[Nathan]

No Spartans in my local group (thankfully). If I had to build around them, I’d go with a cavalry hero with Lethal Blade, a slinger hero with Accurate and Sling of Fire, a cavalry unit, and then as many Hit and Run slingers as I could fit – possibly giving everyone javelins.

I think using Lethal to rob the Spartans of Armour and therefore maximize wounds might work. Increase the slinger hero’s range attribute and double-tap with him every turn (targeting their heroes). If they phalanx, they’ll be susceptible to cavalry charges from the side and more rounds of slinger shoots. If they don’t phalanx, use javelins and hit and run to kite them around the table.

[Nathan]

I play Gaul/Briton and like the new Melee changes. It makes combat less mindless and, while hordes of soldiers are still going to be the better option, things seem more balanced and small unit armies (like Romans) seem to fair much better in the new system. Not to mention it makes multi-unit combats more sensible – no longer can my unit of 30 Gauls attack every unit it touches with all 30 of its models.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by Nathan.

[Nathan]

In Melee you remove models from the back of a unit first. At range I believe it’s reversed – you remove models from the side of the unit closest to the shooter.

[Nathan]

I’m reading it as 1 Blight per enemy hero. The FAQ says that the Druidic Circle scenario (which states a hero can suffer Blight more than once) is an exception. Which would imply that a single Blight is the rule.

[Nathan]

No, it’s not replace. The unit becomes equipped with Sword, Short Spear, Shield. And when you enter into combat, you nominate if you want to dual wield weapons (and nominate which weapon is your main hand with each Melee Action for keyword purposes). You gain an extra Melee dice in doing so, but also lose out on getting to use your Shield during the combat.

This option makes perfect sense rather than being included for heavily debatable fluff.

[Nathan]

The Gauls aren’t paying 2 points because they want access to an inferior weapon in that case. They’re paying 2 points to get access to an additional weapon so they can dual wield fight.

In the case of the Britons, they’re paying 3 points to gain access to dual wield fighting and a superior weapon.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by Nathan.

[Nathan]

I searched the pdf and literally no units have access to Clubs or Large Clubs. Which is strange because Warlord’s own line of Germanics has models with clubs. It’s probably an oversight.

It’s similar to the rules for Stunning. Those rules state that some weapons and talents will “stun”, but if you search the pdf, nothing in the book actually causes stun.

[Nathan]

As written, it doesn’t cost an action. The unit simply has to start a Phase meeting the 4 phalanx requirements outlined on page 22. They get their normal two actions.

It only “costs” an action insomuch as the prior Phase you have to have moved the unit so that it ends the phase in phalanx formation. If you deployed a unit in formation, it seems that it could start turn one as a phalanx.

[Nathan]

Bows cost 5 Denarii for Heroes in other lists. Talk to your opponent and see if they’re fine with you paying that cost to give your Sarmatian Hero a bow, even though it isn’t listed. It seems silly to not allow the warband list famed for its horse archers to make a horse archer hero.

[Nathan]

Agreed. I think it would’ve made more sense to pack helmets, animal skin, and leather armour together as “Light Armour” and then change the “equip cost” based on the unit.

[Nathan]

This is the point I’m trying to illustrate:

Unit A historically has limited access to armour. It is most likely encountered on the battlefield with little protection. It is given the option to equip Leather Armour to increase its Armour by +1 – but at a hefty 5 Denarii premium to its player because of the rarity of that armour.

Unit B historically has plentiful access to helmets. It is given the option to equip Helmets to increase its Armour by +1 – but at a tiny 2 Denarii cost to its player because of the abundance of helmets available.

Unit C historically has ample access to all types of equipment. It is given the option to equip Leather Armour or Helmets. Because those already have established costs, it is most sensible for the player to purchase the cheaper option (Helmets). The player assembles his warband before realizing that none of his models are wearing helmets. Because its important to the player that his models have armour, he pays the 5 Denarii premium for Leather Armour.

[Nathan]

I think some units just have access to helmets while others will just have access to leather armour. Perhaps the author wanted some units to have to pay different premiums for their +1 armour and also wanted universal point costs for types of equipment.

[Nathan]

The Romans are “paying” for Testudo, Shield Wall, and better equipment options whereas the Spartans are “paying” for Phalanx, For Sparta!, and better stats. They’re evenly costed, but do different stuff.

I suspect that Spartans are under-costed for that extra Wound though. It seems like they’ll be tough to beat on the battlefield.

[Nathan]

Ahhh, I can see that interpretation too – remove models from the front (so the Scorpio) and always try to remove complete models (so allocate Wounds to the Scorpio until its removed).

The problem there is if the attacker passes 8 Ranged checks, you’d have to roll each Armour check individually at the Scorpio’s +1 until it dies – then roll the rest of the Armour checks at the Legionnaire’s +3. Fiddly but it’d work.

Yeah, I’m hoping another FAQ comes soon. I’ve seen lots of differing interpretations on Challenges and Charges as well.

[Nathan]

From a purely competitive standpoint, helmets are the better choice – they provide the same benefit for 3 fewer points. From what I’ve read elsewhere and in the FAQ, the point difference is intentional – because different units have access to different types of armour that require different balancing.

[Author]

Posts