![]() |
| My men will have the initiative in the big central melee |
I start with my left-flank cavalry, who attack the falxmen on the hill. The 7+ needed is increased for being on lower ground, but anyway I roll only 3.
My central horsemen attack the falxmen in the trees. The 7+ is increased because of the trees, but decreased thanks to the presence of friendly legionaries. I roll 8, forcing the enemy to retreat two hexes, their route taking them, by tiebreak, into cover of trees.
My forward legionaries attack the falxmen in the open, needing 7+, reduced thanks to the presence of fellow legionaries. However, I roll 5, which is one short of the score needed for a hit.
My rearward legionaries attack the same target, and this time I roll 8, forcing the falxmen to retreat three hexes. The first retreat is straight back, but the second has to be determined randomly, and the third takes them onto the hill beside the swordsmen.
The right-flank falxmen attack my left-flank cavalry, needing 7+, but there is a-1 modifier for being on higher ground. However, the dice total just 3.
![]() |
| The Dacians are outnumbered and retreating |


The system looks good with the interaction between troop types. Although I prefer a square grid for ancients, hexes is maybe more suited for skirmishers.
ReplyDeleteYes, the argument about which type of grid is not straightforward. Bob Cordery has gone into this in some detail in his Portable Wargame books. From a personal viewpoint, it would be nice to have both hexes and squares in one's collection, although I do not know of commercially available squares to the same quality as Hexon II's hexes.
Delete