Free Javelins

[KiwiWarlord]

Troops who throw javelins should pay for the ability.
Having a 'freebie' for game balance in the Americas is making a mockery of other lists.

[philqw78]

How?

[ShrubMiK]

So LF and LH who throw javelins should cost more as well?

Well I have to say that's a good idea as it will help avoid the ridiculous overuse of the overpowered troop types that is blighting the game

As pointed out in the other thread, it's intriguing that you have a big thing about free javelins but don't seem to care about free light spear???

Personally I agree that the whole points cost thing could do with a bit of tweaking, but you can't necessarily just change one thing without having to rebalance everything else to avoid creating new, possibly bigger problems.

[philqw78]

Troops who throw javelins should pay for the ability.
Having a 'freebie' for game balance in the Americas is making a mockery of other lists.

Also I would have thought a game balance freebie balanced things.

[ethan]

I don't think the balance issue is with the "free" javelins. Rather it is that other, similarly primitive armies, get no such freebies to make them competitive and are often saddled with very unfavorable ratings for morale and capabilities.

[grahambriggs]

Unfortunately, about a year ago it was confirmed from 'on high' that there would be no points changes in v2.

I agree that in an ideal world they should cost something, but they don't. Others have made the point that LF Light spear Javelins get two freebies yet are not supertroops. The problem is, I think, that most troops with javelins capability are reasonably cheap to start with. Adding a whole point onto, say, average LF for light spear and javelin would add 25% to their cost and make them (IMHO) a poor buy. Whereas you can get a lot more fine grain with expensive troops. i.e. adding a point to a capability for a troop type that costs 20 points is only 5% extra.

I also agree that other armies of the same general make up to the later American armies that don't get javelins for their MF are disadvantaged. Or rather their significant disadvantages don't get the silver lining or MF javelins.

[marty]

In the grand scheme of things its probably less of a problem than the undercosting of superiority and armour.

Martin

[ShrubMiK]

Agreed x several.

however I think this is all missing the point slightly. The argument is a disingenous one. It's not about certain American lists being overpowered, or certain other American lists being underpowered. Fundamentally I think it's about "why can't my peltasts throw their javelins", but argued in a roundabout way.

[Lycanthropic]

Instead of a passive aggressive "Free javelins are broken because my favourite army cannot use them", why not try petitioning for the army list revisions coming up with some historically accurate rant about the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

[DrQuahog]

Agreed x several.

however I think this is all missing the point slightly. The argument is a disingenous one. It's not about certain American lists being overpowered, or certain other American lists being underpowered. Fundamentally I think it's about "why can't my peltasts throw their javelins", but argued in a roundabout way.

It's not about javelins, its about atlatls. These signifigantly outranged javelins, to virtual bow range, and tactical doctrine used them in that fashion.
As the American armies have neither armour nor mounted troops, it is hardly 'unbalancing'.

[ravenflight]

It's not about javelins, its about atlatls. These signifigantly outranged javelins, to virtual bow range, and tactical doctrine used them in that fashion.
As the American armies have neither armour nor mounted troops, it is hardly 'unbalancing'.

That's interesting. I'll assume you're right about the atlatl's having a range close to bow range. I don't know enough to argue one way or another. If that is the case, however, it may have been better to give them 1/2 Bow (at cost). That would significantly increase their playability. Rear support shooting against mounted on the way in by elites. I dunno about you, but that doesn't sound like a whole load of fun no matter HOW Knight like you are. The knights would probably still win, but it's not the fait accompli it is now.

[DrQuahog]

That's interesting. I'll assume you're right about the atlatl's having a range close to bow range. I don't know enough to argue one way or another. If that is the case, however, it may have been better to give them 1/2 Bow (at cost). That would significantly increase their playability. Rear support shooting against mounted on the way in by elites. I dunno about you, but that doesn't sound like a whole load of fun no matter HOW Knight like you are. The knights would probably still win, but it's not the fait accompli it is now.

If you think it makes them too good against knights you haven't played them. Maya do not like knights.
However, once again, the 2.0 change where the knights will not get ++ for armour will make things more interesting.

[ravenflight]

If you think it makes them too good against knights you haven't played them. Maya do not like knights.
However, once again, the 2.0 change where the knights will not get ++ for armour will make things more interesting.

Never said it will make them too good. I effectively said that it would increase their effectiveness.

[DrQuahog]

Any time you'd care to stop writing posts that say 'I never said that thing I just said' feel free.

[ravenflight]

Any time you'd care to stop writing posts that say 'I never said that thing I just said' feel free.

Ok, use the quote funtion. Where did I say they would be too good.

Any time you'd care to stop misqoting me feel free.

[marty]

The interaction between Maya and most knights will not be affected anyway.

If the Maya have a sword they are only -POA at the moment.

Whether thay have a sword or not they are usually two steps of armour different (protected Vs Heavily armoured) so the change doesn't apply (ie the armour POA applies).

If protected Mayan archers (no sword) were fighting knights who were only armoured (pretty rare at the moment, may become less so) then they would be one POA better.

At least thats my reading of what is described in the rules changes.

For what its worth I understand the frustration of running otherwise apalling infantry who dont get the free JVLN (freakin' Inca!! Wheres my free Goddam sling?!) but in the grand scheme of things I consider this one of the less important points balance issues we have (rating a long way behind the points effectiveness of quality, armour and been drilled). I've played against Aztec a fair bit and have lost a variety of ways but never primarily because of the JVLNS.

Martin

[grahambriggs]

I would be concerned about giving the main Aztec battle line bows on historical grounds. Once settled, they quickly cast off their wandering chicimec style past and took on 'airs and graces'. That seemed to mostly mean that the brave Mexica warrior would fight hand to hand. At least partially this was so their noble deeds could be identified for promotion through the ranks, and that they could subdue and capture enemies for the same purpose. Several of the picture codexes show brave Mexica with hand to hand weapons advancing against cowardly enemy arrows.

The use of the atlatl was an exception. It was associated with nobility through it's previous association with the Toltecs; so the Mexica adopted it as a noble weapon. A possible European equivalent would be officers who still carry a sword (though perhapps no longer on active service)

The atlatl does give a greater force to the dart, because the head of the atlatl is travelling faster than a hand can travel. To so extent it's like stones thrown by a sling compared to by hand.

In game terms, we were trying to get the right historical feel. The Spanish fighting the Mexica spoke of a barrage of missiles causing numerous minor wounds. This seemed to prompt the Spanish to get stuck in, where they won. So we were looking to put the Spanish under a little pressure to force them to make something happen. Once the spanish are in melee their armour should be decisive. Against other Amercian foes, we wanted something that would make it a good idea for the Mexica to get stuck in - one dice per two bases at 2MU isn't enough to outshoot formed archers, though would brush away skirmishers.

I'm surprised that anyone would think a frontal combat in the open would be a problem for knights. A net POA at impact and in melee (they'll always be better armour) with the Mexica getting a -1 on cohesion tests for being MF in the open will soon break the Aztecs.

[DrQuahog]

In game terms, we were trying to get the right historical feel.

And indeed it does feel right.
There are two seperate questions 1) Why can they throw their javelins and peltasts (ie 'throwers') can not? I think the atlatl concept addresses that.
and
2) Why are they free? And the answer to that is probably that the system does not support .5 pt costs for upgrades (As for example, a fantasy set once did for goblin spears.) In certain instances - against skirmishers and ,if you can get the spacing right, cav, they can be VERY useful. Against many armies and in most circumstances , particularly with undrilled armies, however, they really just don't come into play. So charging a full pt extra would not be reasonable.

[grahambriggs]

I can't tell you why they are free (I did the lists, not the rules). I'd agree it's not worth a whole point. It might be that LF with light spear and javelins at 4 for average were seen as correct and they are common (though I think poor LF would be seen as too cheap at 2 points).

[ShrubMiK]

Agreed x several.

however I think this is all missing the point slightly. The argument is a disingenous one. It's not about certain American lists being overpowered, or certain other American lists being underpowered. Fundamentally I think it's about "why can't my peltasts throw their javelins", but argued in a roundabout way.

It's not about javelins, its about atlatls. These signifigantly outranged javelins, to virtual bow range, and tactical doctrine used them in that fashion.
As the American armies have neither armour nor mounted troops, it is hardly 'unbalancing'.

I was referring to the OP's line of argument, based partly on what i read in one or more other threads. "I want A to have capability X". "It's not appropriate for A because <some mixture of historical/game balance arguments>" "Yes but B gets it".

Wack wack oops. Unrelated. Maybe B is justifiable, maybe it is not, but that's a different argument.

That. Was. My. Point.

And if I want to be picky, the continuing debate about American lists and atlatls has hijacked the thread.