Slitherine

Hi Guys,

What are Cataphracts like in V2?

I'm wondering if the watered down effect of armour may make them unreasonable cost wise.

When you look at the change, the only impact is going to be when fighting armoured troops.

In a straight fight against other cavalry, the vast majority of your opponents will also have sword, so you'll retain your + advantage for armour.

Against non-spear foot you'll still be at + against swordsmen for your armour. You'll no longer be at ++ against armoured troops with no melee capability. Basically, armoured archers like Persian Immortals or Kofun Nara.
Against spearmen, you're starting behind anyway so the armour still helps. You're certainly no worse here than you were in V1.

The only place you lose out compared to V1 is going to be against Armoured troops that you're already beating, such as fragmented spearmen or where you are uphill or they are fighting in multiple directions.In these circumstances you'll just be at + rather than ++, but for the majority of cases the change won't affect your armour benefits.

So, Short Answer, I think they're still worthwhile where they were previously.

I think not getting a double plus from armour (unless 2 better) is a great move for the game. HA stuff is not as good as it was, but its still good. Gives armies with numbers a chance.

Don't forget the impact of support shooting no longer being on a - POA.

Rob

Don't forget the impact of support shooting no longer being on a - POA

If anything this is probably a positive for cataphracts relative to other troops as some shooters will still be on a - against them.

They do gain a bit from the changes to impact cohesion tests. Being a bit slow, it's often possible to make sure they only hit you with one base at impact. In v1 that was a sneaky way to ride out the impact as they'll rarely win the impact 2-0. Hence the cohesion test was sometimes only on a minus for losing to lancers. In v2 if the cats win there will certainly be a -2 and maybe a -3.

Also, if they have the joy of hitting a flank, the "-1 for losing impact" will apply far more frequently that the old "losing by 2 or more", so the flank attack is more deadly.

The manouvre changes might make drilled cataphracts a bit of a luxury. Turn 90 or expand and then move 2MU is debilitating. On the other hand, being able to always turn the undrilled with a general might save the odd flank disaster.

So I think like most pricey armoured guys they've go a little worse. Since they and armoured lancers were very good in period though I doubt that they'll be a bad buy.

Looking at the R&R for this weekend at Burton there will be a lot of cataphracts. So we will find out soon how good they are.

I think the hordes of nellies may sort them out.

Rob

Robert241167 wrote:I think the hordes of nellies may sort them out.

Rob

I've got an unfounded feeling that the Elephant and foot archer situation is almost proof of the theory of evolution. It's survival of the fittest. For about a year or so people will have way out armies 'taking advantage of the new rules' and then we'll find the new truth will come out.

I think 'hordes of nellies' may be less of an issue in a year's time when people work out how to deal with them.

I always felt cataphracts were always a bad buy in an open format (but OK in period). I suspect this is still the case.

Martin

(I think I am reading this right - if not feel free to deride me for it... ) Also the change so foot skilled sword counts against mounted swordsmen will make them weaker in a protracted melee against my Romans...

Mounted swordsmen still count against all but elephants and steady pike/spearmen so it's the same as V1.

Chris

Against things that are protected (which we should see more of) cats are better off than amoured cavalry. So win.

Looking at a 6 Base BG of Dom Rom Cats for a 900pt Rome and her Enemies comp.
Thinking is most folk run around in 4s so 6 should kick butt.
Anyone tried 6s ?
Thanks

Warlord wrote:Looking at a 6 Base BG of Dom Rom Cats for a 900pt Rome and her Enemies comp.
Thinking is most folk run around in 4s so 6 should kick butt.
Anyone tried 6s ?
Thanks

You sometimes see them, for example a Tibetan ally is often a single BG of 6.

If your strategy is a massed cataphract charge, 6s might be better than 4s as you could get 24 bases all fighting with generals. The downside is that, being expensive, they make the army size in BGs a bit smaller. But 900pts dom rom wouldn't have that problem I suspect.

4's are more agile, but if you're not drilled/doing more than charging...

That said, if you're superior there is not much more that 6 can do (esp. for 40 points), superior + heavy armour give 4's enough brawn.

If you're average though, you probably need some bulk to make up for it. I never bother with average cats though.

Warlord wrote:Looking at a 6 Base BG of Dom Rom Cats for a 900pt Rome and her Enemies comp.
Thinking is most folk run around in 4s so 6 should kick butt.
Anyone tried 6s ?
Thanks

In my Palmyran army I've run 1 BG of 6 and 1 BG of 4.

I do this because I can adapt more to situations. An expensive option, but it means that my 10 Cataphracts can go up against a BG of Knights and win (still no guarantee, but you do what you have to do), it allows me to have cats on each flank if I want, and one of those flanks being probably larger in number than my opponents (i.e. most people field 4's - which is what you're saying. They are moderately easy to avoid, but have value in that as well (people get out of their way) so why not give them a go?

Ravenflight, that name rings a bell from the Renaissance Dinner at Cancon, I was sitting on your left and spilt some dipping sauce early on.. DBR players can get messy
I thought you had given up AM and only played R ?
Brian

Warlord wrote:I thought you had given up AM and only played R ?

Well, I haven't played a game of AM since about this time last year. Martin Williams and Paul Rattray run a comp at Blacktown that I played in because... well... mostly because they are my friends, but also to support that club.

I didn't mind AM, but it certainly wasn't the be all and end all.

I used to play AM almost exclusively, but was getting disenchanted by it toward the end of V1's life. I then totally gave up on it when they decided to go 'digital only'. I (in essence) had a dummy spit. Whilst they have picked up the ball (from my perspective) and published, it was enough to kill any enthusiasm.

I keep my finger on the pulse here, and am not opposed to another game, I just haven't had one (but please note that my tone has always been 'past tense')

I have V1 of the print rules, but I am following this discussion with some interest because cataphracts are the main reason I got this game!