Slitherine

Any chance of a tease, hint or downright clue as to how the lists might treat the Rajputs ?

Enjoy Britcon all !

I think its a fair guess they will be treated like Eastern Indians

Scrumpy wrote:Any chance of a tease, hint or downright clue as to how the lists might treat the Rajputs ?

They will be similar to other later Hindu north Indians, but with up to 24 bases of superior lancers - most of which can be armoured.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Any chance of a tease, hint or downright clue as to how the lists might treat the Rajputs ?

They will be similar to other later Hindu north Indians, but with up to 24 bases of superior lancers - most of which can be armoured.

Just curious, why superior? They had a good reputation against other Indian cavalry but an abysmal record against Muslim cavalry.

Tom..

tadamson wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Any chance of a tease, hint or downright clue as to how the lists might treat the Rajputs ?

They will be similar to other later Hindu north Indians, but with up to 24 bases of superior lancers - most of which can be armoured.

Just curious, why superior? They had a good reputation against other Indian cavalry but an abysmal record against Muslim cavalry.

They have the option to be Average (or Protected) - so if you are doing a historical matchup vs Muslims they can be graded accordingly. Although my money would be on the ghilman types even if most of the Rajputs are graded as Superior Armoured.

The issue you highlight is an ever-present problem with army lists: How to represent troops that were better than average against some foes, but worse against others.

We could make all the other Indian cavalry Poor, but then nobody would use those armies at all.

Our usual solution is to allow downgrade options for purists and refights.

Thanks, another list eagerly awaited.