Xiphos, Dory, Sarissa and all that

[Arkatreides]

It seems that the lethality of a unit is entirely linked to the weapon it is using (correct me if I am wrong) so I am planing to remove the lethality from the cards altogether and instead write down the explicit name of the weapon used.

So far I managed to idenitfy the following:

Phalanx units:
Sarissa: 0.17
("shorter sarissa"): 0.15

Spearmen:
Dory (Hoplite spear, overhand): 0.13
Standard spear, underhand: 0.125
Germanic spear (?) : 0.135

Swords:
Longsword: 0.225
Shortsword (Gladius/Xiphos): 0.13
Kopis/Falcata: 0.1(1) AP
Knife: 0.04

Axes:
Axe: 0.165 (AP)
Falx: 0.26 (AP)

Cavalry Lances and Spears:
Lances(not sure about names): Ranges from 0.3 to 0.4 AP
Xyston: 0.4 AP
Spears: 0.15


I would be grateful if someone could confirm that I am thinking along the right lines and maybe fill in the gaps.

[Watchman]

Shortswords are mostly 0.1, the 0.13 ones being better specimen like gladius hispaniensis I know that much.

[Puupertti Ruma]

I urge you to leave the lethality rating still in, even if you decide to add the weapon names. It doesn't take too much space on the cards and if it isn't there, there would have to be some kind of list or reference card to check if the kopis had lethality of 0.13 or whatever. Also, the whole concept of lethality could go unnoticed by some users and would make the cards less useful. I think the lethality is maybe the most useful value in the cards as they are now.

Well, just my 2 cents the choice is of course up to you Arkatreides. Love your cards!

[antisocialmunky]

I second keeping lethality. After all, those things are great for comparing units and I want a number :-p Numbers are your friends.

[Enguerrand de Sarnéac]

After all, those things are great for comparing units and I want a number :-p Numbers are your friends.

But you'll have to admit that having terms like Xyston, Sarissa or Kopis on the cards sound far more 'historicallyaccurate' than 'lethality: 0.13'

BTW, Watchman, how can it be that Gladii are better than ordinary shortswords? I understand they are probably made of superior steel, but does that make a difference? Isn't that a bit odd, especially if the stats of the longswords of the (for instance later) Celtic warriors that are stated as 'higher quality' by the unit description', are equal to the stats of the swords of lesser quality?

[Kugutsu]

Those sick claymore-type swords carried by the Kluddargos have a lethality of 0.285. Couple that with AP...

In my Casse campaign I keep a couple of them in each army, as they make general killers par excellence. Heacy cavalry dont stand a chance, they are better at dealing with the pesky immortal generals than any spearmen. They are fast too, and are handy for chasing down fleeing enemies and slaughtering them.

I think they are probably my favorite units in EB!

Edit: on topic, I vote keep the lethality on the card. Its very handy to have, and easier than cross-referencing, like PR said...

[NeoSpartan]

But you'l have to admit that having terms like Xyston, Sarissa or Kopis on the cards sound far more 'historicallyaccurate' than 'lethality: 0.13'
.....

I agree.

[Watchman]

BTW, Watchman, how can it be that Gladii are better than ordinary shortswords? I understand they are probably made of superior steel, but does that make a difference? Isn't that a bit odd, especially if the stats of the longswords of the (for instance later) Celtic warriors that are stated as 'higher quality' by the unit description', are equal to the stats of the swords of lesser quality?

You'd really have to ask the EB team experts on the matter and about their judgement, but AFAIK the reason is very simple - plain better design and workmansip. That's why the Romans ditched their earlier Italian short swords for the Iberian ones, after all, and never looked back.

I don't quite see what the longswords have to do with the issue though. Those things have lethality at a whopping 0.225 (the highest any normal one-handed weapon gets AFAIK) regardless of whether they're Celtic, German, Scythian or Iranian (EDIT: or Arabian; just remembered the Browncoats use them too). The Celtic short swords are unceremoniously stuck with the standard 0.1 though, although the Cwmyr as their description mentions have a bit longer type worth 0.13.

[antisocialmunky]

But you'll have to admit that having terms like Xyston, Sarissa or Kopis on the cards sound far more 'historicallyaccurate' than 'lethality: 0.13'

BTW, Watchman, how can it be that Gladii are better than ordinary shortswords? I understand they are probably made of superior steel, but does that make a difference? Isn't that a bit odd, especially if the stats of the longswords of the (for instance later) Celtic warriors that are stated as 'higher quality' by the unit description', are equal to the stats of the swords of lesser quality?

Couldn't Arkatreides just replace the weapon name with that and keep the lethality? I would think that generic names like 'spear' or 'sword' are more bland than a useful stat like lethality. Maybe also to clarify, make a small weapon(sword, spear, nun-chuk.. etc) type icon to the left of the weapon name?