|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 19, 2019 17:23:55 GMT
I've seen this in the house rules area a number of times. Thought I'd start a separate thread, so that it doesn't infect the great 4Ax debate of 2019.
3Bd.
Are they too powerful? If so, what would people do to drop them down a bit. Is losing on ties to Solid not enough?
Are they just fine, and I'm on crack?
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 19, 2019 18:12:57 GMT
Like Arnaud I have considered taking them down to 2BW movement and removing the kill on ties against knights. I however have not seen them dominate games as of yet. I am holding off judgement.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 19, 2019 19:28:08 GMT
I have 3Bd in a number of armies; Early Egyptians, Celtiberians, Middle Imperial Roman, Abbasid, Arab Indian and Vikings and for the most part (excepting the Celtiberians) I would not say that they dominate the game. Battle reports of their with photos can be found at the blog ‘Storm Within the Empire’.
With the exception of the Celtiberians, all of the armies listed above contain one element among their number. The Celtiberian, who have six elements of ‘fast’ blade, have an even win-loss ratio, but their victories can be attributed to efficient use of terrain.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Feb 19, 2019 21:36:30 GMT
They seem very powerful on paper - but that can be deceptive. To find out someone needs to take an army with at least 6 Fast Blades and run it through multiple tournaments. I also use a market based system - I allow players to make up their own armies using any troop type they want and see what they pick. Currently they are pretty popular. But so too are Fast Knights (which don't exist in DBA but make a great check on Fast Blades).
Though I think they have an advantage over convention Blades - its small enough that it would take a huge number of games between otherwise evenly matched armies/players to ever notice.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Feb 20, 2019 9:55:02 GMT
3Bd are just awesome. And for many reasons.
I/ What they are good at, they are very very good at
1. Bow killing: Speed, clipping, high factors, pursuing
2. Total domination in Rough Going (RGo)
II/ They are multi-role
1. Can slug it out in the open (GGo) vs most foes (except El and 6Cv/6Kn -which are rare-)
2. Can also play in the rose garden (Bgo) (unless Wb are present of course)
III/ They have several targets they dominate completely
1. the already mentioned, very commonly seen, Bw
2. Ax in GGo
IV/ Conversely, they themselves have few predators
1. El in the open
2. to some extent Kn in the open, but that's actually quite a hairy fight
3. Wb in the shrubs
V/ They have very strong synergies to alleviate these already few weaknesses
1. With 3Bw vs Kn
2. With 3Ax vs El
3. With El vs everything really
VI/ It's their insane speed and lateral mobility (especially in RGo/BGo) that underpins their advantages
1. Easier to find targets
2. Easier to evade predators
3. Easier to play tricks with ZOCs
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Feb 20, 2019 10:26:22 GMT
I noticed that Spring and Autumn Chinese I/32 (b and c?) seems rather popular and successful down under. I would be quite surprised if they were not the 3Bd version, but maybe someone can confirm?
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 20, 2019 19:49:06 GMT
Yes, and 6Bd is even more frightful. Moving them to 2BW/2BW movement is a good start. Taking away the QF vs Knights is another good option. The old 3Bd clubmen no longer exist in DBA if I recall.
I think these two changes leave 3Bd historically plausible and help the game. They are still great good and bad going troops. The Roman Lancarii will still be able to go into the hills to dig out the enemy. Viking raider will still be twice as fast in rough and bad going as their Saxon foes, and they still be equal to their Irish opponents... while greatly superior in the open.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 21, 2019 17:36:23 GMT
Yes, and 6Bd is even more frightful. Moving them to 2BW/2BW movement is a good start. Taking away the QF vs Knights is another good option. The old 3Bd clubmen no longer exist in DBA if I recall. I think these two changes leave 3Bd historically plausible and help the game. They are still great good and bad going troops. The Roman Lancarii will still be able to go into the hills to dig out the enemy. Viking raider will still be twice as fast in rough and bad going as their Saxon foes, and they still be equal to their Irish opponents... while greatly superior in the open. Joe Collins Hey about giving “heavy” fast troops a -1 in rough. So fast bd or pk will be still ok on rough but aren’t as rough going as the light troops wb, ax, bw, ps ? |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 21, 2019 18:14:57 GMT
Yes...though this is fraught with issues.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 21, 2019 18:47:04 GMT
Yes...though this is fraught with issues. Joe Collins But Joe, this is the House Rules section where we run toward the sound of the guns, damn the torpedoes, etc etc etc.!  I have thought about a -1 in Rough for certain "not so rough" going troops. What kind of issues? |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 22, 2019 0:17:37 GMT
Keep their speed. Make them 4/3, with a - 1 in BGo. Leave the QK on Kn. A very different troop type.
Would they still be QKed by Wb?
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Feinler on Feb 22, 2019 2:04:36 GMT
Rather than making a complete exception of Fast Blades there are various ways that the movement of Fast foot could be toned down such as one of or some combination of the following rules:
- Fast foot cannot move more than 2 BW if they end in contact with enemy;
- +1 PIP for Fast Blades, Fast Pikes or Fast Bows that move more than 2 BW and end in contact with enemy (I'd exclude other Fast foot from this PIP penalty because they already have enough disadvantages);
- Fast foot cannot move more than 2 BW unless their move starts more than 3 BW from any enemy;
- 2 BW maximum move distance for any Fast foot in rough or bad going.
Peter
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Feb 22, 2019 9:13:59 GMT
3 BW is definitely too speedy, and 2 BW doesn't quite differentiate with 4Bd.
What exactly is wrong with 2.5 BW (beside an irrational preference for integers)?
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 22, 2019 17:28:15 GMT
3 BW is definitely too speedy, and 2 BW doesn't quite differentiate with 4Bd. What exactly is wrong with 2.5 BW (beside an irrational preference for integers)? Irrational to you, but pure logic to me!
Really, just ease of measurement, to be more serious.
Phil wanted to stick with full BW if possible... for that very reason.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 22, 2019 17:28:42 GMT
Rather than making a complete exception of Fast Blades there are various ways that the movement of Fast foot could be toned down such as one of or some combination of the following rules: - Fast foot cannot move more than 2 BW if they end in contact with enemy; - +1 PIP for Fast Blades, Fast Pikes or Fast Bows that move more than 2 BW and end in contact with enemy (I'd exclude other Fast foot from this PIP penalty because they already have enough disadvantages); - Fast foot cannot move more than 2 BW unless their move starts more than 3 BW from any enemy; - 2 BW maximum move distance for any Fast foot in rough or bad going. Peter A very interesting line of thought.
Joe Collins
|
|
