Leather Armour and Helmet.

[HopLIT]

Gauls, Britain and Germania have untuls that have access to helmets for 2 points each and leather armour for 5 points each, but both do the same thing -give +1 armour. Is this a typo for the leather armour as there is no point in buying leather armour for am extra 3 points more? Or am I missing something?

[Nathan]

From a purely competitive standpoint, helmets are the better choice – they provide the same benefit for 3 fewer points. From what I’ve read elsewhere and in the FAQ, the point difference is intentional – because different units have access to different types of armour that require different balancing.

[Discoqing]

I can appreciate a fluff choice, but having 2 identical items at different point (denarii) levels makes zero sense to me.
If the leather armour was +2, then I could understand it.

As it stands the leather armour does the exact same thing, so I can’t understand why anyone would take the it, fluffy campaign or not;
when instead they could take more models/warriors in order to crush more foes.

If anything its a waste of ink, lol.

[Nathan]

I think some units just have access to helmets while others will just have access to leather armour. Perhaps the author wanted some units to have to pay different premiums for their +1 armour and also wanted universal point costs for types of equipment.

[Discoqing]

Nope, the units all have access to either Helmets or Leather armour…

Pay 2 denarii for the former.
5 denarii for the latter.
This makes no sense.

A sword and an axe for example, cost 5 Pts each but offer different rules (Parry / lethal).
This makes sense.

I get that different materials would cost more/less in real life, depending on faction etc.
But to offer the same effect “in-game” for different prices is just stupid.
Needs a re-think imo.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by Discoqing.
• This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by Discoqing.

[Nathan]

This is the point I’m trying to illustrate:

Unit A historically has limited access to armour. It is most likely encountered on the battlefield with little protection. It is given the option to equip Leather Armour to increase its Armour by +1 – but at a hefty 5 Denarii premium to its player because of the rarity of that armour.

Unit B historically has plentiful access to helmets. It is given the option to equip Helmets to increase its Armour by +1 – but at a tiny 2 Denarii cost to its player because of the abundance of helmets available.

Unit C historically has ample access to all types of equipment. It is given the option to equip Leather Armour or Helmets. Because those already have established costs, it is most sensible for the player to purchase the cheaper option (Helmets). The player assembles his warband before realizing that none of his models are wearing helmets. Because its important to the player that his models have armour, he pays the 5 Denarii premium for Leather Armour.

[Discoqing]

Unit C is what I have an issue with.
The fact that you can just take Helmets and pretend/say it’s leather armour, as they do the exact same thing, renders the points difference stupid 🙂

[Nathan]

Agreed. I think it would’ve made more sense to pack helmets, animal skin, and leather armour together as “Light Armour” and then change the “equip cost” based on the unit.

[invisible officer]

Here two worlds collide, the game gamer and the historical gamer.

For the competitive game gamer everything he pays for must pay a dividend in game.

—

Historically a helmet gave good protection. In close fight the head has to go outside the shield cover. So a helmet is a good add.

A leather body armor was no such big improvement, esp. for a mid – big shield armed man. It is good against slashing arms and arrows from a bigger distance but bad against a pointed arm (Lance, Gladius and similar) or an arrow from short distance.
Making a fitting boiled leather armor is thought cheaper than metal by many but still expensive. In TYW time finest quality buff coats were often more expensive than an iron cuirass. Harquebusiers wore back and breast metal armor, more or less bullet proof, and the buffcoat against the slashes from the sword. Often adding a gauntlet for the bridle arm.
So in fact the leather armor is much more expensive than a helmet but adds little to protection for the shield using ancient warrior
Having a leather body armor but no helmet…… It happened. But only pays if you have no shield.

We find leather armor among horse archers as protection against long distance arrow shots. But it was very rare among foot javelin throwers, archers or slingers. Restricting movement, expensive …….

—

The game designer did a good work from the historical view. Not so from the game gamer one.

[Discoqing]

Yes.

And therefore you won’t see many people putting leather armour in their lists.
The net effect is the same, the cost is more.

If a unit without helmets on the models but has the item in the list, guess what – it’s leather armour, but at the cost of a helmet, lol.

It says in the rulebook (I’m sure?), something along the lines of “it is assumed other suits of armour come with helmets”.

[Gordon]

I’m with you on this one, Discoqing.
You can rationalise this all you like with historic references and unit differentiation but it doesn’t make sense in a game.
And, (heresy!) I suspect there might just be too much of this sort of thing in SPQR…

• This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by Gordon.

[Christoffer]

I’m glad you’re discussing it, because I wondered about the exact same thing and it made no sense to me. In the same vein: some units can pay to downgrade from swords to short spears, nothings actually causes stun and to resolve a round of combat between 15 naked Gauls with a druid and 12 legionaries, you could end up rolling more than 150 dice.

I’m not rejecting the historical argument, but these rules do not seem to be too focused on historical accuracy but more on fun and storytelling as you have 10 man phalanxes and testudoes and druids cursing heroes who have the chance to level up and get significantly better stats than minions.

Perhaps the rules could have done with a bit more work.

[Discoqing]

Obviously the game is in its infancy, which is fine to iron out little creases here and there.

I looked at the paying for a downgrade last night, I think Gaul Warriors can pay for short spears but start with (the better) swords for free.
Yet Briton Warriors start with Short Spears and pay for swords…

Hmm, perhaps my Britons will have the Gaul Rules, and I’ll have to forgo the Chariots until the points make sense!

[Gordon]

Once again, I agree, Cristoffer.
And don’t get me started on how many dice it takes resolve combat…With my hoplites I spend more time counting out dice than I do moving the figures.
I like the campaign idea and progression of heroes but I’m not convinced by the mechanics of the battles.

[HopLIT]

Regarding Gauls/Britons, the FAQ is clear that the points differ between warbands getting the same weapons due to whether they were able to get the materials for the weapons in real life.

[Author]

Posts