Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

jamiepwhite · Recruit Joined: 21 Apr 2006 Posts: 213 Location: Florida

As an alternate, how about following a fixed alternating pattern for placing commands? The higher scouting points command still has an advantage, but not as overwhelming

Lower total first command placed
Higher total first command placed
Higher total second command placed
lower total second command placed
lower total third command placed
higher total third command placed

Single command armies are still disadvantaged, but armies with reserve commands come out better.

lilroblis · Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:00 am Post subject: deployment

and you don't have to put out biggest command first

scott holder · Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:53 pm Post subject:

Biggest command will go first. Far too much gamesmanship otherwise.

Terry D · Recruit Joined: 18 Jul 2008 Posts: 77

If the goal of the theme is to have Roman armies that make use of Legionaries, then they have to be more cost effective. The HI are at least 4 pts per element too expensive probably are 6 pts too much. No amount of weighting will make up for the basics of the cost diifference of 50% between MI and HI.

I do like the idea of the extra movement for an FP. My 2c

jamiepwhite · Recruit Joined: 21 Apr 2006 Posts: 213 Location: Florida

1. The Armenian ally in the Late Imperial Roman isn't consistent with the description of the cataphracts in the Armenian list nor the Palmyran list. As much as I like the cheap IC EHC L cataphracts, wouldn't IC EHC L 1/2 B Sh be more consistent with other lists and the time period?
2. Huns in LIR are IC LC JLS B Sh. More recent lists have been drifting towards IC LC B with an option for any to have Sh or JLS. Either way is fine, but the Huns should be consistent between the lists.
3. Are EHI legionaires (Dacian, EIR) eligible to spend a fatigue and go 120? Seems reasonable but should be mentioned. If EHI legionaires go 120, should they also pay a second fatigue for moving more than 40? Derek was trying these, they fought even with LIR legionaires and would have been in trouble if I hadn't rolled -3.
4. Should fulcum be 1 rank or rank and a half of LTS? Derek rolled +2 in fulcum and crushed my Armenian cataphract charge.
5. LIR with Armenian ally fields 102 scouting points without breaking a sweat. I don't think the answer is restricting the list composition but everyone needs to recognize how widely different these lists can be.
6. The Oracle tried his hand at Marian roman with -10% against the horde of LIR and Armenians. I was playing LIR and wasn't at all impressed by the elephants. He did pass three waivers with the elephants, so he's probably used up his luck for the year on waivers.

Frank Gilson · Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 9:49 pm Post subject: Re: Some battles and comments

Frank Gilson · Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:04 am Post subject: Philosophy of Themes

I also want to take a little time to write a bit about how we think about themes.

They're intended to give all of us an event as a playground for armies and troops we wouldn't necessarily see in a more open format.

So...it's bad if, as a prior Roman them went, we end up with Theme-One-Army.

However, it isn't bad if a theme has folks innovating and running a variety of armies...just not those that may be expected or in ways expected.

This all plays out across the backdrop of deployment rules and pre-set terrain.

We also won't always get everything right and appreciate all constructive commentary.

Frank

Mark Stone · Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:16 am Post subject:

Based on what's been proposed so far I predict that you will see lots and lots of Armenian cataphracts, and that the winner will be the best player among those who brought lots of SHC. In other words, just like the last Roman theme, only swapping out Sassanids and inserting [favorite Roman list] + Armenian ally.

More specifically I see Late Imperial Roman, Eastern, with Armenian ally as a front runner that is head and shoulders above other lists at this stage. Without further tweaks expect to see that combination about as often as we saw Sassanid previously.

An easy fix would be to disallow upgrades to SHC. I think the field becomes much more varied in terms of army list selection and composition of army lists within a selection once you eliminate SHC.

jamiepwhite · Recruit Joined: 21 Apr 2006 Posts: 213 Location: Florida

For my list, I bought all IC EHC L and didn''t buy any of the SHC.

Two units of 8 elements ID LC B, these were very effective and easy to use
Two unit of 8 elements ID LI B, not as effective but very cheap
One unit of 4 elements IC LI JLS Sh, cheap, not very effective
Ally general of 2 IC EHC L
Three units of 2 IC EHC L

There's an army standard with CinC, so keeping the IC eager isn't too bad. I suppose I could have fielded some half SHC half EHC units but those are slow, very vulnerable to disorder, and just not really my style. I looked at the chart, Derek's +2 would have thrown SHC/EHC off just like all EHC got thrown off.

Jamie

Frank Gilson · Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:19 pm Post subject: SHC

We need playtesting Wink

...

Camels lurking with legionaries are effective against cataphracts (or any non-camel proof mounted). However, this is a defensive can't-cover-the-table strategy.

Thus the larger issue of lancer (EHC or SHC) power is their ability to project force more flexibly where they need to be.

Derek's +2 can happen...but Derek was in the passive position, and given lancer backup for the initial lancer charge...Derek would have had to remain in place.

So...please play more..try out some SHC/EHC units...let us know what happens.