BwX

[mic]

Hi All
could someone spell out how reg bw X work in distant and close combat?
many thanks

[landmeister]

Are they single-based or double-based?

[mic]

sorry
double based with bowO behind

[landmeister]

Ok. They shoot as normal Bw. As they're doublebased you'll have to mount them into a 4x4 cm squared base. They will always benefit second rank aiding shooting.

They are Spears in close combat. Always. They will never fight as Bw in close combat, but as Sp. This means you'll have to look at Spear close combat outcomes, not Bw. As they're double-based thay always benefit from rear rank support in close combat.

IMHO these troops are an exploit, sorry. Too powerful for too few points. 

[mic]

thanks Landmeister
By the way are there any other troops you think are to powerful?
regards mic

[landmeister]

No doubt, Warband. They are clearly overpowered. Too quick kills, too cheap, too little ME. I can't understand why Phil wants them so excesively effective, in my opinion. 

[Valentinian Victor]

No doubt, Warband. They are clearly overpowered. Too quick kills, too cheap, too little ME. I can't understand why Phil wants them so excesively effective, in my opinion. 

I think your right about Bw(X) being under-costed, however, Warband are not soo great, I've used warband based armies in a number of competitions and found that as warband groups move like bricks you rarely get them into combat with the troop types they have the potential to damage the most. Regular infantry just march away from them and then the warband get ridden down by the enemy mounted on the flanks.

[landmeister]

I've used warband based armies in a number of competitions and found that as warband groups move like bricks you rarely get them into combat with the troop types they have the potential to damage the most. Regular infantry just march away from them and then the warband get ridden down by the enemy mounted on the flanks.

And was this the way Gauls were defeated by Caesar? C'mon, please! 

[Valentinian Victor]

I've used warband based armies in a number of competitions and found that as warband groups move like bricks you rarely get them into combat with the troop types they have the potential to damage the most. Regular infantry just march away from them and then the warband get ridden down by the enemy mounted on the flanks.

And was this the way Gauls were defeated by Caesar? C'mon, please! 

I believe there was one battle where the Roman cavalry managed to get around the flank of the Gauls and that this contributed to their defeat. However, whatever history shows unfortunately us wargamers do things on the table top that no real general would have attempted on the battlefield, hence you will never see on a wargames table Roman armies deployed with an infantry centre and the mounted on the flanks either side, with the 'barbarians' also forming up in this way. Us wargamers, with our 'wargamers eye' are not constrained by such considerations and deploy in a variety of novel ways that the ancients would have been astonished at!

[landmeister]

Us wargamers, with our 'wargamers eye' are not constrained by such considerations and deploy in a variety of novel ways that the ancients would have been astonished at!

I agree. It's a game after all. 

[Orcoteuthis]

Whether Wb are undercosted isn't a historical question anyway. And Caesar, if memory serves, didn't usually fight at the sort of numerical disadvantage an equal points DBMM game of Romans v. Gauls implies.

From a game perspective, I think they're if anything overcosted. They never seem to be very successful in the games I see, even when they get to fight HI rather than get bogged down by lights or ridden down by mounted.