BADCON 2009

[rbodleyscott]

I also struggle to see how the army list should be allowing a Roman army to turn up with all its bowmen, LF and light horse as superior, and all its auxiliaries and legionaries as average quality.

I agree, and this is certainly the most cheesy aspect of the favoured version of the list. At the time the list was written it never occurred to the list writing team that anyone would wish to put out the army in such a configuration.

[hammy]

Having spoken both to Graham and Dave H, both think the army is overpowered and would be better balanced if the MF were restricted to being used in 6's. I believe Bruce also agrees.

I am not sure that 6s would have made much if any difference to the way our army worked at Burton. I did infact seriously consider using 6s by including the supporting light foot. OK the army would have had a couple less maneuver elements, possibly only 1 as I had enough 'spare' points to make the Huns into a BG of 6.

What I think makes the army is the fact that all the skirmshers and missile troops can be superior while the heavier troops are armoured and average.

Burton also has a huge field of entrants, and always sees an esoteric mix of armies appearing. Having 2 out of the top 4 at Burton is more significant than having 2 out of the top 4 at say Warfare or Roll Call.

Possibly but it would have been much more significant if people who had not already won several FoG tournaments had turned up with Dominates and won.

FWIW I have just done a check and I can get 18 BGs (OK, one is a filler BG) and still have all the supports with 7 BGs of 4+2 Auxilia rather than 9 BGs of 4

[madaxeman]

FWIW I have just done a check and I can get 18 BGs (OK, one is a filler BG) and still have all the supports with 7 BGs of 4+2 Auxilia rather than 9 BGs of 4

I dont think the supporting Li Bw are worth the addition, as they restrict your maneuverability by making the auxilia BGs physically bigger, but harder to turn around 90 degrees and move off in column. Better to have them in separate BGs of (S)-class shooters

[speedy]

Richard et al,

We know that you are (rightly) resistent to changing the rules in the short or medium term .... but what is your thinking on changing a list if one or more armies (not necessarily Dominate Romans) eventually turns out to be regularly run in an unexpected format and as a result upsets the balance of the wider game?

Cheers, Ian.

[hammy]

FWIW I have just done a check and I can get 18 BGs (OK, one is a filler BG) and still have all the supports with 7 BGs of 4+2 Auxilia rather than 9 BGs of 4

I dont think the supporting Li Bw are worth the addition, as they restrict your maneuverability by making the auxilia BGs physically bigger, but harder to turn around 90 degrees and move off in column. Better to have them in separate BGs of (S)-class shooters

Actually my experience is that a BG of 6 bases of drilled troops is even more maneuverable as when it turns it is still in its 'propper' formation. No getting stuck in column and having to test from a single shooting hit, an extra dice in impact combat if you get hit my mounted, not losing any fighting efficiency for losing a base in combat, three bases killed for auto break. There are lots of benefits.

[rbodleyscott]

Richard et al,

We know that you are (rightly) resistent to changing the rules in the short or medium term .... but what is your thinking on changing a list if one or more armies (not necessarily Dominate Romans) eventually turns out to be regularly run in an unexpected format and as a result upsets the balance of the wider game?

Cheers, Ian.

Clearly if such an army were to distort competitions over a period of time something would need to be done.

We have not arrived at that point yet.

[petedalby]

I thought you'd made that decision with the Later Medieval Scots Continental and their 4's?

Or have I misunderstood that?

Pete

[rbodleyscott]

I thought you'd made that decision with the Later Medieval Scots Continental and their 4's?

Or have I misunderstood that?

The Scots continental archers being in 4s was an oversight, hence a genuine erratum - clearly there is no historical reason why massed Scots longbowmen (a very temporary phenomenon lasting only one reign) should be more flexible than English longbowmen.

The Romans being in 4s was intentional to represent the greater flexibility of Roman armies relative to phalanx armies. In practice, maybe we should only have allowed it for the manipular legion - in the Mid Republican list - which has other disadvantages.

However, we wish to avoid using the errata sheet as a form of back-door amendment sheet.

Moreover, it would represent very substantial changes to the Late Republican, Principate, Dominate and Foederate lists.
Not something to rush into.

[petedalby]

Thanks Richard.

I think you're right not to rush into changes. I still haven't fought this particular beast and I'd rather work out how to beat it than to join it. As has been noted elsewhere, only a few people have demonstrated that they can use it effectively.

I wonder how many we'll see at the Challenge?

Pete

[rbodleyscott]

I think you're right not to rush into changes. I still haven't fought this particular beast and I'd rather work out how to beat it than to join it. As has been noted elsewhere, only a few people have demonstrated that they can use it effectively.

Although, of course, Lance's Foederate Roman army shares certain key characteristics.

It is also possible to field a similar army from the Principate Roman list - the main difference being less LF/LH and they cannot be superior.

Those who think the key characteristic is large numbers of small BGs of drilled armoured average non-shock foot might also consider the Free Company list.

Or then there is the (Later) Swiss with maximum number of BGs of 4 halberdiers.

[nikgaukroger]

Thanks Richard.

I think you're right not to rush into changes. I still haven't fought this particular beast and I'd rather work out how to beat it than to join it. As has been noted elsewhere, only a few people have demonstrated that they can use it effectively.

I wonder how many we'll see at the Challenge?

Pete

Perhaps if all the concerned people used it and it dominated (sorry ) the placings at the Challenge ...

Personally I've tried it and can't really get it working. I can not lose with it but then again I think I can do that with a whole bunch of armies so no gain there. So you know I won't be taking it to the Challenge

[nikgaukroger]

Those who think the key characteristic is large numbers of small BGs of drilled armoured average non-shock foot might also consider the Free Company list.

Or then there is the (Later) Swiss with maximum number of BGs of 4 halberdiers.

I suspect that a couple of factors make these less attractive - HF not MF means they are slower and being HW they do not have an Impact PoA against mounted so can be vulnerable there. Also the Swiss are just Protected and so shot up easier.

[nikgaukroger]

FWIW I have just done a check and I can get 18 BGs (OK, one is a filler BG) and still have all the supports with 7 BGs of 4+2 Auxilia rather than 9 BGs of 4

Is that a 900 or 800 point army?

[andy63]

Having spoken both to Graham and Dave H, both think the army is overpowered and would be better balanced if the MF were restricted to being used in 6's. I believe Bruce also agrees.

I put my feelings about this a couple of months ago and suggested all what is needed is to make them min 6 BG strong and got cried down.
My feeling are still the same after playing Dave Hanleys Dominate Romans at Badcon this army is far to powerful and WILL be started to be the choice of many of the Top players (Just like the Patrician was in DBM)
I know some of you may think thats Rubbish but it is happening.
Andy

[nikgaukroger]

I put my feelings about this a couple of months ago and suggested all what is needed is to make them min 6 BG strong and got cried down.

Hammy said he can knock up this with using 6's:

FWIW I have just done a check and I can get 18 BGs (OK, one is a filler BG) and still have all the supports with 7 BGs of 4+2 Auxilia rather than 9 BGs of 4

Is that enough of a change to make it less of a threat in your opinion?

[madaxeman]

It shoudl be 6's of auxilia (S), not counting the supporting Psiloi.

[nikgaukroger]

I think you'll find that they are actually Regular C, LHI, JLS, Sh

[hammy]

FWIW I have just done a check and I can get 18 BGs (OK, one is a filler BG) and still have all the supports with 7 BGs of 4+2 Auxilia rather than 9 BGs of 4

Is that a 900 or 800 point army?

900, the same size as Burton. I know Graham has 19 or so at 800 but he must be cutting corners somewhere. The Burton list we used was all missile and mounted troops as superior, all foot armoured, all BGs apart from the Huns 4 and all TCs.

[hammy]

I think you'll find that they are actually Regular C, LHI, JLS, Sh

Yup, thats them.

To be honest in 4s they are really really fragile against anything tough. We managed to find enough not so tough stuff to kill with them or take out with missiles while avoiding the nasty scary things like armoured cavalry, pike and proper legionaries.

[philqw78]

Putting the Auxilia in BG of 6 would make a massive difference to play. I've played this army three times in competition, all near the end. All I've done is rack my brain in an attempt to find a counter since my first meeting.

All I know now is that it will not destroy me, but I can manage that with a lot of armies.

Beating it. ??. With so many BG even in the hands of a poor player, or especially in the hands od a poor player, the game can be slowed massively quite validly because there is so much to move. And with so many BG to hurt it becomes very hard if not impossible.

It would be nice to see how many swarm type dominates have suffered an outright defeat. In anybody's hands. I suspect very few, if any.