TRhe follwing is a discussuion from the 'Hordes of the Things' mailing list on adding new troop types to the game to represent light infantry and so forth. I have pretty much left things exactly as they were said, but applied an occassional light editorial hand, and tidied up the formatting and spelling where I noticed that it needed doing.
Charles Turnitsa writes:
I agree with the desire to have lighter troops in Hordes. There are many times that I've wanted to represent an army (either from my fertile imagination, from an RPG setting, or from a book), and found myself wondering what to do with all these types of infantry...
I think that PSILOI could easily be added, but maybe call them something else (in keeping with the HOTT naming schema), like SCOUTS or something like that. Very similar to SNEAKERS, but with the combat outcome rules (and the inability to "sneak", or pass through) of DBA PSILOI.
Jeff Bolton replies:
I like calling them SCOUTS. SKIRMISHERS is also a possibility (since there are no Light Horse around to also fulfill that role):
Charles Turnitsa continues:
I would also like to have something like AUXILIA, but the problem is that HOTT WARBANDS almost already fill that niche, being +3/+3. I'd suggest giving them +4/+3, and move them as SHOOTERS, and treat them in combat as "other foot". Maybe call them WARRIORS or something similar (sergeants? men-at-arms?).
Jeff Bolton replies:
I would have a LOT of disagreement with this one. Here goes: I would call these troops RANGERS. Rangers are distinctly different from Warbands (and I'll explain as we go):
Bob Beattie writes:
I have been thinking along the same lines but rather than come up with two types, I am happy with one. I too thought to call this a Ranger. (I even mentioned it at the club meeting last week)
Here showing my English bias. If we can use a greek word for this in DBA why not another language for HOTT, maybe Jaeger. Rangers are assumed to shoot close up, like Robin Hood's merry men, they get around in Bad Going quite well and stay out of the way of heavy troops. They move quicky (after all they are ranging). They are good hunters so are not quick killed by beasts, nor flee but after a couple of shots at big things, they will run away. In the open they are vulnerable to knights. Also if lurkers jump out at them, they do badly.
Anyway, the ranger becomes a combo Psiloi/Auxillia:
I just do not see the need for an almost the same type that follows Aux and Scout seems less a fighter than a Ranger. So I'd like a Ranger as the all purpose, utility light troop. Maybe maybe give them a +3 vs foot and +2 vs mounted, like Shooters are better in HOTT?? This makes them more like Aux in fighting, but they move around more like Ps.
??? writes:
When I came up with the "WARRIOR", what I was looking for was a HOTT version of the DBA auxilia. Just an infantry troop type that fights in close quarters, but not nearly as well as BLADES. When I came up with the WARRIOR it was to provide some granularity between BLADES and some lesser close-in fighter type, without dipping all the way to HORDES (not that there's anything wrong with HORDES, some of my best friends....skip it).
The RANGER suggestion (made by several people on the list) is sort of a fantasy version of PSILOI (as presented in many novels). Very good at sneaking around in nasty terrain, and infiltrating troops, but not quite as much as a sneaker. Also able to hold his/her/it's own in a close-in fight (much better, than say, historical psiloi), but again not as much as BLADES (which are designed for such work).
Jim Davis writes:
How about:
Warrior
Move - 300p
Combat Value - 2/2
+1 for each Warrior element on each side*
If beaten: destroyed by Kn in good going or by warband
-2 in woods but normal in non-wood bad going terrain
*Rationale: While weak individually, they would fight better in groups supported by each other. The center element would be its support while the flanks would be weaker.
Paul Grace writes:
I offer the following solution to those wishing to include psiloi (scouts/ rangers) and auxilia et al into their HOTT armies.
Instead of creating different movement, combat and combat result values for each new troop type, why not just take a leaf from DBM and add a subgroup: Light Troops.
In addition to those troop types listed in the standard HOTT rules, those with the value of 2AP (with the exception of Knights, flyers and beasts) have a 'light troop' sub type also available i.e. there are now five extra new troop types to choose from.
Light troops act and fight as their main 'ordinary' category types with the following exceptions:
Light shooters Sh(L) make ideal skirmishers.
Light Spear Sp(L) would appear suitable as auxilia.
Light warband Wb(L) and blades Bl(L) could represent young warriors, fleet
of foot but not as tough as their elders.
Light Riders Ri(L) make useful horse archers.
To help solve the problem of recognising and differentiating between light and ordinary troops - I suggest basing them with one less figure than their ordinary equivalent.
James Ewins replies:
Overall the lite, sorry light, troops look like a welcome addition. It does mean more options and closer "realism" (ahem) for pseudo-historical armies. Horse Archers could change a lot of armies composition and tactics.. but should they be exempt from the bad going penalty? Not sure on that one. Also the basing conventions could be disturbing to some opponents: it could just be easier to keep the current conventions for their full-fat equivalents, but make sure the figures are obviously lightly armoured / irregular looking / fast and loose types. Explain this to your opponent, using small words where necessary..
Mind you, some people base less figures per base (ie 3 figs for blades) to save money, or fit oversize Citadel figs in. Forcing them to be classed as lite troops could be fun, if cruel.
Jeff Bolton also replies:
You haven't added a sub-group. You've just added more new types with different movement, combat, and combat results. Why not add a couple of discrete new types with clear positions within the rules instead of adding more confusion?
For movement rates, add the distance of one base depth.
Why a base depth? Why not 100 paces?
All light troops receive -1 tactical factor modifier.
Sounds OK. But the same effect can be made by adding distinct new types of Psiloi and Auxilia clones.
All light troops are exempt from the -2 tactical factor modifier for troops in or attacking into bad going.
Yikes! Look at the Lite Blades and Lite Spears go....
Light shooters and riders fire at half the range of ordinary shooters.
This might work, but shooting Riders are going to be hard to defend against.
Light troops required to fall back do so for a distance of 2 base depths.
OK. But it adds more potential confusion - messes with the simplicity of the basic rules system.
Light Spear can give rear support to ordinary or light spear.
Can't do this sort of thing in DBM with troops of different grades, so why with troops of varying weight?
Light troops cost 2AP
What else could they cost? 8') As more troop types are added, the more I would hold out for a more definitive AP system.
Light shooters Sh(L) make ideal skirmishers
And think how fast they would be......
Light Spear Sp(L) would appear suitable as auxilia.
Not from my angle.....
Light warband Wb(L) and blades Bl(L) could represent young warriors, fleet of foot but not as tough as their elders.
Except in the bad going....
Light Riders Ri(L) make useful horse archers.
They sure do!
To help solve the problem of recognising and differentiating between light and ordinary troops - I suggest basing them with one less figure than their ordinary equivalent.
This might not work because the current basing "conventions" are honored more in the breach then in practice. For example, it turns out that almost my entire HOTTs armies are Lite....
Thanks for the thought fodder, Paul! You're an Idea Man and there are some good ideas in here. However, I think that your overall concept is severely flawed.