List/Rules inconsistencies

[jre]

Now that we have something to sink our teeth in, I feel confident enough to post. I would like to start this thread about inconsistencies between the Army Lists and the rules, mostly because it may affect making my first army, and also because it does not require to play a game, something that besides some trial combats will not happen till next week.

So far I have spotted two, but I am sure there are more.

Heavy Weapons are listed in lists both as impact and melee. However the rules include them only as Melee, although I feel they are too expensive pointwise as they are (more expensive than skilled swordsman).

Light Spear are listed in the rules as mounted only, but many foot in the lists have them. I assume the cost for foot is lthe same as mounted, 1 point... And in that respect, how many points for Javelins? crossbows? Handguns? Are they free (I doubt it)?

I am sure more will arise. But I prefer to start with some short ones.

Who can guess what army I am building?

Jos?©

Edited to add a few more details .

[shall]

Great to have you on board Jose.

Light Spear are listed in the rules as mounted only, but many foot in the lists have them. I assume the cost for foot is lthe same as mounted, 1 point... And in that respect, how many points for Javelins? crossbows? Handguns? Are they free (I doubt it)?

Do you mean listed in the rules, or in the points system? Assuming the latter, both Jav and Light Spear are included in the base cost for foot bases (or free if you prefer to think of it that way). Handguns and Xbows the same. There is a way to go before finalising the points system so all comments on the relative value of things will be very helpful - but best left until you've tried a few games perhaps.

Heavy Weapons are listed in lists both as impact and melee. However the rules include them only as Melee, although I feel they are too expensive pointwise as they are (more expensive than skilled swordsman).

HW have a + in both melee and impact against most things and they cancel out opposing armour POAs so they are pretty useful. Kind of like a Sw with extra thump! Try them out and see what you think of them.

I'll let everyone else try to guess the army rather han embarrass myself.....

Look forward to hearing more from you.

Si

[jre]

Well, I embarrassed myself for missing the Heavy Weapons entry in Impact POAs. Maybe I looked too much at those thracians in the Original sample lists.

And guessing is harder now that I exchanged crossbows for the original mounted crossbows.

Yes, right now I am mostly concerned with point cost.

I suppose it is hard with those items that are worse than a 1 point POA, but still give something (missiles). I think my army now is within 800 points.

Jos?©

[IainMcNeil]

To avoid confusion maybe the poiints table should list any of the free weapons and score tham at 0 points.

[jre]

That would clear the crossbow, as I was considering it as a [cross]bow. And for mounted, it is cheap, as it is better than Bow*, so may be it should be 1 point for mounted...

Jos?©

[shall]

We'll see about putting the 0 in specifically. If it saves confusion it might be a good idea and a worthwhile use of space on the sheets.

As you say Jose, it gets a bit hard for things worth less than 1 but worth something. It becomes a judgement call where to draw the line as it gets more and more detailed. We could double all the points and then there is room for a few 1/2s but we have tried to keep the numbers as natural possible for now.

Rest assured we'll be gathering lots of data from all the players about points values before reaching our finalised version so keep the ghouts coming, especially once you have tried them out on the table.

Damn I should have guessed after all - it was Thracian that came to mind

Si

[donm]

I to think it would be good to list all the weapons in the army lists, even if they have no cost.

Is it possible for any troops to have two or more 'free weapons' and if so should such weapon combinations have a cost?

Don

[rbodleyscott]

Is it possible for any troops to have two or more 'free weapons' and if so should such weapon combinations have a cost?

I don't think there are any troops with 2 "free" weapons.

[jre]

Quite a few light foot have Javelins and Light Spear, which from the discussion above were supposed to be free.

I still see mounted crossbow as better than Bow*, so it should cost the same.

Jos?©

[rbodleyscott]

Quite a few light foot have Javelins and Light Spear, which from the discussion above were supposed to be free.

True, but "javelin and light spear" = "javelin". "Light spear" is just what we call javelins in the impact phase, so that it can also include troops with light thrusting spears.

In our opinion (and experience of play testing) LF with javelin are worth about the same as LF with sling, XBow or hand-gun but not as much as LF with Bow.

Each of these weapons apart from Bow has its advantages (and disadvantages):

Javelin = Short range + Impact POA
Sling = Medium Range
XBow = Long range and armour piercing but -1 missile POA (if used by skirmishers)
Handgun = Short range but armour piercing and -1 Cohesion modifier.

I still see mounted crossbow as better than Bow*, so it should cost the same.

I cannot fault your logic there. We need to think about that.

[shall]

To add a little to Richard's response. More generally,

1. There is a fair bit of work on the lists going on to find the best way to represent them? Ides on this are very helpful.
2. We are constantly reviewing the points values and once we get a critical mass of ideas together we will see about updating them. It is one of the hardest bits to get right and has to be done in parallel with the testing.

Keep all the thoughts and ideas coming. I am taking from the above 3 things to add to out thought list for us to look at:

1. Making all weapons clear even if 0 pts
2. Clarifying definition for light sp and jav
3. Points for mtd xbows

Cheers

Si

[jre]

Keeping up with the list details, shouldn't the Byzantine Skutatoi be 2/3 spear, 1/3 bow, rather than 3/4 and 1/4?

How many bases can you load up on a War Wagon? One, or one per side, or even two per side if they fit? Can I load up a heavy artillery (if I have it in my list) and make it mobile and harder to destroy?

Just a few question as I gear up for the first game (after spending three hours practising fighting, shooting and running away).

Jos?©

[rbodleyscott]

Keeping up with the list details, shouldn't the Byzantine Skutatoi be 2/3 spear, 1/3 bow, rather than 3/4 and 1/4?

Actually, in terms of sheer numbers there were 16 skoutatoi to 4 archers, according to the Strategikon.

We currently think that the 20 rank deep formation recommended (16 ranks of skoutatoi plus the 4 archers) is best represented as 2 ranks (bases) of defensive spears, 1 rank of archers then another rank of spears. The latter act as supernumaries, and also as a front rank of spears if the unit has to turn 180 to face enemy to the rear. This, we feel, is the closest we can get to the historically described formation. The manuals also cover switching the skoutatoi to 8 ranks deep, or even 4.

We don't think it would be appropriate to treat the skoutatoi as pikes, despite the deep formation, because this would turn them into a significant offensive force, which does not, we feel, give the right historical effect for this army.

How many bases can you load up on a War Wagon? One, or one per side, or even two per side if they fit? Can I load up a heavy artillery (if I have it in my list) and make it mobile and harder to destroy?

We have not yet sorted out the rules for war wagons. I think the answer to your last question, however, will be no.

[shall]

Quote:
How many bases can you load up on a War Wagon? One, or one per side, or even two per side if they fit? Can I load up a heavy artillery (if I have it in my list) and make it mobile and harder to destroy?



We have not yet sorted out the rules for war wagons. I think the answer to your last question, however, will be no.

While we are not fully sorted on War Wagons yet I think I can safely say that Richard and I are at one on your specific questions.....Tiger tanks reserved for a later period Troops allowed in the WWg will be specified - probably list by list in the final version.

[jre]

I suppose it is an errata, but a General's move is listed as troop type +2 in the reference sheet and troop type +3 in the rules. We played with a +3, as we assume the rules take precedence.

We found also that when there are several units routing in the same area it is important to have some guideline on what is the order of rout, or if it depends on the player's choice, as one unit can perturb another in routing out of the table, giving an extra rally opportunity. I do not know if it will happen often, but in our first game, with a coast on the table, the Broken units crowded in the corner.

Jos?©

[shall]

I suppose it is an errata, but a General's move is listed as troop type +2 in the reference sheet and troop type +3 in the rules. We played with a +3, as we assume the rules take precedence.

We found also that when there are several units routing in the same area it is important to have some guideline on what is the order of rout, or if it depends on the player's choice, as one unit can perturb another in routing out of the table, giving an extra rally opportunity. I do not know if it will happen often, but in our first game, with a coast on the table, the Broken units crowded in the corner.

Jos?©

Yes Jose that was an errata - its 3 MUs.

If an order is not specified it is the choice of the player with the figures. So you do your simulatneous routs in your order. It can occasionally make a different but we felt giving choice was easier than writing pages of rules to cover every situation. Did you find a problem with it or just that it was worth a little thought?

Thanks

Si

[jre]

We just felt it was worth clearing out, as simultaneous could be taken to mean that when, in our actual example, the light horse reached the broken cavalry position (cavalry that had failed three rally rolls already), the cavalry would have routed out of the table already, so the light horse had just enough move left to exit the map too.

We supposed it is the player's choice, but some clear wording would be better.

Continuing with similar doubts, we assumed a skirmisher caught in the path of an interception charge would evade, as it is after all a charge, but we were not sure. A pursuit would rise similar doubts.

After evading, in the movement phase, when the skirmishers reform, if we undertood the wording right, you just pick one of the bases as the reforming point, and that sets the front and back for the BG. So you can pick the furthest away if you plan to keep your distance, or the closest one if the objective is getting back into the fray.

I am trying to present all our doubts gradually but all before the next game, planned for Sunday.

Jos?©

[shall]

hi Jose,

We just felt it was worth clearing out, as simultaneous could be taken to mean that when, in our actual example, the light horse reached the broken cavalry position (cavalry that had failed three rally rolls already), the cavalry would have routed out of the table already, so the light horse had just enough move left to exit the map too.

We supposed it is the player's choice, but some clear wording would be better.

Agreed and we'll put it on the fix list.

Continuing with similar doubts, we assumed a skirmisher caught in the path of an interception charge would evade, as it is after all a charge, but we were not sure. A pursuit would rise similar doubts.

Troops treat it as a charge in both cases - so can evade or try to stand. Again we will improve the clarity.

After evading, in the movement phase, when the skirmishers reform, if we undertood the wording right, you just pick one of the bases as the reforming point, and that sets the front and back for the BG. So you can pick the furthest away if you plan to keep your distance, or the closest one if the objective is getting back into the fray.

Ok for now but we are looking at ways to add a how to section at the back of the rules to improve the definition of fuzzy areas. Many of these will be more of interest to the competition player than the casual gamer.

I am trying to present all our doubts gradually but all before the next game, planned for Sunday.

Keep them coming and we'll try to keep up.

Si