Pyrrhic list question

[pyrrhus]

In the special campaigns section it says that 32 stands of poor pike are available ,up above 64 average pike are available .Does that mean if you choose the 32 poor pike that you only have 32 average pike left to choose from ? Thanks

[DavidT]

Correct. The poor pike are a downgrade of the phalanx.

[pyrrhus]

Ok, thats what I thought just wanted to be sure .One thing that confuses me though is the high cavalry minimums for this list it has more minimum stands required than any other helenistic list .With all the other resrictions (mandintory IC which I take the IC any so no prob) this list has to be one of the most challenging to build a competative list .

[Strategos69]

One thing that confuses me though is the high cavalry minimums for this list it has more minimum stands required than any other helenistic list.

I guess the reason is that this army is better documented than other helenistic armies and the spam of time is so narrow, that I might also have been compelled to even restrict more its options. Definitively it is hard to compara a list covering 300 years with one only covering eight, although those eight years are really passionating.

Another option is that the list might have been designed only to get pyrrhic victories...

[pyrrhus]

Well I dont think the cavalry minimums are backed up by history and the other better documented hellenistic lists have a lower minimum . As reguards to designing the list to have pyrrhic victorys ,Firstly who would play that list and second alexanders list would look alot better than it does now . Its just a tuff list with the cav and the IC requirement .The italian list has more required troops so that at 650 pts there are very few options .The Italian MI which I love the figures for are not that great in the game Protected armor Javelin Light spear suffer at the hands of Impact foot or offensive spear or any armoured enemy .The greece/ sicily lists have more options ,Galatians look nice but being protected and HI isn't the greatest not bad though combined in a big BG with a general (just dont fight superior roman legionarys ) The lists best troops are the Pikemen (open period gaming here) the elephants are a must historically and gaming wise .I think at 800 pts the list opens up more and becomes playable , which is nice . Well thats my two cents I might post some lists after I try out the ones I have been working on .Patrick

[pezhetairoi]

It's not a horrible list. It's missing some of the late hellenistic "glam" like superior pikemen and cataphracts, or elite agema, but don't play it like one of those lists.
I've played this list a few times, its not too bad. I have the most trouble against romans usually.

I think the strengths of this list are the poor quality pikemen, and the hoplites.
Instead of a "toolkit" army, think of this Hellenistic list as a being a hybrid swarm/toolkit list.

At 48pts for 12 pikemen bases, you can "wall up" better than most other Hellenistic lists. Your required IC can jump-in to beef up a unit's potential. Poor pikemen are still a threat to enemy horsemen and most infantry. Poor quality hoplites at 5 pts per base can follow behind for inexpensive rear support and with that IC nearby you should pass most CTs. This will also increase your overall unit count for attrition points. You also have access to lots of LF to screen and distract the enemy elsewhere.

Use your superior numbers and good POAs together. A big double-line wall of spears with more frontage than your opponent's army. Hold your cavalry and elephants in reserve. At 650pts maybe leave the elephants out (that's another 12 pikemen!). Your opponent will be hard pressed to match this power everywhere, and your cavalry/LH will be there when he falters, right?


You are going to have trouble with veteran roman legions, but everyone does. The real Pyrrhos probably fought "average" legions who would be better described as "protected", but I imagine few people play their Romans like that.

Good luck! (that also helps)

[batesmotel]

One thing that confuses me though is the high cavalry minimums for this list it has more minimum stands required than any other helenistic list.

I guess the reason is that this army is better documented than other helenistic armies and the spam of time is so narrow, that I might also have been compelled to even restrict more its options. Definitively it is hard to compara a list covering 300 years with one only covering eight, although those eight years are really passionating.

Another option is that the list might have been designed only to get pyrrhic victories...

This list represents the armies used by one person (Pyrrhus) over his life time. Unlike similar lists like the Alexandrian Macedonian one, Epiros wasn't a signficant state militarily before or after Pyrrhus and wasn't big enough to field multiple armies at a time so the army Pyrrhus historically fielded for his various campaigns is all that the list models. Sounds like a good reason to make the list restrictive compared to more general lists like the Macedonian or Seleucid successors.

Chris

[pyrrhus]

Ahh yeah try reading the earlier posts I am well aware who pyrrhus is . The historical minimums for cavalry are not Historical they are to high for an army that had limited numbers of available troops .Also Pyrrhus fought his first battle against the romans with only his forces and that of the Tarentines. So why do I need to buy italian Medium infantry again ? The Italian allies that the mediums represent in the game where not at the battle so they should be optional !

[marioslaz]

IMO a such list so specific should be splitted in three: Pyrrhos in South Italy, Pyrrhos in Sicily and Pyrrhos in Epiros. There should be common minimums, then separate minimums for each campaign. At last, how can be possible that in a Pyrrhic's army in Italy Elephants are optional?

[pyrrhus]

True enough! Its a list by design never to be used .Open the army books and you spot which lists the authors like or dislike IMHO

[nikgaukroger]

True enough! Its a list by design never to be used .Open the army books and you spot which lists the authors like or dislike IMHO

I'd be interested in seeing which you think we like or dislike - just a quick bash, nothing exhaustive needed. I'm sure our preferences must show somewhere so it'd be nice to see where the punters think that is.

[ShrubMiK]

I'm puzzled why people who don't like the contents of a particular list don't simply play another one.

[philqw78]

I'm puzzled why people who don't like the contents of a particular list don't simply play another one.

Bloody favouritism

[grahambriggs]

I'm puzzled why people who don't like the contents of a particular list don't simply play another one.

Because they have the figures for the specific list. Or are interested in the history of that specific army?

[ShrubMiK]

Well, yes. Obviously anyone who names himself pyrrhus is going to be a fan of the man. I'm not that unobservant

But even so, if you don't like the army and the way it plays in the game, there is a fairly obvious solution. Especially when there are any number of other Hellenistic-flavour armies to choose from. Just saying.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the list is unlikely to be changing anytime soon...

[pyrrhus]

"I'd be interested in seeing which you think we like or dislike - just a quick bash, nothing exhaustive needed. I'm sure our preferences must show somewhere so it'd be nice to see where the punters think that is."


Bosporan,LRR,Carthage, come to mind right off the bat in ROR .I did not say you made them better than they should be. I tried to say that some lists got more attention than others . So no I dont believe the lists each recieved the same detailed study . IMHO .I have stated several times as have others why this particular list hasn't recieved that attension .No one is perfect you guys cant know every list but you can admit to an obvious error .I mean no offense . To say that all lists are all correct would I think let me know that the rules are not an evolving/growing set and your oppinions areset in stone .

[pyrrhus]

"But even so, if you don't like the army and the way it plays in the game, there is a fairly obvious solution. Especially when there are any number of other Hellenistic-flavour armies to choose from. Just saying. "

I never said I only played this list My real complait is the list doesn't represent the army Historically. Thats it really Look at my arguements. Why would the Cav min/max be so high. The only hellenistic army with that high of a number only bactrians come close . Does that make sense No . There is no real reson for it .

[nikgaukroger]

Bosporan,LRR,Carthage, come to mind right off the bat in ROR .I did not say you made them better than they should be. I tried to say that some lists got more attention than others . So no I dont believe the lists each recieved the same detailed study .

I see.

You are also quite right, not all lists got the same amount of time spent on them and personal interest certainly plays a part in that no matter how hard we try to avoid it, it is human nature. For example I know I paid very little attention to most of the armies in "Wool from the Sheep" and "Oafs of Futility" as I mostly find the period covered desperately dull.

IMHO .I have stated several times as have others why this particular list hasn't recieved that attension .No one is perfect you guys cant know every list but you can admit to an obvious error .I mean no offense . To say that all lists are all correct would I think let me know that the rules are not an evolving/growing set and your oppinions areset in stone .

I think we can safely say that we don't think that all the lists are correct or that, with hindsight, we dealt with some things in the right way (Imperial Roman BG sizes are a good example). I for one would really like to completely redo Legions Triumphant - but that isn't going to happen in the forseeable before anyone asks or jumps to conclusions

[ShrubMiK]

Arguing whether the list is historically representative or not is fine. Just as long as you remember that just because you think the list is "obviously" wrong doesn't make it so. At least one person must have disagreed with you.

I'm not sure I follow this logic though:
"The historical minimums for cavalry are not Historical they are to high for an army that had limited numbers of available troops"

If you mean a limited number of soldiers...surely it's the proportions that are important in forming army lists, not the total numbers? Thus if cavalry formed a significant component of pyrrhic armies historically, it should do so in the game.

I don't by any means claim expertise on the period, but the one thing I immediately associate Pyrrhos with (other than that particular type of victory ) is as being allegedly the catalyst for the changing style of Hellenistic cavalry from shieldless lancer to shielded javelin/light spear, perhaps through experience with the Tarentines.

I don't see the problem with making a competitive list either. I haven't tried it yet, but it looks tempting to me.

Protected, average. light spear all suffer against higher abilities - armoured, superior, impact foot. True. But it would be a boring game if all troops had equal capabilities in all matchups. Spend the points you save on these troops on something else and try to exploit that advantage before the enemy can exploit your weaknesses.

2 BGs of cavalry does not seem excessive. There's always something they can usefully do.

The mandatory IC seems like the biggest imposition - not that an IC is necessarily a bad thing, but it's quite an important choice to have forced on you.

The MF...well, you can either stick them in terrain (having an IC does at least make it more likely that you get to choose terrain type ), use them as rear support for HF, or keep them out of trouble for a while as a reserve you try to commit when there is a favourable situation for them.

[pyrrhus]

Just because one person diagrees with my oppinion doesn't make them (who ever that person is Right ) either . Wow thats some great logic shrub where you on debat team or what ? "If you mean a limited number of soldiers...surely it's the proportions that are important in forming army lists, not the total numbers? Thus if cavalry formed a significant component of pyrrhic armies historically, it should do so in the game." Ah yeah thats clear to anybody who knows the history here . The list becomes quite limited at 650 points which I play both (I think I have said this before )
"I don't by any means claim expertise on the period, but the one thing I immediately associate Pyrrhos with is as being allegedly the catalyst for the changing style of Hellenistic cavalry from shieldless lancer to shielded javelin/light spear, perhaps through experience with the Tarentines. " WTF would this have to with cav min/max . Look ALexanders list has less of a cavalry requirment that pyrrhos list does that make any sense . Yeah epirus was well known though out the ancient would for its great cavalry ? DUH I will stop now cause I think that your a