully without been restricted to minimum size battlegroups because it doesn't really help if this is the case. I'm not all that interested in using a 6 el warband, superior or not.

Martin

Especially when they end up fighting their favourite enemy at double minus

Aaaah - but you're not taking into account the "one grade of armour advantage doesn't give a POA when fighting against steady enemy HF" new "Shieldwall" rule...

[Delbruck]

Hopefully without been restricted to minimum size battlegroups because it doesn't really help if this is the case. I'm not all that interested in using a 6 el warband, superior or not.

Martin

Especially when they end up fighting their favourite enemy at double minus

Aaaah - but you're not taking into account the "one grade of armour advantage doesn't give a POA when fighting against steady enemy HF" new "Shieldwall" rule...

I like it

[ravenflight]

Hopefully without been restricted to minimum size battlegroups because it doesn't really help if this is the case. I'm not all that interested in using a 6 el warband, superior or not.

Martin

Especially when they end up fighting their favourite enemy at double minus

Aaaah - but you're not taking into account the "one grade of armour advantage doesn't give a POA when fighting against steady enemy HF" new "Shieldwall" rule...

Interesting. I've always thought that 'spears' and 'pikes' should only have armour counted if they are not steady. Their armour is 6' of wood where the enemy can't touch them.

This sounds like it does a similar job.

[nikgaukroger]

It is imaginary though.

I'll leave comments on 6' of wood to Phil ...

[philqw78]

I'd be lucky to comment on 6 inches of wood these days.

[rbodleyscott]

For example, if I were doing a Seluk Turk army would cavalry now be more useful than light horse?

Yes

[IanB3406]

Hmmm, Possibly massive rebasing projects as a result.......maybe I'll just make my cav two figs to a stand and light horse one. At least I won't need more figures.

[rbodleyscott]

Hopefully without been restricted to minimum size battlegroups because it doesn't really help if this is the case. I'm not all that interested in using a 6 el warband, superior or not.

Martin

Especially when they end up fighting their favourite enemy at double minus

They don't.

And 8s.