Slitherine

A unit of Dominate Roman legionaries, 4 HF, 2 LF

Is this a legal formation for them, with H being the heavies and L the lights?
HH
LL
HH

The reason to do it would be so that in mellee they could expand out the 3rd rank of HF thus:
HHH
LLH

Obviously this runs the risk of losing a HF at impact and immediately having LF in the front rank.

Also, even if it's legal, would it be considered terribly cheesy?

Its legal and, IMO, not cheesy. Also removed bases are replaced by any rear rank base so a HF from the 3rd rank can replace a HF from the front rank negating the possibilty of LF ending up in the front rank. 2 LF in the centre is a bad idea. 1 LF and 1 HF centre rank is netter as you lose no dice in melee

Beat me by a phone call.

It is an odd formation but legal. Page 124 says that non-front rank bases must be used, if available, to fill base losses and they can be from any part of the BG. So you don't even have to replace the 'H' base with a 'L' base if you are 2,2,2 and lose a base on impact.

richafricanus wrote:would it be considered terribly cheesy?

If anyone else did it, I'd say it isn't cheesy, but if you did it I'd call it cheesy just coz I've played you and lost against you, so I've got an axe to grind

And, remember, if you put them in that formation, you can't just move the bases around. You'll have to do a couple of maneuvers to change base positions in the BG.

ravenflight wrote:

richafricanus wrote:would it be considered terribly cheesy?

If anyone else did it, I'd say it isn't cheesy, but if you did it I'd call it cheesy just coz I've played you and lost against you, so I've got an axe to grind

Ravenflight, are you talking about me when you say we've played and I beat you? The curse of anonymity via pseudonyms...

richafricanus wrote:

ravenflight wrote:

richafricanus wrote:would it be considered terribly cheesy?

If anyone else did it, I'd say it isn't cheesy, but if you did it I'd call it cheesy just coz I've played you and lost against you, so I've got an axe to grind

Ravenflight, are you talking about me when you say we've played and I beat you? The curse of anonymity via pseudonyms...

You better believe it. I am a tough bully who hides behind the mask of cyberspace

I'm the one who you contacted about a game when you came over for work from SA.

Ah! That one. Okay, now I know who you are. Don't worry , i won't tell anyone

Byzantine Skoutatoi were front rank spear, subsequent ranks bow and then a final rank of spears so there is historical precedent. But here I think is a good example of the rules encouraging the more common historical formation of heavy foot to the front, light foot to the rear.

The problem with your formation is that it will get less dice in melee than a solid line of enemy because the two second rank light foot bases will only contribute one dice to the combat. Hence you are losing a lot of the strength of the legion. Given it takes a lot of time to change back into the normal formation of heavies at the front I think the negatives are more than the positives here.

I frequently use mixed formations of MF or HF with LF, mainly legionaries or dailami. Putting LF in the second rank of these troops is extremely cost effective and works well with impact foot where maximum effect at impact is required. But always make it an odd number of LF to reduce the loss of dice in combat. It takes a bit of getting used to given you'll always be a dice down in melee if the enemy don't disrupt at impact.

I don't agree with Graham that the negatives outweigh the positives - but its a matter of personal preference and style of play.

AlanCutner wrote:Putting LF in the second rank of these troops is extremely cost effective and works well with impact foot where maximum effect at impact is required. But always make it an odd number of LF to reduce the loss of dice in combat. It takes a bit of getting used to given you'll always be a dice down in melee if the enemy don't disrupt at impact.

Not sure I understand the maximum effect at impact bit Alan. Surely LF in 2nd vs 3rd rank make no difference to the number of dice and factors of impact foot. Or am I missing something?

If using impact foot you want to maximise the number of bases at impact. By mixing LF in the formations the point cost per base frontage is reduced allowing for larger or greater number of BG's. Eg. a 4MF/2LF BG of dailami saves 14AP and a 6MF/3LF BG saves 21AP. This saving means I get an extra BG with an additional impact front of 3-4 bases.

Legionaries and Dailami are usually good enough troops that loss of a dice in melee isn't a big handicap. Not sure I'd do this with lesser troops. And never with spearmen (LF in second rank don't give spear bonus).

For clarity (I hope) the formations I would use are

4/2 BG:
MMM
MLL

6/3 BG:
MMMM
MLLL
M

And I guess you get the benefit of a shooting dice as well? I know 1 on its own is no good but added together....

The surprise legionary/dailami shooting has been quite effective at times - if only for the shocked squeal from my opponent.

grahambriggs wrote:Not sure I understand the maximum effect at impact bit Alan. Surely LF in 2nd vs 3rd rank make no difference to the number of dice and factors of impact foot.

And sometimes not in the melee either - Alan

And sometimes not in the melee either

Care to explain?

AlanCutner wrote:

And sometimes not in the melee either

Care to explain?

Are you sure you want me to?