Forum
https://forum.slitherine.com/
Including gutting Dailami or no?nikgaukroger wrote:philqw78 wrote:
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.
peterrjohnston wrote:Including gutting Dailami or no?nikgaukroger wrote:philqw78 wrote:
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.
Good news for the barbarian foot.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.
So, what is the story with superior warbands?hazelbark wrote:Good news for the barbarian foot.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.
Delbruck wrote:So, what is the story with superior warbands?hazelbark wrote:Good news for the barbarian foot.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.
Will superior Romans still be skilled swordsmen?nikgaukroger wrote:Delbruck wrote:So, what is the story with superior warbands?hazelbark wrote: Good news for the barbarian foot.
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.
Careful. He hasn't actually said what Chinese MF will be reclassified asphilqw78 wrote:Hoo-f****g-rayrbodleyscott wrote: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.
Trouble maker. Perhaps they will be reclassified as Knights.grahambriggs wrote:Careful. He hasn't actually said what Chinese MF will be reclassified as
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.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.
Especially when they end up fighting their favourite enemy at double minusmarty wrote:
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
nikgaukroger wrote:philqw78 wrote:
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.
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...philqw78 wrote:Especially when they end up fighting their favourite enemy at double minusmarty wrote:
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
I like itmadaxeman wrote: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...philqw78 wrote:Especially when they end up fighting their favourite enemy at double minusmarty wrote:
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
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.madaxeman wrote: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...philqw78 wrote:Especially when they end up fighting their favourite enemy at double minusmarty wrote:
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
YesDelbruck wrote:For example, if I were doing a Seluk Turk army would cavalry now be more useful than light horse?
They don't.philqw78 wrote:Especially when they end up fighting their favourite enemy at double minusmarty wrote:
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