Roman Lorica Hamata as good as Medieval Light Chain?

Specifically, in Burning Wheel terms?

So, I’m running a game set in the 2nd Punic War. I’m doing a few test characters now, and I’m wondering how to price and stat Roman Hamata:

I have a feeling it’s more or less the same as Light Chain (so, it’ll get 3D, etc etc), but, is that right? For those who are enthusiasts and knowledgeable?

BW doesn’t do fine-grained differences in armor. It’s chain, so it’s either 3D or 4D. My sense from cursory reading is that it’s light chain, but does it matter all that much? Consider which armor choice would make your game more fun. If you don’t have Roman military history buffs in your group who will get up in arms about perceived inaccuracy, it should be close enough to just call it light chain.

And if you do have history buffs, you should pick their brains.

Is it so much worse than chain that you should stat it up like leather? That’d be an awful big stretch.
Is it heavy enough to be heavy chain? Not the one in the picture.
So, light chain it is, I guess.

I’d run it as superior quality chain for the torso (maybe torso and arms if I was feeling generous) and then a plate helmet. Romans weren’t too big on armored sleeves and legwear if I remember correctly but they did make good quality chest armor and were fans of solid iron hats.

I really wouldn’t do that. Too much complexity, and the jump in quality from regular to superior is huge.

I think I’ll go light chain, and I thank you all for the commentary!

Nuts, I was thinking the Dwarven made bonus, not SQ. Yeah, SQ is way too good.

As for the coverage, I was thinking the Barbute line, so you’d end up with 4D torso, 4D head, and nothing else.

There’s already rules for half sleeves and leggings for armor that should have you covered. My take is hamata would be heavy chain, squamata would be light. The latter was much more common at the time, I believe. Centurions and above would also likely be wearing greaves.