Home Forums Ancients Age of Hannibal question…

This topic contains 8 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by A Lot of Gaul A Lot of Gaul 1 week, 3 days ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #110503
    Autodidact-O-Saurus
    Autodidact-O-Saurus
    Participant

    I’m planning a solo AoH game this weekend using 28mm Basic Impetus armies. So I’ve been doinking around setting up a spreadsheet to help calculate the AoH points value of BI armies. (FYI: The armies come in around 650 points or so with one commander.) Now here’s my question: When calculating the value of archers, does the unit need to be given the “missiles [ranged]” ability? That would be an extra 5 points in cost for a total of 35 points. Or, are archers already equipped with bows at their base cost of 30 points?

    What say ye?

    Self taught, persistently behind the times, never up to date. AKA ~ jeff
    More verbosity: http://petiteguerre.blogspot.com/

    #110540
    Greg M
    Greg M
    Participant

    My opinion would be that Archer units have their bows included in the point cost already.  Unit types with missiles as ‘optional’ would need to pay extra points for their new weapons.

    #110548
    A Lot of Gaul
    A Lot of Gaul
    Participant

    In the three scenarios provided in the AoH rulebook, units of Skirmishers, Archers and Light Horse all have the Ranged Missiles ability as part of their basic points cost, e.g. Archers have the ability for their base cost of 30 points. As Greg mentioned, the +5 for the Ranged Missile ability on the Traits & Abilities chart appears to be for customizing units that carry missiles as an Optional ability on the Unit Reference Sheet.

    Cheers,
    Scott

    "Experience is the teacher of all things."
    ~ Gaius Julius Caesar

    #110567
    Autodidact-O-Saurus
    Autodidact-O-Saurus
    Participant

    Hmmm… thanks. Now that I’m comparing the scenarios and the point costs I’m seeing some inconsistencies. For example, in the abilities chart (page 40), warbands have a speed of 5/4. But the warbands in the Belgic army (page 38) they move 4/3. I’m not sure how the points for the skirmishers on page 32 are determined. Skirmishers are 20; Thrown Missiles are (presumably) free; Free facing also free; Unreliable subtracts 5. So the Tkabara should be 15, not 30. The Ionian peltasts should be 20, not 25.

    I assume these are mostly just proofing errors and given AoH is more scenario based rather than points focused I’m not sure it’s really of any great importance.  (Well, actually inconsistant movement rates is a bit more concerning). But it does make it difficult to set up my spreadsheet to judge whether Basic Impetus armies in AoH are roughly even. I’m going to assume that the point values on pages 18 and 19 are accurate and the scenarios points are incorrect. C’est la guerre game.

     

    Self taught, persistently behind the times, never up to date. AKA ~ jeff
    More verbosity: http://petiteguerre.blogspot.com/

    #110604
    Autodidact-O-Saurus
    Autodidact-O-Saurus
    Participant

    Throwing all planning out the window…. Here are some shots of the beginning of my AoH playtest. I just pulled some units out: Gauls have 5 light foot, 8 warbands, 2 cavalry and 1 chariot (16 units total); the Carthaginians have 5 light foot, 2 light horse, 2 med cavalry, 2 Spanish javelins, 1 citizen spearman, 1 elite veteran, 1 Libyan spear and 1 elephant (15 units total). I’ll go calculate and tweak the points now to see if this is a roughly equal contest for AoH.

    But mostly I wanted to show some newly painted figures, my newly painted table cover and newly made river sections. During the past eight months I’ve painted everything here except the Gauls. Though, they’ve been re-based. Even the hills are new–that was a failed experiment to use a 1/2″ yoga matt for terrain features. Nevertheless, under the cloth no one can tell.

    View from behind the Punic left.

    The newest addition: Libyan javlineers.

    Libyan and Carthaginian cavalry.

    View from behind the Gallic right.

    The Gallic force from the other side of the river.

    The Punic force from the other side of the river.

    The whole shebang.

    Self taught, persistently behind the times, never up to date. AKA ~ jeff
    More verbosity: http://petiteguerre.blogspot.com/

    #110621
    Autodidact-O-Saurus
    Autodidact-O-Saurus
    Participant

    Picture is probably too big. Oh, maybe not!

    Anyway, this is a screenshot of the spreadsheet I made to score AoH armies. I only have to enter name/description and quantity values and choose options from drop-down menus for the traits. All the blue and black cells are autogenerated from the selected values. Total values are shown along the bottom of each unit definition.

    So I’ve got two equal point armies ready to go for a play test. Hopefully tomorrow. We’re prepping for a trip so I’m not sure I’ll actually have time to play it. Sad.

    Self taught, persistently behind the times, never up to date. AKA ~ jeff
    More verbosity: http://petiteguerre.blogspot.com/

    #110761
    Greg M
    Greg M
    Participant

    Hmmm… thanks. Now that I’m comparing the scenarios and the point costs I’m seeing some inconsistencies. For example, in the abilities chart (page 40), warbands have a speed of 5/4. But the warbands in the Belgic army (page 38) they move 4/3. I’m not sure how the points for the skirmishers on page 32 are determined. Skirmishers are 20; Thrown Missiles are (presumably) free; Free facing also free; Unreliable subtracts 5. So the Tkabara should be 15, not 30. The Ionian peltasts should be 20, not 25. I assume these are mostly just proofing errors and given AoH is more scenario based rather than points focused I’m not sure it’s really of any great importance. (Well, actually inconsistant movement rates is a bit more concerning). But it does make it difficult to set up my spreadsheet to judge whether Basic Impetus armies in AoH are roughly even. I’m going to assume that the point values on pages 18 and 19 are accurate and the scenarios points are incorrect. C’est la guerre game.

     

    The discrepancy between the points costs is odd; maybe it was just for the historical scenarios?  Still, odd.  I would hope that the movement rates are just a ‘cut-paste’ typo.  But, most importantly, did you have a chance to play???

     

    #110797
    Autodidact-O-Saurus
    Autodidact-O-Saurus
    Participant

    No, frustrating as it is, I’ve not had a chance to push the figures around yet! All set up on the table, ready to go. I got delayed when I couldn’t find any D10s and then I was attacked by a nasty virus that took me out for a couple days. At this point it will be at least a week before I can get back to it.

    Self taught, persistently behind the times, never up to date. AKA ~ jeff
    More verbosity: http://petiteguerre.blogspot.com/

    #110822
    A Lot of Gaul
    A Lot of Gaul
    Participant

    The discrepancy between the points costs is odd; maybe it was just for the historical scenarios? Still, odd. I would hope that the movement rates are just a ‘cut-paste’ typo. But, most importantly, did you have a chance to play???

    I can’t tell if the points and movement discrepancies in the scenarios are typos or have been done deliberately for the specific battles. Either way, in generating your own armies and scenarios, I would definitely go with the values listed on the Unit Reference Sheet and the list of Traits & Abilities.

    Cheers,
    Scott

    "Experience is the teacher of all things."
    ~ Gaius Julius Caesar

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.