http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=218027

The link above clearly shows the Ph'kak men at Ankor Wat which also shows all the other troop types within the Khmer army.
Other rule sets are not the issue but they did exist.

The issue is not whether they existed. That is not in doubt ...

The Ghaznavid army list (Decline and Fall), lists possible Qarakhanid allies, with a footnote saying they will be posted in a later publication.

However, as far as I know, there is no Qarakhanid army in any book.

Are they in a later book under a different name? Or am I just blind today.

Consider basically any of the eastern Elephant armies, the example we always use being Classical Indian.

In your standard Classical Indian army, your fighting force is 5-6 units of elephants, and 1-2 units of heavy chariots. VS say, Romans or Pike, you will try hard to only fight with these units ...

Is it even possible to have 4 bases of unbroken Pikes any more anyway?

Far as I know the smallest Pikes come in is 8's, and there are no Elite Pikes, and Superiors break on 50% now.

Consider basically any of the eastern Elephant armies, the example we always use being Classical Indian.

In your standard Classical Indian army, your fighting force is 5-6 units of elephants, and 1-2 units of heavy chariots. VS say, Romans or Pike, you will try hard to only fight with these units ...

Roads go through all sorts of terrain in the real world too, but in FOG they don't/can't.

I have the sneaking suspicion this argument has been had before!

Is there even a point to roads with the new change?

I doubt I will ever see one on the table again after this.

Note that I do not necessarily disagree with the change, but I am usually a proponent of the idea that if something doesn't have a use in the game then there's not much point in even ...

One of my initial concerns, and like I've said I want to playtest it before whining too much (but they didn't let me in to the playtest group so OF COURSE now I'm whining) is elephants not being supportable by generals.

For western elephants this might make a decent deal of sense, but for eastern ...

Might want to clariify if commander's CMT bonus counts for the troops evading off the table roll. Do they roll right before they go off which would seem to suggest it does or after they are off which would suggest it doesn't?

Lets wait till we have the real rules and wordings before picking this ...

I like 95% of this, but it'll be good to get some test games in before whining about the 5% I don't like

To be fair, in this ruleset the Elite companions actually don't do too terribly vs. the current elephants. Sure they are down, but they are not likely to break very quickly.

I've always wondered about the Sumerian and Mycenaean dudes, who were classed as Pike in DBM and changed to Spear for FOG.

Unlike DBM, FOG does not classify troops as pike just because they have long weapons - they also have to have fought in deep formations.

So not classifying troops as Pike ...

I've always wondered about the Sumerian and Mycenaean dudes, who were classed as Pike in DBM and changed to Spear for FOG.

Who knows which is more accurate.

That is actually a good point. It is not a legal formation.

It would be a legal formation if it was MF with LF in back of it, but I'm not sure many armies have that.

Probably not worth fretting over, then.

This is a minor issue but something that has happened to me before, and seems easy to fix.

Lets say you have a unit that is mixed troops. We'll take Roman foot with LF support as the example. Your unit is deployed like so:

HF | HF
HF | HF
LF | LF

Now lets say you are attacked, and expand the 2 LF ...

You know, I think the problem with people not taking poor BGs is not a factor of whether or not they are cost effective or whether or not they are accurately portrayed, but more a problem of dice.

If people want to win tournaments competitively and often, they have to limit the impact of dice on ...

The purpose of this thread is just to try and ensure that the "contenders" don't stay out.

So, just to make this absolutely crystal clear - does this mean we are excluding Americans?

;)

I'm an American and I thought it was funny.

The California group does not really check these forums aside ...

It's not a question of whether or not their weapons individually would be classified as heavy weapon. They certainly would be.

It's a question of how they performed as units and what weapon type would most accurately reflect that performance.

Really what they SHOULD be is heavy weapons, but also ...

I am kind of confused as to why the Bushi are classified as Heavy Weapon. Seems to me that Bow* Impact Foot Swords would be more appropriate, even though a lot of them are using two handed weapons. And would likely be better too.

Surely Heian Bushi should be shock, right?

And why is it the mounted ...

If you are chasing them with bows they would have to choose to either let you double move every turn, or let you advance while in shooting range. Not really. LH move to 10 and a bit MU away. The shooters musts still double move so cannot shoot. The LH then move to 10 and a bit away again next time ...