I wouldn't mind of the spearmen had a white +1 Armor modifier, so they could use it with every maneuver. This would represent their default defensive stance, while hitting harder would require them to "open the shield wall".

To be fair, they have the ability to get +1 defense on both a green and a blue modifier, and the archers don't have the ability at all I believe. It is weird that you have what by all appearances is a very heavy infantry unit that acts more like a medium or light infantry unit in the game though.

I suppose Its really not not that strange though in comparison to other games. In WFB my state troops rarely if ever got any sort of armor save or anything, and even my full plate armored greatswords didn't benefit much.

I'm more about gameplay being greater then fluff, so details like that don't really bother me. Aslong as the game is 99 percent fluid and fun, with a decent amount of fluffiness bits like that don't really both me. I mean ****, he is fighting beside a giant golem made of stone and animated by carved glowing lines. His primary enemy are his dead grand uncles, losing sleep over the amount of armor on the model compared to its in game stats seems a bit frivolous.

1 hour ago, Dosiere said:

To be fair, they have the ability to get +1 defense on both a green and a blue modifier, and the archers don't have the ability at all I believe. It is weird that you have what by all appearances is a very heavy infantry unit that acts more like a medium or light infantry unit in the game though.

I suppose Its really not not that strange though in comparison to other games. In WFB my state troops rarely if ever got any sort of armor save or anything, and even my full plate armored greatswords didn't benefit much.

It is a fantasy setting so maybe heavy infantry are in even greater armor?

Maybe Drifters could help us paint a better picture?

There we go.

@Taki Ehh, I agree with you that with the fluff it makes sense to have spearmen have armor, but I think the armor mechanic embodies more than physical armor. With the mechanic, we can't really get lower than 1 armor right? Its just the number of results you need to inflict one wound, effectively a wound multiplier that can be increased and reduced by other effects. Comparing a bunch of armored spearmen and a group of undead archers kind of makes sense in equivalence because we could think of their damage resilience in terms of armor, or how much they can evade attacks.

Secondly, historically infantry did not recieve high levels of armor. At renfaires everyone runs around wearing a maille buff at least, but it was hard to come by. A good maille buff might be a week's work by a whole village, between smelting the iron, hammering the wire, shaping the wire and rivets, folding the rings together, and finally backing it and oiling it. To outfit a squad of 16 men in maille could take months of work. Most often, infantry had decent arms, usually converted from other tools and materials, like polearms made of scythe blades and stout wood poles. Many infantry troops were levied: drawn from laborers and apprentices who were forced into service, usually by the armies they served in. Family members and children of those levied would follow as the camp laborers in the train, acting as launderers, servants, prostitutes, slaves, and foragers. In some cultures where this occurred generation after generation, with the survivors returning to their homelands as veterans to farm, you might have a few go to war with better armor or weapons they looted from the battlefield or were granted after serving as an elite armsman to act as a local militia force to protect things while the army is away fighting. Or perhaps it was handed down through a family from an ancestor who did this.

Because of this, and the every-present danger of your 'trusted' soldiers being bribed into betraying you or an underling deciding it was time for him to wear the pointy hat, only the most dedicated, trained, and loyal of troops were usually outfitted with swords or other martial weapons, at great expense. After a battle, the best equipment was given as loot to the followers who you trusted the most, and their cast-offs were given to the next most and so one. Squads who proved their valor by surviving a suicide charge might be given special preference. But that was after they braved the enemy arrows with nothing but rawhide and wooden shields.

Yes, typically infantry had varying degrees of limited protection in history. However, I believe this game is using references like Peter Jackson's LOTR than any historical text.

2 hours ago, Obscene said:

I'm more about gameplay being greater then fluff, so details like that don't really bother me. Aslong as the game is 99 percent fluid and fun, with a decent amount of fluffiness bits like that don't really both me. I mean ****, he is fighting beside a giant golem made of stone and animated by carved glowing lines. His primary enemy are his dead grand uncles, losing sleep over the amount of armor on the model compared to its in game stats seems a bit frivolous.

Best explanation...every time I start typing a armor should be this or that part I just think well magic...why are light armor skelies the same armor as Spearmen? Magic...

1 hour ago, drkpnthr said:

historically infantry did not recieve high levels of armor. At renfaires everyone runs around wearing a maille buff at least, but it was hard to come by. A good maille buff might be a week's work by a whole village, between smelting the iron, hammering the wire, shaping the wire and rivets, folding the rings together, and finally backing it and oiling it. To outfit a squad of 16 men in maille could take months of work. Most often, infantry had decent arms, usually converted from other tools and materials, like polearms made of scythe blades and stout wood poles. Many infantry troops were levied: drawn from laborers and apprentices who were forced into service, usually by the armies they served in. Family members and children of those levied would follow as the camp laborers in the train, acting as launderers, servants, prostitutes, slaves, and foragers. In some cultures where this occurred generation after generation, with the survivors returning to their homelands as veterans to farm, you might have a few go to war with better armor or weapons they looted from the battlefield or were granted after serving as an elite armsman to act as a local militia force to protect things while the army is away fighting. Or perhaps it was handed down through a family from an ancestor who did this.

Greek Phalanx, Roman legionaires, Byzantine Thematic Infantry, Varangian Guard, Huscarls from any number of cultures (Saxon, AngloSaxon, Danish, Swedish, or Norwegian), Norman Milites, Fyrd Soldiers, Crusader Men at Arms, AngloSaxon Hirdsmen, Scottish Thegns, Rus Druzhina, and the list goes on

Straight up, you're wrong. The only time you have a great deal of unarmored foot troops is the early dark ages after the fall of Roman central authority. This led to the creation of the Militia system that you're talking about (which wasn't universal btw), and gave rise to a new professional soldier caste. With each progressive generation, the maille didn't stop being used, it was accumulated. The swords were passed down even as new swords were forged, making a world with more weapons and armor with every generation, and these items were only relatively rare in the West. The Empire of the Greeks (Rom, Vyzantium, whatever we want to call them that they didn't call themselves), still had heavy disciplined drilled troops, with full kit.

All that being said, it doesn't matter, because the source material says that the Daqan Lords give their infantry good armor.

5 hours ago, Taki said:

You're insane. Infantry are often given the best armor throughout history, but if we just delve into the setting, we know that they're given armor as it's mentioned in the fluff. If we look at the models, guess what, they're wearing plate armor of some kind. In fact, it looks identical to the cavalry armor (who have armor 2), and no, being mounted gives No addition protection to the rider, in fact in all reliable sources, historically in anything but hit and run tactics, advantage goes to the guy on the ground.

So if we ignore what the models Look like, and we ignore History, and we ignore Fluff, then what the hell Do we look at for comparison? How about the game's own unit descriptions

" The Daqan Lords have sounded the call to war, and their finest generals lead armies of warriors and golems to take up defensive positions in the border territory of Roth’s Vale. "

" With polished armor glinting in the sunlight, the armies of the twelve baronies and the Free Cities are a stirring sight. "

They are trained soldiers in good armor and the game doesn't reflect that, that is a pity and breaks immersion. Your supposition that they shouldn't be better armored than archers quite misinformed.

Infantry were historically given a spear, and maybe some light armor. It would be prohibitively expensive to armor them all.

3 hours ago, Obscene said:

I'm more about gameplay being greater then fluff, so details like that don't really bother me. Aslong as the game is 99 percent fluid and fun, with a decent amount of fluffiness bits like that don't really both me. I mean ****, he is fighting beside a giant golem made of stone and animated by carved glowing lines. His primary enemy are his dead grand uncles, losing sleep over the amount of armor on the model compared to its in game stats seems a bit frivolous.

I tend to be a thematic gamer, so fluff matters a lot for me, but in this case, I feel it isn't supposed to be historically accurate. I treat this fantasy realm like Star Wars. Star Wars physics is complete fiction and isn't realistic, but it's interesting and exciting. Same for Terrinoth. No, it's not at all how things were in the Middle Ages, but it's a vibrant make-believe fantasy world. It's really easy for me to accept the armor numbers as they are. And we should never forget that Terrinoth was made as a setting for games, rather than a pre-existing setting that had games patterned after it. From that perspective, gameplay should always come first in this setting and the lore will explain it afterwards.

@Taki I think you basically quoted a bunch of examples proving me right.

Each of the groups you named, while the epitome of the warriors of their cultures, were the elite soldiers, the trained veterans who were the best of the best. The reason we remember their legacy is because they were exceptionally well-disciplined and well-armed. But for every one squad of them, their armies had 20 squads of levied troops and slave-soldiers. Armor and maille don't accumulate, they wear out. Battle wear is horrendous on weapons and armor, and requires constant upkeep and maintenance. Most of the elites you named were self-funded, usually relied on looting to pay for the upkeep of their weapons and armor. Many of them acted as the shock or heavy infantry of their armies, held in reserve as bodyguards by the generals until necessary to send them in. Definitely not the same as our poor Daqan spearmen.

Edit: I had a longer post explaining each group in detail, but I deleted it because it gets us off topic. The issue isn't what historically occurred, but as @Budgernaut said, what the thematic force would wield. I see these spearmen as drawn from a trained guardsmen, vigilantly protecting the borders from the incursion of foul monsters, dragons, and undead hordes. They have good arms and armor, but compared to the horrors they face, 1 armor is all the protection that armor gives to their frail, squishy mortal bodies.

No they were the core of the military in each of those examples. They formed the largest body of troops, EXCEPT in the early dark ages. The numbers of these troops is much larger than your statements imply. Now because you seem to want to go down this path instead of debating the SOURCE material for the unit we're talking about (which supports the idea that the Daqan infantry are heavy professional drilled troops in armor)

Greek Phalanx - Mainstay of all the city states armies providing at least fifty percent of the military force deployed

Roman Legionaire - Mainstay of the Roman Empire, trained similarly to modern militaries, with regimented standardized training forming more than 60 percent of most Roman armies

Varangian Guard - Heavily armored and armed foreign mercs that when fielded consisted of a third of the army they were fighting in

Fyrd Soldiers - Well armed and armored and drawn from a warrior tradition, not typical militia

Huscarls - Formed the core of most Northern armies, and in many were up to half the assembled force.

Milites - Fought both on Foot and on Horse and are the start of that tradition for later English knights. They were fielded both ways in many wars, including the conquest of sicily and england respectively

13 minutes ago, drkpnthr said:

Each of the groups you named, while the epitome of the warriors of their cultures, were the elite soldiers, the trained veterans who were the best of the best. The reason we remember their legacy is because they were exceptionally well-disciplined and well-armed. But for every one squad of them, their armies had 20 squads of levied troops and slave-soldiers. Most of the elites you named were self-funded, usually had very poor equipment and relied heavily on their skills to win booty to buy or steal better armor, and many of them acted as the heavy infantry of their armies, usually held in reserve as bodyguards by the generals until necessary to send them in. Definitely not the same as our poor Daqan spearmen.

They were the mainstays of their armies, some were also elite, most however were merely professional soldiers. Your numbers of 20 squads of levied troops does not bear out with any of the force comps that we have for any of the major battles that you can read about, from Hastings to Dorylaeum. And even if we accepted the premise, which I don't, it doesn't deal with our source material in question, the Daqan. The Daqan infantry is not levied peasants or militia, they are professional soldiers from a tradition of warriors with written fluff that describes them as well trained, armed and armored. Your premise falls apart in places on this specific topic if you read any of their already established background.

As someone who forges, builds, and maintains his own three suits of period-authentic armor from the Roman, Norse, and Late Medieval period, and has used them all for years in sparring and field battles, I don't think most people today appreciate the maintenance required to keep these items in functional condition. You are constantly fixing rivets, broken straps, dry rot, oiling against rust, let alone the massive wear and destruction of battle damage. It would have been economically impractical and logistically nightmarish if most armies had been mostly composed of heavily-armed soldiers. For example, here is a good, sourced synopsis of Hastings: http://www.britishbattles.com/norman-conquest/battle-of-hastings/ They specifically mention the Fyrd warriors were the bulk of infantry, were relatively untrained militia armed with spears and padded armor, and were often in used in large formations led by small, elite groups of well armored warriors. I will try to refrain from further side-tracked comments, sorry to cause a detour everyone.

Let's get back to the topic at hand: we see Kari and Ardus have higher armor, probably due to their battle skills and magical arms, the Rune Golem has 4, and the carrion lancers have 3, from their sturdiness and armor. All the infantry have 1. The Spearmen and the Cavalry appear nearly identical in armor but the Cavalry has 2 armor. Do you feel this represents greater training or the mobility of their horses? Is there any kind of lore about Oathsworn giving them a magical defense? I'm still hoping they will announce unit titles that we could upgrade stats on a whole formation with +1 Armor or exhaust to force an enemy reroll or something, and it could be neat to have some kind of militant orders or something to have different unit paint themes. What is there in the lore?

I wouldn't be shocked to see a "regiments of renown" style upgrade for specific units at specific formations in the future. *Insert Character Name* Elite Guard, regular spearmen dial, but maybe has a different point cost, unique ability, dies, and can only be ran at a certain formation size.
1/1 30 points trays 6 3 by 2 formation
Can always use the +1 armor modifier no matter the primary action or something.

3 minutes ago, drkpnthr said:

Let's get back to the topic at hand: we see Kari and Ardus have higher armor, probably due to their battle skills and magical arms, the Rune Golem has 4, and the carrion lancers have 3, from their sturdiness and armor. All the infantry have 1. The Spearmen and the Cavalry appear nearly identical in armor but the Cavalry has 2 armor. Do you feel this represents greater training or the mobility of their horses? Is there any kind of lore about Oathsworn giving them a magical defense? I'm still hoping they will announce unit titles that we could upgrade stats on a whole formation with +1 Armor or exhaust to force an enemy reroll or something, and it could be neat to have some kind of militant orders or something to have different unit paint themes. What is there in the lore?

I don't feel that being mounted should add anything to the defensive capabilities of a soldier intrinsically. It is true that in the setting, the mounted Daqan troops are either elite forces like Crusader Era Alans or Punic Wars Era Numidians (as described in both the Battle Lore games), or Knights (Descent, Runebound, Discwars, Runewars tbg), and these troops would have superior arms and armors (as much is implied).

The heroes are probably higher armor for game reasons, and because the setting uses comic book hero/DnD heroics for its heroes. They also through adventuring and skill sets get access to better gear (see Runebound and Descent). Armor ranges from light to medium to heavy, and items can be bought to increase this further (chainmail, leather, elven robes, various shields, and runes which act as armor like ghost shirt)

Currently, from what's been shown, the Daqan infantry (I don't recall, maybe the undying as well) get a bonus armor on the dial during movement. If you take their unit champ upgrade, he can turn it white allowing it to be used with any action (though that has a long cool down after use)

You guys have it all wrong: spearmen has waaayyy more armour with 1.4 points while archers have only 0.6

OK both round to 1 but really the spearmen are much more armoured

you know, basic units to have all the same armor is somehow like those RTS video games who offer poor game design where demonic base unit are as stronger as mere humans and so on. But, here, we have the dials that allow a bit of reinforcing. As I look at it now I realize that if my main complain is still alive as armor seems pretty sh*tty at 1, the command dials are a good shot : Daqan spearmen are effectively well armored but don't benefit of it every time. So moving like in a turtle formation by using a +1 armor modifier does picture the "armored" aspect of the unit. and they can move, shift and so on with a possibility to add +1 in armor each time. The poor skeletons are just good for nothing while moving. The archers have no additional armor coming from their dials so... but my text here is more a "realization of the real possibilities" addressed to me than to all of you who have already seen it and realized it long ago (sorry for being slow minded sometimes...no..always ).

Upgrades a no part of my above paragraph, but this is the only way to reinforce the archers. I expect the daqan Lords archers to have at least a +1 in armor on their dial to reflect the fact that you don't kid with daqan soldiers... ... did they had bowmen or crossbowmen in Battlelore ?

So yes, the more I read you, I re-analyze the stuffs we have (come on FFG give us the rules...), i realize how good this game will be... third main concern now ? I just hope the trays won't be a total mess... but let's see.

The +1 on the spearmen dial is to account for their shields. If you look at the pairings the modifier is basically a testudo.

post deleted for nonsense reason

In the game the stat is termed "defense" rather than "armor."

Defense can be anything from armor to agility to magical wards to better martial ability and the ability to block and parry enemy attacks. Anything that keeps pointy things from impacting the physical integrity of the target would be "defense."

So if you need a way to envision why Reanimate Archers have a higher defense than spearman, maybe it takes a much greater investment in magic and material to create said archers. Because of that, they add a few spells to strengthen their bones or give a layer of magical armor.

In a D&D campaign I was playing in, my Lizardfolk Ranger was more difficult to hit (higher armor class) than the Paladin in Plate Armor. All while only wearing a shield. This was because of factors like speed and agility (Dexterity Mod) and natural armor. While it would be easier to wound the lizard if both characters were standing still as statues, that just isn't the way a fight (or the game mechanics) works.

23 minutes ago, FatherTurin said:

In the game the stat is termed "defense" rather than "armor."

Defense can be anything from armor to agility to magical wards to better martial ability and the ability to block and parry enemy attacks. Anything that keeps pointy things from impacting the physical integrity of the target would be "defense."

So if you need a way to envision why Reanimate Archers have a higher defense than spearman, maybe it takes a much greater investment in magic and material to create said archers. Because of that, they add a few spells to strengthen their bones or give a layer of magical armor.

In a D&D campaign I was playing in, my Lizardfolk Ranger was more difficult to hit (higher armor class) than the Paladin in Plate Armor. All while only wearing a shield. This was because of factors like speed and agility (Dexterity Mod) and natural armor. While it would be easier to wound the lizard if both characters were standing still as statues, that just isn't the way a fight (or the game mechanics) works.

far more elegant way of putting my original explanation of magic...lol but yeah I agree that maybe they should have called the stat defense (and they might in the rule book we don't know yet) since it tends to encompass everything that makes wounding hard instead of just what reduces damage from actual contact.

16 minutes ago, jek said:

far more elegant way of putting my original explanation of magic...lol but yeah I agree that maybe they should have called the stat defense (and they might in the rule book we don't know yet) since it tends to encompass everything that makes wounding hard instead of just what reduces damage from actual contact.

If you read the Battle Is Joined article, it says the stat is called defense.

Just now, Budgernaut said:

If you read the Battle Is Joined article, it says the stat is called defense.

Well then there you have it!

So in that same article it says this:

Quote

In a massive block of infantry, even warriors behind the front ranks can contribute to the battle by the sheer weight and pressure of their bodies. For every full rank of trays behind your unit’s front rank, you can choose and reroll any number of dice in your attack, giving you better odds of dealing maximum damage. Even a partial rank (a rank with fewer trays than your front rank) allows you to reroll a single die in your attack!

What does it mean 'any number of dice' for each full rank of trays? If I roll two red dice for my Reanimate 12-tray formation, I know I would multiply the results I get by 3 for the number of trays facing. Would this mean I could pick up all the dice and roll them over again, and over again, and again three extra times? That seems suggested by the second line that says for partial trays you get to reroll a single die.

Edit: If so, being able to get this many rerolls seems like a great reason to put heroes in formations...

You reroll before damage is applied.