Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Age of Myths, Gods and Empires => Topic started by: seldon on November 07, 2019, 03:09:17 PM
-
So taking CLASH of Spear to fruition has been a long journey. My brother and I have been wargaming since the 80s but had never ventured into the business/publishing side of the hobby beyond maybe a LGX back in the day in Argentina.
CLASH started after we decided that it would be nice to get to play ancients in 28s, something we used to do back in Argentina but we had not done in the US due to space and budget, and so we thought about coming up with a set of rules for small actions in ancients. It was July of 2018 and nothing was there in the horizon so it seemed like a good idea.
Being thorough as we are we took our time in development and internal playtesting before even extending it to the big group of playtesters that we were able to recruit around the world. This meant that in the meantime other alternatives came out, yet we decided not to give up as we believe CLASH offers a perspective different enough worth taking to print.
The process of going to print was not easy, with every step we would make mistakes and learn, but given a strong online wargaming community support we persevered and the game grew. It grew to the point that we reached an alliance with Victrix to release army boxes specially thought out for the rules... This took the project to another level..
Well, now we are here, everything is ready, as you can imagine this is a true stat up and as a true start up we ended up in the path of Kickstarter, which we were reluctant at first but in the end proved to be the best path forward.
Yet, this will be a short kickstarter because we have already done all our homework and prework, and we are ready to push the button. Boxes and materials are ready to print, the book has already been test printed so nothing needs to be done... just select # of copies and push print :)
We just need to understand the size of the investment that we need to do and this will allow us to get better pricing as we are trying to position the rules to sell. We do want to make money but we see it more as Wargame than as a product, so our main objective is to convince as many people to try the rules..
( In KS the book will be U$ 29, and later in retail it will go for U$ 34 )
This is why the kickstarter will run through Nov-Dec but shipping will start in January. The kickstarter itself will be very simple, there will not be lots of add-ons, there will be some stretchgoals but everything will be aimed at simplicity to insure that we can ship in January. So it will be more of a targeted kickstarter and fast turn around. We want to see battle reports by the end of Jan and start of August !
With that, we hope that you will give us a hand by joining us, we open next Wednesday Nov 13th at 10:30 AM ( US Eastern time )... As I mentioned it will be a very straight forwad KS, get the book, or the book and minis only... and it will ship in January... we will have some early bird options which will basically be slightly better pricing but the whole KS will be at a discount to what will later be retail pricing. Retail will follow quickly after, hopefully in Feb or March, depending the size of the KS effort, since we will not get to retail before we finish sending the KS, but be sure that we will get to retail, we like LGS gaming.
So, that is it.. give us a try, we hope that you'll enjoy the rules...
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/clashofspears/clash-of-spears
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/flier.jpg)
hopefully you've been following along but if not you can find more info here:
http://www.thewargamespot.com/category/clashofspears/
-
One question please.
On the kickstarter you will probably have the book to pre-order. When ordering just the book will it be send from the USA or do you already have a distributor in UK/EU for those ordering inside EU ?
-
Happy to say that we have EU distributor, we will ship fro EU and from US, and get the early bird to get a great shipping rate !
We want people to get the book more than anything..
-
It's launched!
http://kck.st/2KkiMA2
Get that early bird if you want to save on shipping. :)
-
Just backed the early bird. Thanks to the lower price and free shipping, I might even be able to pay for this one, which will make a nice change.
-
Backed too. Only the book, though. I have more than enough Victrix models! lol
-
Oh, yes, I forgot to mention I'm only a tribune. Any proconsuls out there?
-
Backed for the book. :)
-
By the way, the KS has been funded already, and the first stretch goal has been reached (not updated yet, though). Not bad for an Ancients skirmish ruleset!
-
The minis are there because Victrix is great and we want to get new players into ancients.. we need to expand the hobby..
But we are very happy with getting book pledges, that is why we did that early bird with the shipping... we truly want to get the book out there...
-
Can appreciate the time and effort that has been put into this project...now happy to be onboard
-
I'm humble Tribune, but I'm very happy watching how good the KickStarter is going.
CLASH will make Ancient Wargaming Great!
-
Much respect for tribunes...
Getting the book to people was always the main objective...
people buying minis are probably jumping into a new scale a nd period... that is great..
people buying the book are ancient wargamers giving CLASH a chance... that is also great...
-
Backed. My first Kickstarter. Only a Tribune as I don't like Romans (scum of the earth) and will go metal rather than plastic. As my painting is slow I will use Vikings and Saxons as stand ins until I get some Greeks done.
-
Can I ask, how different is this to say, Saga, Dux Brittaniarum, Lion Rampant etc? In terms of how it plays?
-
Yes...
Vs SAGA... same scale concept, but no battle boards. More of a traditional wargame, where it is about troop types.. but we add a more developed system than for example SAGA on fatigue management.. it much more critical.. and units have to be activated by characters...
Vs Rampant, units have to be activated by characters, and activation tests only come to play when units are fatigue.. if you can keep them fresh they are responsive... again fatigue is more detailed and the game is less abstract in some aspects.. also it is alternate activations ( rampant is more kind of IGOUGO ) and you can react to interrupt the enemy
Vs Dux, lardy games are usually a bit more abstract and Dux concentrates so much in the campaign ( which is great ) that it is harder to convert to other periods or to do pick up games.. CLASH is ideal for that as we have a point system that will be made available for players to develop other lists if they want.
Vs SPQR, well it is more tactical, small units of 6-8 guys moving around rather than concentrating on the large units. And really oriented to skirmish actions so we don't have phalanx rules and such, we have traits that mean that those soldier that would fight on a phalanx like to fight in close order.. but the rules don't encourage larger units like SPQR..
It is meant to be a "platoon level" game for ancients.. 30-40 guys, good variety of unit types.. light and medium troops giving you the action arm of your force and a few heavies to serve as an anchor..
here you can see a short sample:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ManwOPS-ib0
here you can see a small battle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44FUc-P0VJw
hope that helps and you go get a book :) discounted shipping pledge ends today..
-
I'll watch the vids in a wee bit. I've got a lot on so it will be before bed I think.
-
Excited that the KS is live.
Been following this for a number of months.
Have a ton of unpainted figures,
so just ordered the rules.
-
Much appreciated... hope that you will enjoy the rules and like the book !
thanks for supporting us !!!
Francisco
-
Only a Tribune as I don't like Romans (scum of the earth)
There's nothing wrong with 'scum of the earth'. Ask Napoleon.
-
Backed. My first Kickstarter. Only a Tribune as I don't like Romans (scum of the earth) and will go metal rather than plastic. As my painting is slow I will use Vikings and Saxons as stand ins until I get some Greeks done.
I missed this... you won’t really need to use them as stand ins... when the book comes out we will put the playtest lists for dark ages available for all online...
-
Backed. My first Kickstarter. Only a Tribune as I don't like Romans (scum of the earth) and will go metal rather than plastic. As my painting is slow I will use Vikings and Saxons as stand ins until I get some Greeks done.
I've tried the game -in playtesting- with my Dark Ages warbands. It works nicely. Word of advice though: a few huscarls is ok, but if you use many then your opponent will run circles around you and then kill you at his leisure! The bastards become fatigued fast! lol
-
Awesome comment... few lines that convey how different CLASH is from other games out there..
Thanks for being part of or worldwide sacred band of playtesters !
Francisco
-
Just a quick update.. the KS is surprising... we've already reached 47K with 22 days to go... not a minor thing for an ancient rules KS !!
Already over 600 books !!!
Our stretch goals are modest but I believe effective and they are giving some nice perks to the kickstarter backers such as character figures and game token and we are getting closer and closer to unlocking the PDF version which all the book backers would get for free !!
but as of today we are already happy that the rules have such a great prospect ahead.. looking forward to going all over the world to demo CLASH at local clubs and conventions...
Thanks to everyone who is supporting us, we have quite a group of backers coming straight from Lead Adventure... so THANKS !!
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/clashofspears/clash-of-spears
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/IMG_8422-1.jpg)
-
I'm a backer, as I've already mentioned, and really looking forward to delivery. I'm considering upgrading my pledge from Tribune to Quaestor, but am somewhat concerned about the contents of the Republican Roman boxed set, which seems to represent a Roman consular army in very reduced form, rather than what one would expect from a skirmishing force. I realise a 'skirmish' can take many forms, but I do wonder at the inclusion of Hastati and Principes, let alone Triarii. Furthermore, if all troop types are to be present, one would expect an equal number of Hastati and Principes per the legion composition.
Another current thread has raised the question of skirmish games not using the correct balance of forces for the type of engagement nominally being represented, but I had the impression Clash of Spears took the idea more seriously. I'd be grateful for any clarification (though I may well have missed it).
-
So here is the deal... of course we are a bit limited by what is on the sprues itself but the system is very flexible.
When you build a muster force the number of milites plus rare troops could not exceed the civis in the force..
In the Roman case that means that your triarii plus principes could not exceed your velites and hastati...
The question is what is a skirmish.. if we think exclusively an interaction of light troops, velites and javelin men for example.. then you can certainly represent that with CLASH and it will be fun... But it could also mean an interaction between other types of troops that are caught in the action for other reasons..
A group of triarii could be ambushed when returning to camp, or you could have a mixed force of hastati and velites going on a raid and you attach 6 principes just to provide some backbone..
The proportions in the box are particularly close to the consular army proportions because of the proportions in the victix sprues but the box allows you to build many different combinations of troops in you list..
As an example... I never put both triarii and principes in my roman lists at the same time. They are too heavily armored and they get tired very quickly. I tend to prefer having a good mix of hastati, velites and some samnite allies.. and maybe include one veteran unit that could be a unit of principes, or maybe a few eques...
The lists are very flexible ... you can build legal armies with a lot of alternatives.. the only restriction is that if you use too many of those troops not that common for skirmishes you end up with and Ad-Hoc force and an Ad-Hoc force has less staying power because in the pick up games you assume a low level engagement and it is more critical to extract the valuable troops than the encounter itself..
On the other hand for all kinds of narrative scenarios you can come up with anything needed.. for example... the system would work very well if you wanted to do an engagement exclusively with cavalry... a few groups of eques ambushed by numidian...
The boxes provide the variety that you cannot get from the big army boxes... if you prefer a more specialized army I'm afraid that there are few options in plastics since most of those are aimed at large battles..
I hope that makes sense, if not I can expand...
However one thing should be clear from looking at the videos.. this does not play like a large battle with reduced number of models.. If you fight with a force with the proportions of the consular army velites/hastati/princeps/triarii you will have a tough time.. your force will be too cumbersome... velites are some of the best troops in the roman force.. they are good skirmishers but they can be very effective in close combat.. The roman has the advantage that the legionnaire was so flexible in his combat style that they tend to get an important edge in battle.. it is an easier army for new players.. just don't bulk up on those heavily armored romans because you'll make your life difficult...
-
Thanks for the explanation. Your comments make perfect sense. I'll admit I haven't watched the game play videos, at least not attentively. One small parting shot, however: 'eques' should be equites, just as the light troops are velites rather than the singular veles.
-
Always switch them around... :) inevitably I will again... same happens to me with princeps and principes...
my spanish interferes with my lack of latin :)
but I’m glad I made some sense !
One thing I would mention though is that the rules are independent of the lists and the pcik up games system or even the point system...
So for people with a different interpretation of force composition in skirmishes you can use the rules and come up with your own scenarios and forces and you will find that there is more than enough depth there
-
so yesterday the guys at On Tabletop ( Beasts of War ) had a great discussion about CLASH. see here
https://youtu.be/5NC8QqTzMgc
One cool thing about On Tabletop is that I think is a good channel to take historical games to fantasy and other wargamers... we really hope to convert a few of those to ancients with CLASH... Usually they get scared by fanatical historical wargamers ( aka button counters ? :) ) but we think that CLASH has room for both types of players to coexist!
That video clearly was well received and the inflow of new backers took as over a new stretch goal past 50K !
-
Hi, I'm sure this has been asked before but is itpossible to included an option to back only for the PDF rulebook?
I'm kina stretched for funds and €30 + shipping for the book is just to much for me.
-
Good luck with the KS project in reaching your goals. Moving forward with rule sets and ideas etc are fundamental to the hobby.
I'm going to bow out as I'm not really all that into buying any more rule sets for skirmish games; that's not to say I don't enjoy playing such games. I do. At the moment my energies are targeted in another direction :)
Edited. I sounded a little blunt shortly after getting out of bed!
-
We don’t have an option for pdf yet.
We hope to get a pdf version ready and offer it for sale but doubt that it will be on time to show up as a pledge during the KS.
However we will start shipping the KS in Jan and hope to finish by Feb and at that point we will open up the online store and very likely the pdf option will be available, so you just need to wait a bit longer if that is ok.
-
Good luck with the KS project in reaching your goals. Moving forward with rule sets and ideas etc are fundamental to the hobby.
I'm going to bow out as I'm not really all that into buying any more rule sets for skirmish games; that's not to say I don't enjoy playing such games. I do. At the moment my energies are targeted in another direction :)
Edited. I sounded a little blunt shortly after getting out of bed!
Not a problem, if you catch the bug later we will still be here :) our sales and distribution plans for next year are already in the works..
cheers
Francisco
-
Proud Proquaestor here... My first foray into ancients... I have some romans unbuilt already, but none of the other classics... anxious to try out a new system. Congrats on the success so far.
-
thank you very much...
we truly want to get new people into ancients... the books has some good background on the period but we plan to provide a list of good reading material.. not to torture people of the shape of this or that shield or the color of this or that mediterranean skin but for people to learn and appreciate how rich and fantastic this period is...
A good example of this is how you will find that the lists for what is commonly treated as secondary players are actually detailed as much as those of romans and carthaginians...
looking forward to people getting their stuff in January so we can start developing the community...
-
Ok, we are getting to the end of the KS campaign which closes this upcoming week..
Right after that we'll get the surveys out and maybe a couple of weeks later start shipping... the miniatures are already in the stocking locations and the books are on the way...
There are still a few first wave deals left... ( https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/clashofspears/clash-of-spears/ )
But also we have some non KS related news. 4Ground will be making a line of Magna Grecia/Carthage buildings for CLASH of Spears this upcoming year 2020..
have a look
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/IMG_8615.jpg)
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/IMG_8602.jpg)
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/IMG_8596.jpg)
-
Quick question: where Will the warband boxes be available in retail?
-
In the final hours now. I pledged for two books and four warband boxes since this is my first foray into ancients.
I played my first game this weekend and enjoyed it tremendously. Details can be found here: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2748949228500432&id=1184203218308382
I'm already painting up my first unit and designing appropriate terrain to start building!
-
Quick question: where Will the warband boxes be available in retail?
we have arrangements with retail distributors in US and Europe so they will be available around March after all the KS pledges are fulfilled... We will support retail business well since many players need their LFGS to get together...We will also sell online direct for those that don’t have stores close by and again fulfillment will be from locations in US and Europe.
The KS has exceeded expectations. We just added the options for greeks, iberians, and italians.. though those will ship a bit later..
Francisco
-
In the final hours now. I pledged for two books and four warband boxes since this is my first foray into ancients.
I played my first game this weekend and enjoyed it tremendously. Details can be found here: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2748949228500432&id=1184203218308382
I'm already painting up my first unit and designing appropriate terrain to start building!
Awesome... thank you very much !
-
Hi,
I'm a backer level II of this kickstarter and I've just received the pdf of the game. Not read yet, but since I criticized the use of sarissae in SPQR as absurd in a small skirmish scale engagement I was very happy reading this:
http://www.thewargamespot.com/introducing-clash-of-spears/
"We wanted the mechanics to provide interesting tactical options but they had to be anchored on small actions, we didn’t want to extrapolate large battle rules to a “pretend is skirmish game”. So for example, in our game you would not have manipular rules, or macedonian pike phalanx etc."
But now I see.... :'(
-
I am also a lvl II backer. I skimmed through the pdf and I like what I see.
For me it's a plus that we can cuse use pikes and such. The more different units / equipment the better.
I can't wait to see supplements for Late Saxons, Normans, Early HYW and etc... . :-D
-
As said, not read yet, but in the presentation of the game they were clear in sustaining historical accuracy. Allowing the use of pikes in a warbandish ancient game is transforming "a large battle in a pretend skirmish game" unless you want to play fantasy/history.
Not expert people make the equation macedonian=pikes, but pikes could be used only in large battles and even in this case with an adapt terrain (I. e. Mostly plain). Otherwise a knife would have been more effective than a pike, and the only possible result would have been rout /death... A commander employing pikemen in a small and fast action would have been totally fool.
And actually there is the possibility to give javelins to pezethairoi, but I'm quite sure that most of the people will use pikes...
I'll read the book, and maybe I won't find other historical mistakes and the game will be super fun and simply I won't use sarissae... We will see....
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.historyhit.com/legion-vs-phalanx/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjGmMr2-sbmAhUuMewKHYF-BrwQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw20DYpGzxO1PXCOGb-v1UL1
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0543,001:18:32
-
Ouch, that is harsh :)
Your point is well taken but, we have the pikes because not having them would be incomplete and people could complain saying that they need it for this or that scenario.
We also have elephants, because people want to have rules for them, also a suboptimal choice.
In the rules you will see that
1) they are not really an optimal option, as soon as your troops go in open order they need to default to hand weapons.
2) the foot companions can be purchased with pikes but can be converted to arming them with javelins in the list... a more practical option.
As mentioned in the rules they are there because it could happen that you need them for a themed scenario or simply because you love the figures...
They are just not an optimal choice for skrimishes as you will see if you take them..
Having to default to hand weapons all the time ( as most of the time you go into open order ) means that you are paying for something that you don’t use.
Also note that the reference to the phalanx is regarding the training, note that you don’t get any kind of rank bonuses or stuff like that... you don’t have a phalanx in clash, have just a small group of guys.. so you will notice that their use is very limited... Arming them with javelins are a better choice and in pick up games I expect people will default to that option. My Pyrrhic force has them armed with javelins...
Like you said someone bringing a force with pike troops to a skirmish will suffer... we just give them the option and as soon as you play you’ll see that you can convey that easily when you play ;)
hope that makes sense, you will see that that they don’t play at all as a large pike phalanx and that you are better having maybe an extra unit of light cav or peltasts
our design philosophy leans towards giving the options yet making them suboptimal rather than banning... it makes for a more comprehensive design.
thank you very much for backing us, we are very appreciative and truly hope that you will give the rules a chance... I still think that you will like them...
Francisco
-
As Francisco has explained some choices are less than optimal, even if you can select them from the lists. At least, that has been my experience with the playtesting my son and I did. In one of our earlier games, he fielded an Anglo-Saxon force strong in huscarls. He was on the defensive, so both thought it made sense: a local lord that takes his professional warriors to deal with a Viking raid. Problem was that he equiped them with the full panoply... and that made them very slow; or to be more accurate: they couldn't move too much or else they got fatigued fast. My lightly armed Vikings were able to swarm his fyrd before the huscarls were able to intervene, and when they did, they fatigued so fast that I could run circles around them and defeat them. Next game he fielded just one small unit of full armed huscarls to act as anchor, and the rest of his force was lightly armed; his slingers proved to be devastating against my raiders, by the way!
-
Hi guys and thank you for your kind answers! (as always)
I appreciate the lighter way of treating pikes (vs SPQR ie), but the pike phalanx in itself can work only in great numbers and nobody would ever dreamed of employing it in small numbers (at least 256, maybe more) and in fast actions. Macedonians used pikes (about 5m long) only in large battles, otherwise pikes remained in the armory .... So 10 men equipped with pikes are not only useless but even historically impossible.
I'm quite integralist as you can see but I understand that most of the people don't care about such specialistic problems... :)
Probably now you hate me but would be very useful a point system to make other list... ::)
Merry Christmas
-
I am still reading through the PDF of the rulebook (enjoying it greatly) so have yet to play a game....for what it’s worth and not wanting to disrespect those with far greater knowledge than me, I am one of those specifically catered for in the rulebook i.e. someone who wants to see an elephant on the table even if I know in advance that the chances of it helping me win will be somewhat slim as it were....
....the rules catering for those of us whose initial urge is to see something we like made and painted on the table rather than units eminently chosen to win was one of the key factors in getting me to back the Kickstarter....I daresay after a few good thrashings the pachyderms might have to go sit out games in their box but that I have rules that let me find out the hard way means that for me the games will be fun...
I would also add that in many years of delving into projects that ultimately lead me into getting sidetracked this game along with Mortal Gods has enthused me to the point of finishing all the figures that I’ve started...not only that but there are more on the way and my enthusiasm remains undiminished... so whatever you guys did from my perspective you did it right
Happy holidays to all
-
Hi guys and thank you for your kind answers! (as always)
I appreciate the lighter way of treating pikes (vs SPQR ie), but the pike phalanx in itself can work only in great numbers and nobody would ever dreamed of employing it in small numbers (at least 256, maybe more) and in fast actions. Macedonians used pikes (about 5m long) only in large battles, otherwise pikes remained in the armory .... So 10 men equipped with pikes are not only useless but even historically impossible.
I'm quite integralist as you can see but I understand that most of the people don't care about such specialistic problems... :)
Probably now you hate me but would be very useful a point system to make other list... ::)
Merry Christmas
I don't hate you, sure! lol
Thing is that you can left pikes out of the equation. Clash of Spears is not a tournament set -at least, I don't think it would work as such- but scenario driven. You can choose to ignore pikes altogether and get your hypaspistas fighting as light troops.
Elephants, on the other hand, can be justified easily. CoS doesn't represent a particular kind of skirmish. It can be anything from pre-battle scouting to a small action happening in the fringes of a bigger battle. I can imagine a bunch of light troops trying to deal with an enemy elephant and its supporting troops, in the middle of a battle that is happening a few hundred yards from where they are engaging.
-
Thanks,
it's right. When Macedonians kings went for small actions usually employed their elite force (hipaspists, in late times probably renamed peltasts) armed with spears and light/medium panoply, with other light armed troops. If in field battle they wore heavier Armour and probably took pikes...
I remember a text (Polibius probably) of macedonian peltasts crossing a river under enemy fire, and even it's not said they're not obviously armed with 5m long pikes ;)
-
I know that it is not strictly historical but I would dare to recommend you Christian Cameron's novels. It has a lot of inspiration for small scenarios involving all kind of troops. And he knows his stuff too. His first novels in the Tyrant series are top (I am not that fond of later instalments, though his description of the battle of Gaza is nail-biting), and his stand alone God of War novel, about Alexander -Ptolemy is the narrator- is full of scenes of combat that can work as great inspiration for scenarios, from cavalry clashes to light troops.
-
I'm looking forward to reading the rules and seeing if I can make an army list (probably by borrowing troop types from other lists) for my pet Spartacus Revolt project.
Cheers
SB
-
Hi guys and thank you for your kind answers! (as always)
I appreciate the lighter way of treating pikes (vs SPQR ie), but the pike phalanx in itself can work only in great numbers and nobody would ever dreamed of employing it in small numbers (at least 256, maybe more) and in fast actions. Macedonians used pikes (about 5m long) only in large battles, otherwise pikes remained in the armory .... So 10 men equipped with pikes are not only useless but even historically impossible.
I'm quite integralist as you can see but I understand that most of the people don't care about such specialistic problems... :)
Probably now you hate me but would be very useful a point system to make other list... ::)
Merry Christmas
I cannot hate any backers :) .... I
I’ve seen reenactors operate in groups of 10-20 guys with sarissa length poles. I saw it in a historical study group at the University of Virginia. It was fun to see how they got totally disorganized going up a gentle hill.
I would not say it is impossible, what I would agree is that is not useful. While you keep tight getting through the pikes would take effort but once disorganize there would be no reason not to switch to hand weapons. So that is what we did.
If you compare a hyspaspist/hoplite style unit to the pike unit you will see that anyone would alsways choose the hoplite style unit. They are there only in case someone wanted to put them because they like the minis or because of some scenario where they imagine a file of pikemen that got cut off and is working their way to the syntagma. If you decide to never use the pikemen, you will always be able to show a new opponent that you way is the better way.
Using units of foot companions with javelins is really the best option, once you play the game you will see how those units can easily defeat an equivalent unit armed with pikes...
Hopefully that allows us to keep the rules for completion while providing what it aims to be a reasonable historically appropriate system.
We will provide the full point system for you to make any lists, we even will provide some traits that are in playtest mode and the core design principles we use.
All that will be out online before the end of January.
Thanks for taking a chance with our rules, I do think that given the comments you are making you will find the rules match what you are looking for, I certainly hope so.
Francisco
-
I don't hate you, sure! lol
Thing is that you can left pikes out of the equation. Clash of Spears is not a tournament set -at least, I don't think it would work as such- but scenario driven. You can choose to ignore pikes altogether and get your hypaspistas fighting as light troops.
Elephants, on the other hand, can be justified easily. CoS doesn't represent a particular kind of skirmish. It can be anything from pre-battle scouting to a small action happening in the fringes of a bigger battle. I can imagine a bunch of light troops trying to deal with an enemy elephant and its supporting troops, in the middle of a battle that is happening a few hundred yards from where they are engaging.
Well, we certainly aim for CLASH to be a system than can be used for tournaments. I’m not a tourney player, but Alvaro is. We both believe that tournaments can be useful to identify gaps in rules and balance inthe lists that we can fix over time. However, it is not ONlY a tournament system, so you will find many options that a min-max player would never use but that a scenario player would use. Our effort has been to make sure that it is never optimal for a min-max player to use things such as elephant or pikes so that you don’t see them in tourneys.
On the other hand, themed games can use them.. I’ve been working and testing a scenario that could have happened after Hannibal crosses the Rhone on the way to the Alps. An elephant becomes a straggler and is trying to get back to the main column when it is ambushed by hostile gauls and carthaginian troops have to escort the elephant out of the ambush.
So we will always aim to satisfy the tournament player and the narrative player, and that is why sometimes you will find troops that a tournament player will look and say.. “why would I ever use those” , and we aim to make sure that “those” are the troops you would not normally see on a scouting skirmish or similar...
hope that makes sense...
Again thank you guys for dedicating your attention to our rules and in particular to Antonio for being a playtester, our many playtesters in different countries, (whom we have never met face to face ) have been fundamental in getting the rules to go from crazy convoluted ideas to a streamlined and effective system ( in my unbiased ;) opinion )
regards
Francisco
-
I'm looking forward to reading the rules and seeing if I can make an army list (probably by borrowing troop types from other lists) for my pet Spartacus Revolt project.
Cheers
SB
As I mentioned we will provide full disclosure on points and we will be looking forward to player submitted lists to make available to the community, so for sure you’ll be able to come up with something for slave revolt.
Francisco
-
I am still reading through the PDF of the rulebook (enjoying it greatly) so have yet to play a game....for what it’s worth and not wanting to disrespect those with far greater knowledge than me, I am one of those specifically catered for in the rulebook i.e. someone who wants to see an elephant on the table even if I know in advance that the chances of it helping me win will be somewhat slim as it were....
....the rules catering for those of us whose initial urge is to see something we like made and painted on the table rather than units eminently chosen to win was one of the key factors in getting me to back the Kickstarter....I daresay after a few good thrashings the pachyderms might have to go sit out games in their box but that I have rules that let me find out the hard way means that for me the games will be fun...
I would also add that in many years of delving into projects that ultimately lead me into getting sidetracked this game along with Mortal Gods has enthused me to the point of finishing all the figures that I’ve started...not only that but there are more on the way and my enthusiasm remains undiminished... so whatever you guys did from my perspective you did it right
Happy holidays to all
Thank you for the fine comments and we’ll make sure to come up with scenarios that justify having that elephant
-
I played a game today with a KS backer. I don't have the rulebook with me, and doubtless we made many mistakes, but overall I found the rules disappointing. Far too many counters, and rules associated with counters, would sum up my experience. I was also annoyed that a 40 model game requires 2 or 3 characters, rather than actual units having limited autonomy.
I will play again to be sure, to be fair, but I am not optimistic. I do appreciate it was written by people who actually understand the period, unlike SPQR.
-
well, I understand, people have different preferences I respect that.
Yes the counters are needed, unit will have normally two, activation and fatigue ( similar to bolt action ), and sometimes you might have a special condition like “unloaded”.
And it is true that they are critical to the system as the number of actions taken and the amount of fatigue on a unit have dramatic impact on the options and performance for that unit.
And yes the characters are a key part of the game rather than the units acting independently as this is a core aspect of the game... and it is an aspect that will be developed further in future supplements. Given how command and control works in the system there is not really a way to avoid it.
Because there is no limit to the number of characters ( except no more than units), you could if you wanted assign a character to each unit and thus the units would act independently...
but, I totally understand if it is not your game and I do appreciate the reference to understanding the period, I’m happy that you got that feeling even if you were looking for a different kind of game.
thank you for giving it a try and I’m glad that you guys understood the rules and got a game out of it enough to form an opinion on the mechanics, and specially appreciated since I like your work in Ronin ( a game I like very much ).
regards,
Francisco
-
I may have missed a key part of the discussion about the use of pezhetairoi in CoS, but from the recent comments I get the impression one aspect of their tactics is being overlooked. Irrespective of the option to replace the sarissa with javelins, the pike itself was, I believe, constructed from two parts, and in certain circumstances - e.g. assaulting a walled town, where the full-length pike would be totally impractical - the top half alone would be used, making the pikemen into hoplites for the duration of the engagement. More recent research may have discredited this theory, for all I know, but it appears to make sense. How the rules allow for this is not something I am in a position to comment on.
-
Never heard about this 2 part theory... Certainly ancient sources did not speak about it.... If you read Polibius (which is well informed) the only "certain circumstance" of employment is very long files and depth ranks (8-16 men) standing or going straightforward on plain terrains in big battles. And the flank would have been well protected, because the phalanx was almost incapable of changing direction...
-
I may have missed a key part of the discussion about the use of pezhetairoi in CoS, but from the recent comments I get the impression one aspect of their tactics is being overlooked. Irrespective of the option to replace the sarissa with javelins, the pike itself was, I believe, constructed from two parts, and in certain circumstances - e.g. assaulting a walled town, where the full-length pike would be totally impractical - the top half alone would be used, making the pikemen into hoplites for the duration of the engagement. More recent research may have discredited this theory, for all I know, but it appears to make sense. How the rules allow for this is not something I am in a position to comment on.
Yes I’ve actually read about that, however for rules purposes they are then no different than hoplite style infantry when it comes to the mechanics and that troop type is already in the list so there was no point in adding a duplicate.
But yes I’ve read that, can’t remember where, maybe An Invencible Beast by C. Mathew ?
One way or the other you have plenty of options in the Phyrric list that allow you “not to bring pike phalanx to a skirmish raid “ ( maybe we can say that with Sean Connery’s voice ? :) )
-
I read about the two-part sarissa in a biography of Alexander, probably one published in the 1980's, though as I didn't read the entire book I'm afraid the title and author escape me. There was a drawing of a pikeman which clearly showed the metal band around the centre of the shaft. Unfortunately I don't recall where this was merely the author's pet theory, or established fact. Only archaeology can provide a definite answer, though, as I mentioned, it seems perfectly plausible to me.
With regard to the use of the shortened sarissa, I didn't mean to suggest that this required a new category of soldier, merely that the pikeman could become a type of hoplite when circumstances determined it, albeit with a smaller shield.
-
There does tend to be a tendency amongst wargamers to believe that troops never dismounted, did not wear lighter armour, were always close/loose order, never left behind weapons for specific operations.......
The Romans certainly used legionaries without armour for assaulting hilltop forts (I think it was against the Numidians - I can look it up if anyone desperately needs to know), King Harold Godwinson's Huscarls left behind their mail and heavy weapons , whilst in North Wales.
Its hard to imagine pikemen attacking any kind of fortification (I tried it in the Sealed Knot - 40 years ago at Lichfield Close).....I think sword and shield (at times slung or sheathed) would be the order of the day.....especially if ladders were involved....not even long spears......3 points of contact......H&S.... ;)
-
I read about the two-part sarissa in a biography of Alexander, probably one published in the 1980's, though as I didn't read the entire book I'm afraid the title and author escape me. There was a drawing of a pikeman which clearly showed the metal band around the centre of the shaft. Unfortunately I don't recall where this was merely the author's pet theory, or established fact. only archaeology can provide a definite answer, though, as I mentioned, it seems perfectly plausible to me.
With regard to the use of the shortened sarissa, I didn't mean to suggest that this required a new category of soldier, merely that the pikeman could become a type of hoplite when circumstances determined it, albeit with a smaller shield.
Yup, I fully understand your point..
Cool now you and I need to go find out where we read it :) or it will linger in our conscience :)
-
There does tend to be a tendency amongst wargamers to believe that troops never dismounted, did not wear lighter armour, were always close/loose order, never left behind weapons for specific operations.......
The Romans certainly used legionaries without armour for assaulting hilltop forts (I think it was against the Numidians - I can look it up if anyone desperately needs to know), King Harold Godwinson's Huscarls left behind their mail and heavy weapons , whilst in North Wales.
Its hard to imagine pikemen attacking any kind of fortification (I tried it in the Sealed Knot - 40 years ago at Lichfield Close).....I think sword and shield (at times slung or sheathed) would be the order of the day.....especially if ladders were involved....not even long spears......3 points of contact......H&S.... ;)
The dismounting particularly, even in large battles there is plenty of references of cavalry battles becoming a dismounted affair ! Such a crazy thing to imagine yet it makes sense given the lack of saddle and stirrups of later times..
Of course rules find it hard to incorporate all those things but.. one can always come up with narrative scenarios and such..
-
The primary focus of ALL game design should be engaging play. It is better to include options that a general gamer will find fun and let the rivet counters omit or house rule out from their play experience. Arguing against including options unecessarily restricts play for those of us who are interested in experiencing what would happen if a small group of troops from a larger unit suddenly found themselves separated from the safety of that unit; now equipped with less than efficient weapons. By arguing against these options in the rules that person becomes a reason for the general gaming community not to wargame.
-
There does tend to be a tendency amongst wargamers to believe that troops never dismounted, did not wear lighter armour, were always close/loose order, never left behind weapons for specific operations.......
The Romans certainly used legionaries without armour for assaulting hilltop forts (I think it was against the Numidians - I can look it up if anyone desperately needs to know), King Harold Godwinson's Huscarls left behind their mail and heavy weapons , whilst in North Wales.
Its hard to imagine pikemen attacking any kind of fortification (I tried it in the Sealed Knot - 40 years ago at Lichfield Close).....I think sword and shield (at times slung or sheathed) would be the order of the day.....especially if ladders were involved....not even long spears......3 points of contact......H&S.... ;)
It reminds me what the Spanish Tercios did in the Netherlands: they launched incursions armed with their swords. a dagger (called "misericordia" as it was used to "give mercy" to wounded enemies!) and a brace of pistols. The raids were known as "encamisadas", because they left behind their clothes except their shirts and shoes. It didn't matter if they usually fought as pikemen or musketeers, when in formation.
-
I remember back in the 'good' old days of WRG 6th Ed - you could dismount cavalry - except 'Irregular A or B class' - who were far too noble to get of their horses in view of the enemy.....
-
It reminds me what the Spanish Tercios did in the Netherlands: they launched incursions armed with their swords. a dagger (called "misericordia" as it was used to "give mercy" to wounded enemies!) and a brace of pistols. The raids were known as "encamisadas", because they left behind their clothes except their shirts and shoes. It didn't matter if they usually fought as pikemen or musketeers, when in formation.
Thanks for that... now I NEED to go watch Alatriste again...
-
I remember back in the 'good' old days of WRG 6th Ed - you could dismount cavalry - except 'Irregular A or B class' - who were far too noble to get of their horses in view of the enemy.....
In CLASH one thing we did is that when you get to rough terrain mounted troops just lose their mounted trait, which is equivalent to saying they dismount. In large battle rules that is always abstracted into the mechanics which makes sense for that scale of action.
I hope to release some extra rules for narrative games to do things like that, but has to be done in a way that makes sense so that it is not a false choice...
But I expect to see a lot of experimentation in such things from players and we want to encourage that, since we have the advantage of not having “corporate shackles” so we have more flexibility in player driven stuff...
-
The primary focus of ALL game design should be engaging play. It is better to include options that a general gamer will find fun and let the rivet counters omit or house rule out from their play experience. Arguing against including options unecessarily restricts play for those of us who are interested in experiencing what would happen if a small group of troops from a larger unit suddenly found themselves separated from the safety of that unit; now equipped with less than efficient weapons. By arguing against these options in the rules that person becomes a reason for the general gaming community not to wargame.
yes having the flexibility to cater to both types of players is critical for us..
as mentioned before some people will not like the mechanics of our rules, and that is understandable, we all have different preferences, but when it comes to troop types and historical interpretations we try to be open an inclusive to allow for different types of gameplay... we do try to keep underlaying principles, for example trying to provide contemporary matchups .. that is why we worked to have many different lists that are contemporary and fun so that you don’t need to go across periods to gain variety...
-
Dear Youngsters
The book you mention out of your grandad's memories is Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars by Duncan Head, WRG 1982.
Duncan mentioned about the sarissa that "the shaft was made in two pieces joined by an iron tubular sleeve 6 and a half inches (17cm) long" as shown by remains at Chaironeia, and in a macedoniam tomb at Vergina.
There may be later doubts emited on this deduction (no wooden part of course remain) but let me point to this: you need many very tall trees to produce 5m cornel shafts in thousands!
About the use of javelins, or longche-spears by Macedonian foot soldiers: I wrote years ago (25 more or less) an article in a french magazine about the army of Alexander the Great, and I remember having suggested that the 12 or so taxeis of pezetairoi were regional in Macedonia. From memory two of them needed be recruited from double provinces (there were fourteen regions in Macedonia, still from memory). Some of these provinces were coastal and included hellenized people but some were from the mountains and the macedonians in them were rough-ground people who traditionaly fought in open order as javelinmen. These people could and were heavily used in special operations (that is everything apart from large battles) by Alexander, leaving their sarissai in camp and turning back to javelins-lonche-swords to deal with opposition.
Alexander killed one of his generals, Kleitos, during a late night drunken brawl , and the sources are refering to two possible weapons: a sarissa or a longche. Now imagine a drunken bully taking a 5 m weapon out of a bodyguard's hands (whose main job may have been not to damage anything with it!) and brandishing it in a symposium room, not to say killing another bully with it! Better be a smaller weapon, but the sources may be right nonetheless: just imagine that the hypaspist's longche was the forward half of a sarissa... and you have your answer for the macedonian double weaponry, and a cheap one at that.
Philippe
-
Alexander killed one of his generals, Kleitos, during a late night drunken brawl , and the sources are refering to two possible weapons: a sarissa or a longche. Now imagine a drunken bully taking a 5 m weapon out of a bodyguard's hands (whose main job may have been not to damage anything with it!) and brandishing it in a symposium room, not to say killing another bully with it!
Its hard to see a bodyguard having a pike in the room......he'd end up poking it through the ceiling or at least knocking the ornaments off the shelves in a crisis.....
-
I also find difficult to picture a drunken man wielding a full sarissa... but if it was a main room in a persia palace, the ceiling would have been quite tall...
Said that, in my fuzzy memory... I recall the word 'throwing' in reference to the incident, but caution, it was probably a translation of Arrian in Latin, given to us to translate to Italian... do not as me why we were not using original Latin stuff...
as for...
The primary focus of ALL game design should be engaging play. It is better to include options that a general gamer will find fun and let the rivet counters omit or house rule out from their play experience. Arguing against including options unecessarily restricts play for those of us who are interested in experiencing what would happen if a small group of troops from a larger unit suddenly found themselves separated from the safety of that unit; now equipped with less than efficient weapons. By arguing against these options in the rules that person becomes a reason for the general gaming community not to wargame.
I fully disagree. The primary focus of an historical wargame should not be 'engaging play' especially because it is just an empty sentence with plenty of meaning (usually uttered by people who a) have no idea of what they are talking about, b) seems to have an ax to grind against supposed rivet counters). Said that I am the first to say that in surprisingly frequent occasions the rivet counters know less about their rivets than they pretend... I think option should be included if it is reasonable to include them and they could be supported by research and evidence, not just for option sake. To a certain extent this reminds me of a debate on an old total war forum about the fantasy Ptolemaic Egyptians CA had deployed, with the 'game first' crowd arguing, before the game was ever released, that that would have made the game 'better' rather than sheepishly following history...
Now I think Francisco (I have read the backer PDF, being a backer myself...) made the right call. In the introduction he also made some good observations on the kind of game he and his brother wanted to achieve (or was his brother writing that bit... lol ), and even sarissa have a place in it. Clash is covering not just independent skirmishes but part of battles zoomed out. I just do not expect a 3 miles long phalanx supported by a hundred of elephants on the table, except as a part of a mega-game with score of players... (in my dreams...).
Oh... what battle I am referring about? :D
-
"I also find difficult to picture a drunken man wielding a full sarissa... "
Lending further credibility to the half-sized sarissa concept. BTW, I'm pretty sure that the biography I referred to was Alexander The Great: King, Commander And Statesman by N GL Hammond, though it is hardly surprising that the same information should have appeared in the WRG book, or for that matter an Osprey MAA, or Peter Connolly's Greece and Rome at War; it's simply a long time since I looked at them. It had also occurred to me that, for reasons of ease of manufacturing alone, a two part design would be far more practicable.
"I just do not expect a 3 miles long phalanx supported by a hundred of elephants on the table, except as a part of a mega-game with score of players... (in my dreams...)
Oh... what battle I am referring about? :D
Ipsus would be my guess.
-
I also find difficult to picture a drunken man wielding a full sarissa... but if it was a main room in a persia palace, the ceiling would have been quite tall...
Said that, in my fuzzy memory... I recall the word 'throwing' in reference to the incident, but caution, it was probably a translation of Arrian in Latin, given to us to translate to Italian... do not as me why we were not using original Latin stuff...
as for...
I fully disagree. The primary focus of an historical wargame should not be 'engaging play' especially because it is just an empty sentence with plenty of meaning (usually uttered by people who a) have no idea of what they are talking about, b) seems to have an ax to grind against supposed rivet counters). Said that I am the first to say that in surprisingly frequent occasions the rivet counters know less about their rivets than they pretend... I think option should be included if it is reasonable to include them and they could be supported by research and evidence, not just for option sake. To a certain extent this reminds me of a debate on an old total war forum about the fantasy Ptolemaic Egyptians CA had deployed, with the 'game first' crowd arguing, before the game was ever released, that that would have made the game 'better' rather than sheepishly following history...
Now I think Francisco (I have read the backer PDF, being a backer myself...) made the right call. In the introduction he also made some good observations on the kind of game he and his brother wanted to achieve (or was his brother writing that bit... lol ), and even sarissa have a place in it. Clash is covering not just independent skirmishes but part of battles zoomed out. I just do not expect a 3 miles long phalanx supported by a hundred of elephants on the table, except as a part of a mega-game with score of players... (in my dreams...).
Oh... what battle I am referring about? :D
thanks for your kind comments..
and as always thank you very much for backing our rules.. we appreciate each of you guys very much for making this possible.
yes, we try to walk that thin line where fans of military history and new ancient gamers can share interest in the game ..
cheers
Francisco
-
Francisco
I'll be waiting impatiently for your rules to be available through a retail point here in France: remember, England is no more Europe, or shortly won't be. No abuse intended here: I'll still order from GB (depending mostly on french customs). But you should make your rules available also inside Europe and hopefully in France (one retailer should be in your list at the very least, in Strasbourg, if not saying too much). Ordering directly from the US is much expensive from here and puts you in the claws of mafia-like intermediaries who collect taxes for the french customs, and charge ridiculously heavy "file opening" racket money along. Can you believe that: a private company with absolutely no one speaking a single word of french (I verified) is commissioned by the french state to collect custom taxes!!! Global times...
Philippe
-
I must say I am in the camp of not including pikes in a true skirmish game since I suspect that a group of 6-10 pikemen engaged in a raid, etc., would have either made use of other weapons, as has been mentioned, or fought in extremis with their sword or other hand weapon. Or, I may just be missing some scenario where they would try to hang on to them...
If I were to do a list for a Hellenistic army I would likely have simply gone for a throwing spear (so I am looking forward to a points system and since I play with a small group, this won't be a problem). The reason is that the logche referenced in Arrian's description of the death of Kleitos is more than a javelin. The troops who were present were the somatophylakes, royal bodyguards drawn from the Macedonian aristocracy, and the hypaspists who seem to have been outside since Alexander called for them (interestingly we are told by Plutarch that he called for them in Macedonian). Arrian then gives two versions, that Alexander seized a logche from a somataphylax and struck (paisanta in Greek so no indication of throwing) or he took a sarissa from a guard (phylax). Given the sentence construction, I assume he is relating two accounts for completeness, but given the men involved (somatophylakes or possibly hypaspists) the former seems more likely. I suspect Arrian, who was a Roman general and used the term logche/logchophoroi for the lancea/ lancea-armed troops. The lancea is light throwing spear with a thong in the middle (Isadore of Servile: Lancea est hasta amentum habens in medio), several times in his own Taktika and hie Array against the Alani, we might go with this as a spear rather than a javelin (more properly akontion in Greek).
As to the question of the sarissa being made of two parts connected by a sleeve, I only know of one example of a sleeve from antiquity, excavated by M. Andronikos at Vergina (there might be more but I don't recall having come across them). It is also, as I recall, concave with the ends flaring a bit which would be odd if it connected two pieces (at least it is odd to me). The best articles on the sarissa are by Minor M. Markle III in the American Journal of Archaeology in 1977 and 1978 and I am guessing they are cited by some of the other studies mentioned.
Finally, I played a small solo game from my PDF of Clash of Spears using Carthaginians versus Sicilian Greeks and it was a fun game. While I was not too concerned with the tokens, I did find that the various traits slowed the game down a bit. But I suspect when my regular gaming partner and I play a few games, they will be easier to manage.
-
I have always wondered about 'struck' in the classic sense.......(hypothetically) I was one struck by a house brick thrown from a distance.....I caught the culprit and threw a punch - which struck him......sorry just being stoopid.....
On a more interesting point - why was it noted that he called for the guard in 'Macedonian'?
ta
SB
ps - of all the troop types in the ancient world - pikemen are the ones I can't quite see carrying their 'normal' weapon in a 'skirmish' situation but you never know, its only (as you say) a game.
-
Custos,
I said it was a Latin translation so some change of term is possible, and, on top of that, it was probably 2nd or 3rd year of High School... Soviet Union was still around, even my famous memory can be fuzzy at times, so I can remember wrong!
As the macedonian language, my guess is that Arrian is nothing that because Alexander and their companions being Greek schooled and high nobility, were supposed to speak proper greek, rather than Macedonian dialect between themselves. The reference to 'macedonian' could be a way to represent the 'barbarization' of Alexander through drink (and his association with Persians in this specific period). If, as it is usually accepted, Arrian was basing his research on Ptolemy original account, there is also some form of political justification for what the generals did later (basically rebelling against the Dynasty...) in that.
As for the pike debate... from Clash (Erize, 2019, p. 9)
a unit from six to eight models can represent anything from six to eight soldiers or up to something like twenty to thirty men
Small unit action are also part of larger actions, like set piece battles, but at a zoomed in level.
PS: the 3 miles phalanx with elephants is Raphia, 317 BC.
-
Silent Bob: the Greek verb paiso means to strike or smite with a weapon in hand. If one wanted to say threw a weapon, you would probably use verbs like ballo (hurl a missile, hence ballistics) or akontizo/exakontizo (hurl a javelin).
As to Alexander's use of Macedonian. it demonstrates that although the nobility was thoroughly Hellenized (a process started by Alexander I at the time of the Persian War), the army, in this case the hypaspists, were much less so -- they may not have had any Greek. This is anathema to those who want to see Macedonia as part of the Greek world -- this is tied to modern political rhetoric.
I am with you on not seeing pikemen in a skirmish game, but if people want to do so, they can do so. My pikemen will remain in the box for games of CoS. ;)
Arrigo: I know what you mean... I am in my sixties and while my memory is pretty good, there are times I cannot remember details, or where I read something!
The reference to Macedonian is in Plutarch's Life of Alexander not Arrian, but your point about Alexander reverting to type when drinking may well be part of it too. Most Greeks were appalled that Macedonians did not cut their wine with water and so got quite drunk at such events; this and Philip stumbling when going after Alexander in 336 are two good examples.
I saw that quote in CoS on page 9... but the next paragraph, for me, explains why we would never see pikes in the game:
"What is important to understand in CLASH is that the largest unit is always smaller than the smallest battlefield organizational element encounter (sic!) in historical armies."
-
I must say I am in the camp of not including pikes in a true skirmish game since I suspect that a group of 6-10 pikemen engaged in a raid, etc., would have either made use of other weapons, as has been mentioned, or fought in extremis with their sword or other hand weapon. Or, I may just be missing some scenario where they would try to hang on to them...
If I were to do a list for a Hellenistic army I would likely have simply gone for a throwing spear (so I am looking forward to a points system and since I play with a small group, this won't be a problem). The reason is that the logche referenced in Arrian's description of the death of Kleitos is more than a javelin. The troops who were present were the somatophylakes, royal bodyguards drawn from the Macedonian aristocracy and the hypaspists who seem to have been outside since Alexander called for them (interestingly we are told by Plutarch that he called for them in Macedonian). Arrian then gives two versions, that Alexander seized a logche from a somataphylax and struck (paisanta in Greek so no indication of throwing) or he took a sarissa from a guard (phylax). Given the sentence construction, I assume he is relating two accounts for completeness, but given the men involved (somatophylakes or possibly hypaspists) the former seems more likely. I suspect Arrian, who was a Roman general and used the term logche/logchophoroi for the lancea/ lancea-armed troops. The lancea is light throwing spear with a thong in the middle (Isadore of Servile: Lancea est hasta amentum habens in medio), several times in his own Taktika and hie Array against the Alani, we might go with this as a spear rather than a javelin (more properly akontion in Greek).
As to the question of the sarissa being made of two parts connected by a sleeve, I only know of one example of a sleeve from antiquity, excavated by M. Andronikos at Vergina (there might be more but I don't recall having come across them). It is also, as I recall, concave with the ends flaring a bit which would be odd if it connected two pieces (at least it is odd to me). The best articles on the sarissa are by Minor M. Markle III in the American Journal of Archaeology in 1977 and 1978 and I am guessing they are cited by some of the other studies mentioned.
Finally, I played a small solo game from my PDF of Clash of Spears using Carthaginians versus Sicilian Greeks and it was a fun game. While I was not too concerned with the tokens, I did find that the various traits slowed the game down a bit. But I suspect when my regular gaming partner and I play a few games, they will be easier to manage.
Excellent reference for the Alexandrian equipment for foot companions ! We specifically dig for such references when defining equipments and traits !
Bear in mind that we do not have Alexandrian list, we have a Pyrrhic list since we only cover west mediterranean..
Alexandrian will come in future elements...
But yes the point system will be made available for you guys to come up with alternatives such as the ones you mention...
Glad you have fun, in my experience over time people get very familiar with the traits and that helps a lot... but when I do demo games I don’t use the maximum vairety of troops to keep it simple for players...
-
Silent Bob: the Greek verb paiso means to strike or smite with a weapon in hand. If one wanted to say threw a weapon, you would probably use verbs like ballo (hurl a missile, hence ballistics) or akontizo/exakontizo (hurl a javelin).
As to Alexander's use of Macedonian. it demonstrates that although the nobility was thoroughly Hellenized (a process started by Alexander I at the time of the Persian War), the army, in this case the hypaspists, were much less so -- they may not have had any Greek. This is anathema to those who want to see Macedonia as part of the Greek world -- this is tied to modern political rhetoric.
I am with you on not seeing pikemen in a skirmish game, but if people want to do so, they can do so. My pikemen will remain in the box for games of CoS. ;)
Arrigo: I know what you mean... I am in my sixties and while my memory is pretty good, there are times I cannot remember details, or where I read something!
The reference to Macedonian is in Plutarch's Life of Alexander not Arrian, but your point about Alexander reverting to type when drinking may well be part of it too. Most Greeks were appalled that Macedonians did not cut their wine with water and so got quite drunk at such events this and Philip stumbling when going after Alexander in 336 are two good examples.
I saw that quote in CoS on page 9... but the next paragraph, for me, explains why we would never see pikes in the game:
"What is important to understand in CLASH is that the largest unit is always smaller than the smallest battlefield organizational element encounter (sic!) in historical armies."
that is the idea, a pike syntagma would have to have special rules to account for the depth of the formation and things like that and in CLASH we don’t have such rules... as a result of this you don’t get all the benefits that such units would get... For that reason the pike ends up being a poor choice for the point cost. They cost the same as a hoplite spear but have disadvantages..
The macedonian drill trail simply allows you to count the shield against front attacks when using the pike since else you would not be allowed by the rules. Yet this is a suboptimal trait when you compare it to shield overlap when you use a hoplite shield..
For that reason my Pyrrhic forces for clash do not use pike troops. But again, they are there because in a narrative scenario you could find a reason to include them...
The concept is to provide as many options as possible and have rules favor what we believe are the optimal choices rather than not provide de options...
It is true like Arrigo said that you could use the rules to zoom in into a small portion of a big battle were formations have lost organization but still some of the troops from the large battle are present...
ps: damned typos :)
-
Francisco
I'll be waiting impatiently for your rules to be available through a retail point here in France: remember, England is no more Europe, or shortly won't be. No abuse intended here: I'll still order from GB (depending mostly on french customs). But you should make your rules available also inside Europe and hopefully in France (one retailer should be in your list at the very least, in Strasbourg, if not saying too much). Ordering directly from the US is much expensive from here and puts you in the claws of mafia-like intermediaries who collect taxes for the french customs, and charge ridiculously heavy "file opening" racket money along. Can you believe that: a private company with absolutely no one speaking a single word of french (I verified) is commissioned by the french state to collect custom taxes!!! Global times...
Philippe
Yes rules should be going to retail in March, in Europe as well. I’ve been reading on the practical effects of Brexit and even after Jan 31st they will still operate under current structure with EU so we won’t need to use plan B and we’ll be able to fulfill EU from our Uk distributor.
Francisco
-
Yes rules should be going to retail in March, in Europe as well. I’ve been reading on the practical effects of Brexit and even after Jan 31st they will still operate under current structure with EU so we won’t need to use plan B and we’ll be able to fulfill EU from our Uk distributor.
Francisco
Until 31st December next year we should be OK. Afterwards, none knows yet. The EU is willing to negotiate but the timeline is short. We'll see how it goes.
-
Hi,
20/30 pikemen are useless as 6/8. A zoomed battle employing pikemen is nonsense, since pikemen are part of enormous formations in 8 or 16 ranks, so there are 2 choices: if they are in formation and you charge them frontally you die, if they are not in formation the pikemen are died...
so like Silent Bob I think sarissae or pikes are the only weapon impossible to see in a ancient skirmish situation, totally unhistorical and even illogical... For me the option to give pikes is like to give guns only because it's a game....
Some lost pikemen would have thrown away immediately their sarissae.
Polybius said:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D18%3Achapter%3D32
And in all these cases the Macedonian phalanx is difficult, and sometimes impossible to handle, because the men cannot act either in squads or separately.
And Polybius was even a general of the II century BC...
P. S. I hope that in Errata you will cancel the possibility of using pikes....
-
Hi,
20/30 pikemen are useless as 6/8. A zoomed battle employing pikemen is nonsense, since pikemen are part of enormous formations in 8 or 16 ranks, so there are 2 choices: if they are in formation and you charge them frontally you die, if they are not in formation the pikemen are died...
so like Silent Bob I think sarissae or pikes are the only weapon impossible to see in a ancient skirmish situation, totally unhistorical and even illogical... For me the option to give pikes is like to give guns only because it's a game....
Some lost pikemen would have thrown away immediately their sarissae.
Polybius said:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D18%3Achapter%3D32
And in all these cases the Macedonian phalanx is difficult, and sometimes impossible to handle, because the men cannot act either in squads or separately.
And Polybius was even a general of the II century BC...
P. S. I hope that in Errata you will cancel the possibility of using pikes....
Why should an errata cancel the possibility? It's good that it is there, so if you want to use it you can. Like Seldon said it is a suboptimal choice. If you don't want pikes, I assume you / your gaming group can houserule (forbid) it. But please don't ask to be it removed from the official ruleset as there are other players that like the possibility to have it.
@Seldon.
What timeframes / expansions are you planning to release in the near future?
-
PS: the 3 miles phalanx with elephants is Raphia, 317 BC.
OK. Raphia was in 217 BC, as you are doubtless aware.
-
seems like annobvious typo :) I’ve cited battles in 2119 BC :) that were not intended as such :)
-
I wouldn’t loose to much sleep over that D.Browinie.. players tend not to like using suboptimal troops and you can use that as a way to teach new ancient players .. To me the problem is when rules give those kinds of units some little advantage just for flavor and fail to notice that they have now favored a troop type they shouldn’t .. We’ve all seen this...
I’ve been converting some figures I have but I was thinking that there is probably a good way to convert some victrix to be foot companions with javelins..
It would be great if some company makes some nice minis for that troop type.. you need some
linothorax armed troops with the macedonian style helmet and the smaller shield and armed with javelins...
D.Brownie, do you have some pics of yours to post ?
-
Ok, I have a 'wargamers' knowledge of Raphia......ie Antiochus 0:Ptolomy 1 but a 3 mile long phalanx?
OK so Raphia was a big battle and I can see/imagine the whole battle line by that wide but could the Phalanx have been three miles long (given the pikes deployed in depth) unless there were large intervals between the units.
Just wondering like and not wishing to cause a fight...... ;)
-
I wondered about that too, but haven't checked the details, beyond looking at the Wikipedia article, which doesn't give the length of the battle lines. It isn't clear from Arrigo's post which army had the three-mile phalanx, particularly as both sides had elephants. This could conceivably suggest that both armies' phalanxes occupied that space, as the armies were of approximately equal strength. Assuming such a length were feasible, it would presumably be achieved by relatively shallow formations, though the Wikipedia article doesn't mention this.
As the Seleucid cavalry and elephants both routed their Ptolemaic counterparts, it's all the more remarkable that Ptolemy ended up winning the battle, thanks to the outcome of the phalanx vs phalanx struggle. The decisive factor seems to have been the unprecedented inclusion of 20,000 native Egyptians, trained in the Macedonian fashion, in addition to the 25,000 Macedonian phalangites and 3,000 hypaspists, as opposed to the 30,000-strong Seleucid phalanx. This presumably means that the Ptolemaic phalanx either significantly outflanked the Seleucid one (which, supposing it had a three-mile frontage, it presumably would have done) or was of greater depth, which supposedly often conferred an advantage.
Both sides, however, also included considerable numbers of light infantry, as well as troops whose function isn't immediately clear, but who do not have appeared to have significantly affected the outcome. (At any rate, their contribution has received little coverage).
This is somewhat off-topic for a thread about a set of skirmish rules, but I hope the authors don't mind too much...
-
Its just the way forums work and its sort of about the topic.......
I suppose like Caesar did at Pharsalus - the Seleucids could have reduced depth to match the enemy frontage (to avoid being flanked) - given the figures you give 48000 vs 30000 and an assumed same frontage this would mean the Seleucid one being considerably thinner, which may have swung the pike battle in Ptolemy's favour.
-
Indeed, and indeed. At one time I knew the battle fairly well - as far as a mere amateur can at the remove of more than two millennia - having played the old GDW board game quite a bit (though my main memory of this is the chaos resulting from stampeding elephants, particularly if the die determines - as it might, and has - that they stampede along the length of the phalanx). I seem to recall the game gave the player the option of how deeply to array the phalanx. There was a relatively small area of suitable ground between the sea and sand dunes, though I have no idea what the ground scale was.
I also have a copy of Bar Kochva's book on the Seleucid army which has a detailed plan of the battle. This is more likely to offer some insight into the sort of questions which have arisen, though it's a very long time since I read it, and I wouldn't rate my chances of locating it in the near future very highly.
-
Why should an errata cancel the possibility? It's good that it is there, so if you want to use it you can. Like Seldon said it is a suboptimal choice. If you don't want pikes, I assume you / your gaming group can houserule (forbid) it. But please don't ask to be it removed from the official ruleset as there are other players that like the possibility to have it.
@Seldon.
What timeframes / expansions are you planning to release in the near future?
Simply because it's an historical game, and this couldn't happen. As I said, if you want you can make pezethairoi armed with guns too... Maybe some players will like it...
-
I wouldn’t loose to much sleep over that D.Browinie.. players tend not to like using suboptimal troops and you can use that as a way to teach new ancient players .. To me the problem is when rules give those kinds of units some little advantage just for flavor and fail to notice that they have now favored a troop type they shouldn’t .. We’ve all seen this...
I’ve been converting some figures I have but I was thinking that there is probably a good way to convert some victrix to be foot companions with javelins..
It would be great if some company makes some nice minis for that troop type.. you need some
linothorax armed troops with the macedonian style helmet and the smaller shield and armed with javelins...
D.Brownie, do you have some pics of yours to post ?
Last word about it: not suboptimal, but impossible. I begun miniature collecting after some years after quitting WFB, with ancients. But afterwards I moved to fantasy because the games are super boring like dbx, or not realistic...
Regarding pezethairoi with javelins/spears I think they are not impossible, but since they are the core of every macedonian style army and had their particular training, for small actions is more likely would be used elite troops like hipaspists (or peltasts under later antigonid) or other light troops Macedonians or not.
Regarding minis, I play 15mm so (now I have Romans and Cartaginians almost complete) since I want a Philip V/Perseus macedonian army I'll go with xyston. They have not fixed weapons...
I like very much these:
https://shop.ancient-modern.co.uk/anc20299---antigonid-peltastai-3815-p.asp
-
This is somewhat off-topic for a thread about a set of skirmish rules, but I hope the authors don't mind too much...
not a problem for me at all :)
-
Simply because it's an historical game, and this couldn't happen. As I said, if you want you can make pezethairoi armed with guns too... Maybe some players will like it...
It's indeed a historical game featuring a timeframe were pikes were used. So the weapons should be able to be used. Trying to ridicule it by talking about guns is just stupid. Honestly you sound very narrow-minded abou what a historical game should be, insisting that pikes should be removed, while you can easly ignore the option in your group. It's mindboggeling.
To be succesful a ruleset needs to appeal to a wide range of players that like to play historical games, which certainly isn't limit to how you see it. ;)
If a mounted warrior came charged at me and I have to option to take a spear or the very long spear.. Hey, maybe I would take a bet and pick up the very long spear to poke at the horse. You never know... .
-
well we cannot really ban people from using this or those troops ... all we do is make troops that are not good for small actions, bad options.
Even if we didn’t have a pike it would take 0 effort for players to come up with them because we will reveal the full point system..
The most we could do is ban then in “official tournaments” if we ever get there :) but they would never be used there anyways :)
In the end I expect people will tinker with the rules and do house rules and even players with specific historical knowledge could change the lists according to their views and unlike other authors we have nothing against that...
-
317... 217... fingers getting chubby... my fault to not read what I write.... o_o
Polybius mentions 50,000 ptolemaic heavy infantry on a total of 70,000 infantrymen on this side, but Scullard downsize Ptolemy army at around 55,000. Anthiocus had more troops, but not as good or well trained (he had plenty of freshly recruited arab auxiliaries). As for the three miles... not modern miles, it was milion so shorter... as depth, Ptolemy infantry were, according to units, between 24 and 16 ranks deep. Seleucid troops were at the 'regular' 16 ranks deep. It is worth to note that part of Anthiocus centre was made by light infantry to compensate for Ptolemy superiority in phalanx...
As the battle, Anthiocus took his right and charged in the Lagid left routing elephant and cavalry. Ptolemy and his sister Arsinoe where there. Worth to note that Polybius speficies the lady position, well... female miniature in macedonian cavalry equipment if you want... Ptolemy (and I assume Arsinoe) moved to the centre while Anthiocus continued the hot pursuit. Lagid right charged and routed the Seleucid left, Phalanx followed. Basically Antiochus was out of the battle unable to turn his winning wing around, while Ptolemy was still in control and was able to coordinate his remaining wing and the centre. Interesting point here... Anthiocus started his pre-battle inspection from the left to then assume the command of his right. Usual stuff. Ptolemy and Arsinoe started from the right and moved toward their left. Thus, at the start of the battle, they were with the left wing. Considering Anthiocus has massed on his right and Ptolemy on his right too... that sounds unusual. It was like the two Lagids wanted to make sure Anthiocus focused there. Another tidbit, the left of the Lagid phalanx was anchored by the foot agema, as they: 1) expected troubled there and want to anchor the flank without cavalry 2) they also expect to not to face enemy cavalry in a second phase of the battle.
By the way, there is a good article in Ancient Warfare n.6 2010 on the battle.
But despite what some think, I can see the potential for replicating vignettes of the battle in Clash... even with pikes so please... no fake errata... I have to agree with Tonhel on that...
-
Pike are fine. Good to have them for completeness, but unlikely to be used other than, perhaps, specific scenarios.
-
317... 217... fingers getting chubby... my fault to not read what I write.... o_o
Polybius mentions 50,000 ptolemaic heavy infantry on a total of 70,000 infantrymen on this side, but Scullard downsize Ptolemy army at around 55,000. Anthiocus had more troops, but not as good or well trained (he had plenty of freshly recruited arab auxiliaries). As for the three miles... not modern miles, it was milion so shorter... as depth, Ptolemy infantry were, according to units, between 24 and 16 ranks deep. Seleucid troops were at the 'regular' 16 ranks deep. It is worth to note that part of Anthiocus centre was made by light infantry to compensate for Ptolemy superiority in phalanx...
As the battle, Anthiocus took his right and charged in the Lagid left routing elephant and cavalry. Ptolemy and his sister Arsinoe where there. Worth to note that Polybius speficies the lady position, well... female miniature in macedonian cavalry equipment if you want... Ptolemy (and I assume Arsinoe) moved to the centre while Anthiocus continued the hot pursuit. Lagid right charged and routed the Seleucid left, Phalanx followed. Basically Antiochus was out of the battle unable to turn his winning wing around, while Ptolemy was still in control and was able to coordinate his remaining wing and the centre. Interesting point here... Anthiocus started his pre-battle inspection from the left to then assume the command of his right. Usual stuff. Ptolemy and Arsinoe started from the right and moved toward their left. Thus, at the start of the battle, they were with the left wing. Considering Anthiocus has massed on his right and Ptolemy on his right too... that sounds unusual. It was like the two Lagids wanted to make sure Anthiocus focused there. Another tidbit, the left of the Lagid phalanx was anchored by the foot agema, as they: 1) expected troubled there and want to anchor the flank without cavalry 2) they also expect to not to face enemy cavalry in a second phase of the battle.
By the way, there is a good article in Ancient Warfare n.6 2010 on the battle.
But despite what some think, I can see the potential for replicating vignettes of the battle in Clash... even with pikes so please... no fake errata... I have to agree with Tonhel on that...
Raphia is a battle that would really like to play one day but I don’t have a ptolemaic army... would love to do a large battle with war & comquest, or field of glory..
For some reason I find it very interesting....
funny this thread expanded to general ancients historical discussion :) ... I love it...
I’ve always been a fan of lead adventure, I wonder if I could eventually persuade the authors to give us a little clash sub forum to answer rules questions or expand these debates that are so interesting
-
It's indeed a historical game featuring a timeframe were pikes were used. So the weapons should be able to be used. Trying to ridicule it by talking about guns is just stupid. Honestly you sound very narrow-minded abou what a historical game should be, insisting that pikes should be removed, while you can easly ignore the option in your group. It's mindboggeling.
To be succesful a ruleset needs to appeal to a wide range of players that like to play historical games, which certainly isn't limit to how you see it. ;)
If a mounted warrior came charged at me and I have to option to take a spear or the very long spear.. Hey, maybe I would take a bet and pick up the very long spear to poke at the horse. You never know... .
If you use pikes in such way you cannot certainly call it historical... Personally I don't like compromises and superficiality. Stupid thing is consider historical what historical is not. Skirmish pikes and ancient guns are both not historical...
-
I think you guys will have to agree to disagree, you made your points and clearly there is no common ground, it happens :) ( it happens to me with my wife sometimes, but in those cases agree to disagree means she wins !)
Should not be an issue unless you play in the same group and it does not seem to be the case.
just my two positive cents in light of the new year about to start ;)
-
If you use pikes in such way you cannot certainly call it historical... Personally I don't like compromises and superficiality. Stupid thing is consider historical what historical is not. Skirmish pikes and ancient guns are both not historical...
What I don't get is why it bothers you so much. First, given that we have barely a few dozen of narratives that explained how the Macedonians fought and that most of them copied each other, I would be extra careful to say what and what it is not historically accurate regarding weapons and tactics used by them (no, guns weren't; pikes? well, they used pikes, so there you are). Second, that we think something is logical it doesn't mean it is correct; we can believe that using pikes on skirmishes -about which we have a very, very limited information and much is pure guesswork- and that doesn't make it true, just logical according our own prejudices about how men should engage in combat. We can guess from indirect evidence (the increased use of peltasts, or the use of hypaspistas as elite light troops), but you can't vouch that pikes in a skirmish were inexistent. Third, the game simply allows you to use or not pike armed soldiers, and instead prohibiting the designers decided that common sense dictates it should be less than optimal weapons to use in a skirmish; don't want it, don't use it.
I can imagine a plausible scenario with pikes and elephants, that is also a skirmish: a small group of phalangites become separated from the phalanx and while they are trying to rejoin it are jumped by a couple of pachyderms and their escorting light infantry. The only thing that the Macedonians have in support are a few peltasts and some horsemen... whose animals are afraid of the elephants! The Macedonian goal is to get off board as many or their phalangites as they can; the goal of the Indians is to eliminate as many as they can.
-
I think like seldon said, its just an impasse that we will not get round and its nothing that club/house rules will not sort out.
I can see both sides of the argument plus we have hogged enough of this thread.... :o
-
I’m happy to have people discussing ancients and CLASH :)
-
Gentlemen i think your discussion of using this or that or not to use goes nowhere so lets end it.
Expressing opinions is valid but if this goes on i will have to stop it so watch the language.
Friendly warning. ;)
-
Sounds reasonable... no need to get nasty :)
Wargaming has to be fun above all..
-
In the interest of posting stuff for everyone to enjoy here are some pics of a recent game during the greco-punic wars:
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/photo-dec-09-12-09-13-am-1.jpg)
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/photo-dec-08-11-12-07-pm.jpg)
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/photo-dec-08-11-04-22-pm.jpg)
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/photo-dec-08-9-08-38-pm.jpg)
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/photo-dec-09-12-09-13-am.jpg)
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/photo-dec-08-11-31-47-pm.jpg)
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/IMG_8615.jpg)
-
Through the kickstarter we sold over 900 books and the backers have already downloaded their pdf. The printed book plus their victrix starter boxed should be getting to them end of Jan start of Feb.
We are in the process of standing up late pledges. Retail should be available in US and EU by March
we are very happy to start seeing initial battle reports coming in...
cheers and happy 2020...
Francisco
-
My first read through of the book has been very positive, i like the activation mechanics and the fatigue system. what square bases do you use? Victrix?
-
If you look at the last picture the greeks are on victrix bases while the carthaginians are on shogun miniatures bases...
But of course rules do not require a specific basic at all, round, square, everything goes..
Thanks for your kind comments,
regards,
Francisco
-
My first game of CLASH of Spears, 700 points per side. Just learning rules. Love the activation/fatigue system. My Romans clashed with Greek Colonies Hoplites. Unfortunately they got too many fatigues and fight was hard for them. Overall the game is very good. must learn some new tactics. Hope my next game will be tomorrow.
(https://i.imgur.com/UCMIZVs.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/qfvp3Zt.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/dL6U1cP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/HLh1xUi.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/reNGrBt.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/N8rG38C.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ocGz3xB.jpg)
-
Awesome... I’ve been waiting to see new people play the game for a long time... first it was the playtesters and now the extended base..
-
Looks like an exciting game!
-
Are you testing out Macedonia/Successors yet? If yes, are you looking for beta testers because I have a warband that is painted, based and ready to go!
-
We will put the playtest lists and point system online once we finish shipping the KS by end of Feb.
Playtesting will be open.
Francisco
-
Hi, here are photos of my second Rome vs Greek Colonies:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/FYNobkipcn3sFipc8 (https://photos.app.goo.gl/FYNobkipcn3sFipc8)
and third Rome vs Carthage:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/dGUj2JarkXZXMgH36 (https://photos.app.goo.gl/dGUj2JarkXZXMgH36)
battles with CLASH of Spears rules. Both very enjoyable and fun :)
(https://photos.app.goo.gl/ttQRNnUCdhbrVbwj7)
-
Are you testing out Macedonia/Successors yet? If yes, are you looking for beta testers because I have a warband that is painted, based and ready to go!
I also have a warband that could help with playtesting this period. A personal favorite of mine.