armies in disguise

at many tournaments the organizer will state that substitute figures can be used for some troop types.

a unit of skythian horse can be used to represent Huns etc etc.

i am thinking of an instance at York this year when because beta lists were banned and a player could not use his favorite army.

would anyone really be against substitute armies? ie using a legal published list to represent another army that doesn't have a beta list or if the beta list is banned.

the guy wanted to use Samnites but instead used Medieval Irish. would it be too far to use the Irish list with Samnite figures?

sargonid assyrian could use the persian lists, just miss out the non compulsory bits that are not relevant? etc etc

just a thought

Given the way point costs are calculated it really isn't that big a deal as long as it is clear what is what.

Figures are glorified counters. As long as the counter looks like the type of troop type it should be, then making a Persian list out of Irish or Assyrian models is fine by me. It's construct is legal and it looks homogenous - far better than a few Persians with Egyptian chariots and Saxon spears for instance.

Of course the proxy nation needs the right troop types in its toolkit. Hard to make an Assyrian list from Vikings for instance - unless you have 4-horse Viking chariots for some reason. . .

And what glorious counters they can be!

As GG says, provided it is clear what is what, I don't think there should be a problem. If the proxy troops have (approximately) the right weapons, troop types etc., then it is a way of getting figures on the table which don't yet have an official list. Just don't say a unit of FL is proxy for CP when I say I am charging it.

Anyway, in many cases we don't really know what the troops actually looked like, so why worry. This isn't Napoleonics, where your troops must have the correctly shaped cuffs or else.

RogerC

I am slightly less happy about Proxies. I appreciate we are playing with glorified counters but I think this is open to abuse. Firstly I would point out in friendly games as far as I am concerned anything you agree as being fine is fine.

I think competitions are rather different. Firstly, the organiser has to be balanced.

In a previous existence I may well have been a TO who would have placed restrictions similar to those.

The reason being I had received a number of complaints that some players were felt to be abusing the system. Using the same troops as light horse and knights is not really fair, nor is a bow armed unit masquerading as javelinmen. Both of these happened at tournaments, and in fact were happening with alarming regularity.

Secondly, if the competition is at a public event I think we have a certain obligation to try our best to make the games look attractive and fun. Attractive games "attract" other players so at public events our troops should really look something like what they are meant to be.

Lastly, playing the game is supposed to be fun, not a memory test to see if you remember that those axemen over there actually have spears - and that can be pretty crucial if you are planning a cavalry charge.

I also found myself playing in a 28mm competition against a 20mm army proxying for something else. It looked ridiculous and it spoiled my enjoyment of the game.

I found myself asking why I should slave over painting my army when my opponent apparently can't be bothered and can use anything he has lying around - for his "favourite" army.

What next - these Orcs bluetacked to a base are really cataphracts?

Proxies are fine as long as they are reasonable.

I draw the line with unpainted figures but a different scale ? ....yep that takes the cake

The odd unit isn't really a problem, provided you're proxying archers with archers and knights with knights.

Between friends at home proxying an entire army because you want to try it before you buy it is OK.

But at a competition the hobby is often on show, even if only to other wargamers and the game ought to look decent and if you want Samnites, then paint Samnites.

On the other hand the case where somebody discovered that Beta list armies were banned and suddenly didn't have any figures is a bit grim. We can travel a fair way to a convention.
Ideally someone would have provided a spare army but that might need more time for organisation than there was

Jim

I would have a problem with someone using bow armed figures to represent javelin armed units. The figures do help me know what I am dealing with.

In competitions, no proxies.
Well, not a problem if it is a base with similar figures or a couple of odd bases mixed in if using DBx style basing.

For those seeing counters as enough I’d say this not a game for them. They might be better off playing boardgames.

Using unpainted armies or playing assyrians as romans also won’t do. Either paint the army or don’t play. Besides there are always available armies people can borrow.

Beta armies are a bugbear for me because I think individual enthusiasm of the author gets the better of common sense very quickly and some of the meekest troops suddenly become super-troops. Betas have not always been rigourously tested for balance and are therefore open to more abuse.

There is a certain type of competition player who will trawl betas with the aim of finding that flawed and untested combo and then turning up (with a proxie army). For those who complain I would apologise for the genuine, but point out that there are a couple of real examples of beta versions of armies dominating competitions until the list is ratified and then lo and behold the flaws are (usually) fixed and you never see the army again - Medieval Welsh springs to mind. There was also a spate of competitions won by beta list armies that lead me to think they are just not balanced.

That should not be seen as a criticism of players who choose them - it is a competition, so if betas are allowed then betas are allowed, thats why I don't like them.

I also have to admit that I know of one guy who had a genuine balanced beta that was his favourite army, beautifully painted etc and I felt sorry for him when betas were banned, but you cant make an exception as a TO - you allow them or you dont.

The problem with my position is that the level of checking and balance seems to have been thrown out of the window in Extra 5 and a couple of really abusive lists slipped through.

Which lists from EI5 are you thinking of Cyrus?

Beta armies can be a problem as a TO ....but banning them is a new one on me this has actually happened has it ?

I certainly take the view that if they allow a newbie to play it has to be a good thing or allow an old favourite to be tabled.

However an experienced player fielding some strange amalgamation of figures just to gain some perceived loophole would be seen as a serious fudge in our group... very much frowned upon especially if everyone knew they had other armies.
Does this sort of player only ever manage to get a game in competitions ?...I can understand why.

Gaius Cassius wrote:Which lists from EI5 are you thinking of Cyrus?

I'm going to guess the VBU5 Javelin armed Light Infantry that can sprint and shoot through any terrain and be more deadly than 100YW Archers...

what list is that in GG ?

Ah the Medieval Irish ? ....just found it . Sure that's not a type error ? ( doesn't seem right does it ?)

Beta lists are currently used in Italian tournament and no one so far blamed them.

Beta lists are made to give the possibility to use an army to many players most of them are not seeking for winning armies but for lists that properly represent the figures and the armies they want to use.

Some beta lists need to be tuned of course, they are betas after all. And I think tournaments are the best place to test and improve them.

Samnites has been adjusted for example.
Now, instead of banning betas producing the effect to punish 10 players instead of the 1 (who anyway will find another winning list) and with the result to fuel the need of proxies, it would be more constructive to discuss about those beta lists that can be better tuned.

GC could be right there. Wouldn't be so bad if there were only a few - as there were in the old Carthaginian list, but you can take 24

Every other list since the main rules has deliberately restricted this particular troop type \ weapon combo because it is too damned deadly - there was actually a statement to that effect when Extra 4 came out and all the Carthaginian & Spanish FL were nerfed to either VBU4 with Jav or VBU5 without.

The other one is a list that allows you to take up to 24 VBU1 Javelin armed CL which are C class and VD1, combined with a core of VD3 Noble CM. Because the CL are VBU1 you can take a hard core of nobles - say 3, then leave them on the back line while your 10 units of VBU4 jav CL do whatever they want in the certain knowledge that your opponent has to kill 10 to break the army - good luck there.

I think a lot of this derives from our intentional or unintentional mirroring of DBxx style army lists to get proportions, Impetus uses a more refined breaking system than DBxx so sometimes you get this. Lorenzo is usually quite good at catching them but with Extra 5 I think he missed a couple.

And guess what - they both got "proxied" in competitions

Tarty wrote:Ah the Medieval Irish ? ....just found it . Sure that's not a type error ? ( doesn't seem right does it ?)

And Anglo Irish.

Amusingly taken by those who claim not to be powergamers but have a "connection" with them via historical "reasons".

I've missed both of these lists. Nasty ! Don't think anyone has taken them that I know of. What your thinking of GG is Norse Irish where there's only up to 3 FL 5s with javelin under the 350pt guidelines.

Tarty wrote:I've missed both of these lists. Nasty ! Don't think anyone has taken them that I know of. What your thinking of GG is Norse Irish where there's only up to 3 FL 5s with javelin under the 350pt guidelines.

That one was rorty and hypocritical enough Tarty, but I leave them to console themselves.

This one was a full 500 point army of predominantly FL javelins deployed across the width of the table by someone who had always claimed that they only played armies they were interested in, not powergame armies.

Before we get too wound up about this, I should add I don't blame a player for exploiting a list in a competition one iota. List building is as much a part of competition gaming as dice rolling. The TO is responsible there and needs to be careful when he sets his list criteria. Thats why I'm really p*ssed off at the slip in Extra 5 - I can reasonably say "no beta" but I don't think I can extend that to published lists.

Powergaming is a matter of degree - we all do it to one extent or another

In general Lorenzo has always limited javelin armed troops to VBU4 with a few upgrades here and there (Spanish Elite Scutarii.) Tougher FL got the VBU5 rating but lost the javelin.

I am curious about how the Anglo Irish got an army of javelin armed VBU5 troops.

Thats my point GC - the previous restrictions seem to have been dropped or not applied

Same thing happened with the Palatina in the Late Roman lists . If taking the 2/3 Comitatenses to FL with Javelin option you lost 1 VBU from 5 down to 4.
I remember this being discussed on the old forum....just made them too powerful. Or if you did take the FL VBU 5 option....then you lost the javelin.

Hope no one takes these powerful javelin armies any time soon ...could see some people pulling me aside

what has been recently made for the Samnites is the way to go. FL with VBU and javelin use the "heavy javelin" rule (eg like Pilum but with 2 dice both in attack and in defense).
I think is a simple rule that makes the righ balance.

FL with VBU 4 and javelin have a more skirmish approach, while with VBU 5 turn to be more a melee troops with javelin used at point blank before the melee starts.