What about the actual changes?

[philqw78]

....armoured (2?) which is generally useful just not when in combat with the flaxmen.

I have often found armour useless when fighting linen troops weaving all around you

Though the Romans who fought the Dacians* are noted as equipping themselves with extra armour



*or is it doillymen now

[zocco]

"Dacian falx wielders become pretty close to being the equal in combat to Veteran legionaries (Sup, arm, impact foot, ssw) at 1/2 the price. Which too my mind is completely wrong gamewise"

Where to start...?

First of all, let's note that you can almost always "prove" that any troop type you like is undercosted or overcosted by carefully selecting the matchup to suit your argument on.

You have to look at the overall picture. And in that overall picture, the Dacians suffer from being less manoeuvrable than the Romans, are more vulnerable to shooting. They also have different POAs against different opponents. In particular, they don't get the ++ agsint foot that the Romans do, and they don't always get a + against mounted.

Not to mention that the difference between average and superior makes quite a difference, both in term sof causing hits and surviving tests. Not exactly "close to equal" IMO.

"doubly so when you consider that there are very few troops rated as ssw and you have to pay a lot of points for them."

Well, being pedantic, you pay most of those points for being superior (3?) which is still useful, and for being armoured (2?) which is generally useful just not when in combat with the flaxmen.

Personally I've always been in favour of removing Ssw form legionaries, as it seemed too overpowering for too little cost in many situations, and too cheap to really worry about in the situations in which it didn't help...perhaps reatining it in the game only for some very specialist sword-only troops (e.g. gladiators?) to make up for not having impact capability.

If you want to argue that HW troops are under-costed, then feel free to do so. But to use it as a reason why Roman legionaries should be improved is a bit silly.

I'll also point out that if you think the veteran legionaries are over-costed for their abilities, you still have the option of taking non-veteran legionaries to avoifd the problem entirely. Your call.

A few points.

1. Dacian falxmen are Superior.

2. "But to use it as a reason why Roman legionaries should be improved is a bit silly."

Err I was arguing for the retention of the v1 STATUS QUO not for them being improved. Indeed I see no logic in changing ssw conteracting HW as is in v1 - obviously the rule writers had some logic to allocate it in the first place and its been changed purely because barbarian players feel that it is not to their liking (given that the Roman armour advantage has been downgraded in V2 that in itself should have been adequate to address the imbalance).

I might add that the V2 ssw rules undermines any incentive to choose detached bushi in the Heian Japanese list as being armed with ssw (most opponents of Japanese being of course other Japanese armies !). In v1 they would have been a useful when facing HW armed troops at least.

3. I agree a wholistic approach to troop costing is correct but I should add that ssw and HW cost 2AP each and so it is VERY pertinent to compare the cost/benfits of each. If done you will see that HW more than makes up for itself (it counts in melee against STEADY spearmen, elephants unlike ssw etc). In V1 ssw was okay as it provided a bit of balance compared to HW's armour POA neutralisation and as I said ssw is a pretty rare and costly animal.

4. As for picking Average legionaires I usually do (I find superior too expensive and go instead for superior MF auxiliaries in my Dom army). Also as I have stated previously SSW is no longer worth the points and should be given as optional (ie can be replaced by sw) in all lists.

[hannibal]

That's right, why let a little thing like historical accuracy get in the way of playing a good game. I vote to give the barbarians laser cannons just to even things up just a tad more. It wont matter as its only a game after all...

That isn't what I said - I said that there has to be a chance for the Barbarian army to win - so if the warband are always going to lose in a straight-up fight this should be reflected properly in their points cost, and then crucially they must then be able to use their superior numbers gained as a consequence to even the odds and make the game balanced. In v1 Romans just chop through the lot and they have no chance

[Fluffy]

For a positive start, I like the armour thing, makes protected and heavily armoured more worthwhile (who doesn't hate having the points for heavily armoured wasted on protected troops, or amoured on unprotected?).

Also I like the extra power for elephants (not only because I like elephants), because the impression I get from history is that they are "hign risk, high reward" weapons, but the reward side seemed a little lacking in v1.
However what is the logic behind the only generals depicted as elephants can affect (or not affect) rerolls? First what happened to the idea that what is on a general's base doesn't matter because they are not fighting troops? Second elephants are risky already, why do they need to be even less desirable by having a general effectivly dedicated to them?

[hazelbark]

However what is the logic behind the only generals depicted as elephants can affect (or not affect) rerolls? First what happened to the idea that what is on a general's base doesn't matter because they are not fighting troops? Second elephants are risky already, why do they need to be even less desirable by having a general effectivly dedicated to them?

The authors appear very leery about making Elephants overly powerful. They seem to have a very cautious view of the efficacy of elephants in general.

The general dedicated them in the beta didn't work that way. And I expect final wording to be more like beta. It was essentially:
typical general can effect anyone except elephants.
Elephant mounted general can effect anyone including elephants.

So if you don't have the ability to have an elephant mounted general you cannot help the elephant for COMBAT re-rolls. But Elephant generals did not suffer any restrictions. So you don't have Republican Roman consuls leading elephants in combat.

[Sennacherib]

HI Fellows,

I would like to know if the troops point cost will change, for exemple i find scythed chariot really expensive, for less you have heavy chariot who will do best with the new rules....

Thanks !!!

[kevinj]

There are no points changes in V2.

[Fluffy]

However what is the logic behind the only generals depicted as elephants can affect (or not affect) rerolls? First what happened to the idea that what is on a general's base doesn't matter because they are not fighting troops? Second elephants are risky already, why do they need to be even less desirable by having a general effectivly dedicated to them?

The authors appear very leery about making Elephants overly powerful. They seem to have a very cautious view of the efficacy of elephants in general.

The general dedicated them in the beta didn't work that way. And I expect final wording to be more like beta. It was essentially:
typical general can effect anyone except elephants.
Elephant mounted general can effect anyone including elephants.

So if you don't have the ability to have an elephant mounted general you cannot help the elephant for COMBAT re-rolls. But Elephant generals did not suffer any restrictions. So you don't have Republican Roman consuls leading elephants in combat.

So "elephant armies" are better at using elephants if they want to be, makes sense. I do not like some armies having and advantage just because. That only seems fair if elephant mounted generals cost more.

[philqw78]

I got a Dacian army today. Those superior heavy weapon guys will be great at 7 points a pop

[kevinj]

So "elephant armies" are better at using elephants if they want to be, makes sense. I do not like some armies having and advantage just because. That only seems fair if elephant mounted generals cost more.

As I recall the trade-off was that Elephant generals could not affect other mounted troops in combat.

[zocco]

Can anyone (ie those in the know who were in beta) explain the rationale for removing the -1 POA for support shooting ?

If it was to improve MF shooters my preference would have been for something like allowing the number of shooting bases to be rounded up (for MF anyway). That way MF would be better at shooting (their primary skill) but not necessarily better in close combat.

Z.

[pcelella]

Other than the armor changes, have there been any other revisions made making heavy infantry impact infantry more competitive? The beta had some extras in the impact phase, and rear support for deeper formations, but those revisions no longer seem to be included. I was hoping these troops would be upgraded so that it would be possible, if still adventurous, to field a barbarian army.

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

[philqw78]

Other troops less manouverable and smaller tables. A double whammy.

[rbodleyscott]

Other troops less manouverable and smaller tables. A double whammy.

And skirmishes can't shoot them without getting within charge range.

[marty]

Also the changes to CTs will help big blocks of undrilled foot a bit. Needing 1 per 2 to give a -1 in combat will make them a little more resilient and as IF the -1 for losing in impact is a bit of a bonus. They will also be (slightly) less unmanouverable. Oh and of course Romans wont go through you like s#!t through a goose any more.

No one of these changes is all that big but the combined effect will hopefully make these sorts of armies a little less of a joke. They are probably still too slow and unmanouverable to be a good comp choice but I'm happy to take "better than they were" for now.

Martin

[philqw78]

All the little bits add up.



IMO, with smaller tables perhaps too much. I'll have more idea next weekend.

[lawrenceg]

For a positive start, I like the armour thing, makes protected and heavily armoured more worthwhile (who doesn't hate having the points for heavily armoured wasted on protected troops, or amoured on unprotected?).

Also I like the extra power for elephants (not only because I like elephants), because the impression I get from history is that they are "hign risk, high reward" weapons, but the reward side seemed a little lacking in v1.
However what is the logic behind the only generals depicted as elephants can affect (or not affect) rerolls? First what happened to the idea that what is on a general's base doesn't matter because they are not fighting troops? Second elephants are risky already, why do they need to be even less desirable by having a general effectivly dedicated to them?

It seems logical that nobody (unless also on an elephant) would want to get between a herd of war elephants and its target, or stand between two elephants (even friendly ones) in a melee, which is effectively what fighting in the front rank means. And a general in such a position would not be noticed except possibly by the two elephants right next to him, whose crews would be more worried about accidentally trampling him than being inspired.

[hazelbark]

I got a Dacian army today. Those superior heavy weapon guys will be great at 7 points a pop

Yea I finished this army back in dbm 2.1. THere it sat until FOG. I had some fun in early version 1, but then the wood chipper made them pretty worth less could be fun to get out again.