Slitherine

Has Empires of the Dragons killed the Roman swarm?

to my mind the killer part of that army was the armoured'ness off the MF that made them kings of the rough (yes there is lots of BGs in the army, but they cant all get away)

enter a book full of drilled MF Heavy weapons.

cheaper and almost perfectly designed for beating up those auxilia.

Oh - and cue 'Heavy Weapon' is too good discussion..

after all they did get close to winning Britcon (Norse Irish) and have dominated 25mm (Swiss)

maybe HYW/WOTR gets used because of all those superior HW rather than the LB.

Heavy foot with HW vs Knights - down 1 on impact, even in melee for lots cheaper

Then you have their ability to chop through spear and pike blocks with ease, why take anything else - Superior, unprotected HW


obviously broken

paulcummins wrote: Then you have their ability to chop through spear and pike blocks with ease, why take anything else - Superior, unprotected HW
obviously broken

Apart from the way they simply get shot to pieces by LH armies of course

Surely just another variant of paper/scissors stone Paul?

I agree that they're very good value for money but a bit iffy in the open against cavalry or knights? I don't think we've seen a surfeot of Thracians yet - although I suspect we will at Warfare this year!

And if we started to see loads of MF HW, wouldn't we also then start to see a rise in MF impact foot?

All good stuff in the mix - looking forward to seeing them on the table.

paulcummins wrote:Has Empires of the Dragons killed the Roman swarm?

to my mind the killer part of that army was the armoured'ness off the MF that made them kings of the rough (yes there is lots of BGs in the army, but they cant all get away)

enter a book full of drilled MF Heavy weapons.

cheaper and almost perfectly designed for beating up those auxilia.

Fighting something on evens is hardly "perflectly designed for beating them up". Plus they are vulnerable to the superior shooting of everything else in the army. The lower cost gives a slight edge, but no more.

The main advantage of armoured MF is not simply that they are kings of the rough. They are also pretty damn good in the open (hardly ever fight at a - in melee), and fast manoeuvring.

damn, failed to get everybody fixated on something completely pointless

paulcummins wrote:damn, failed to get everybody fixated on something completely pointless

I'll give you 7/10 for that attempt.

Just start ranting about how the HW MF are broken in the rules and are a cheesy cheat when used in any army with more than one battle group of them and I am sure you will start the fixation again.

Used Thracians before, not that impressed with them. Not so good versus Romans where they actually drop versus skilled swords losing the + for HW. Not likely to see them in my armies any time soon.

Perhaps the Chinese armies will spell the end of the LH dominance! After all these armies were developed to fight the nomad raiders form the north (and each other of course).

Lots of mixed MF BG's with front rank HW and back rank bow/crossbow, will out shoot LH. Most armies also have a good mix of Cav and LH as well to make life especially hard for the LH.

Of course they may struggle agains the Classical Pike and Roman (Skilled Swordsmen) armies. So after they have driven the LH armies from the competition circuit and themselves put under pressure from the Classical armies we can have a discussion about how HF armies are too strong

ottomanmjm wrote:Perhaps the Chinese armies will spell the end of the LH dominance! After all these armies were developed to fight the nomad raiders form the north (and each other of course).

Lots of mixed MF BG's with front rank HW and back rank bow/crossbow, will out shoot LH. Most armies also have a good mix of Cav and LH as well to make life especially hard for the LH.

Of course they may struggle agains the Classical Pike and Roman (Skilled Swordsmen) armies. So after they have driven the LH armies from the competition circuit and themselves put under pressure from the Classical armies we can have a discussion about how HF armies are too strong

XB versus LH are on 6.

found from playing the swedes versus LH armies that it's a real problem

plus, you need to charge to press them, meaning you can only fire if you're standing in clumps, and therefore a target to more highly mobile troops.

OldenTired wrote: XB versus LH are on 6.

found from playing the swedes versus LH armies that it's a real problem

plus, you need to charge to press them, meaning you can only fire if you're standing in clumps, and therefore a target to more highly mobile troops.

Read your rules OT. XB have -POA against foot, then either neutral or +POA versus mounted. So no worse than 4+ against any mounted. You opponent really stiffed you there. Or worse you stiffed yourself.

OldenTired wrote:
XB versus LH are on 6.

No wonder you find LH armies a pain in NZ! XB hit all mounted on a 4 when shooting. So you get as many dice at the LH as they get back at you per frontage, on even terms if protected and better than the LH if armoured. Plus if you get disrupted from firing you can charge and chase the LH away, giving you a chance to bolster the foot. If they LH get disrupted all they can do is run away which may mean you get more shots at other LH BGs

Oh, lots more Chinese armies to scare away the LH, please. My Principiate Romans can hardly wait.

I think there is a lot more stuff in there to scare the Dominate Romans than the nomad Horse Archer.

Aye, xbow vs mounted are on 4+

DOH!

6 is versus foot in impact.

ignore my early-morning brain fart.