Yep, there were 40 lists if I remember.
The Japanese list was either 3 or 4 lines long.

Late Romans had a page and could have up to 130 figs of legionarii, and pretty much more than they would ever need of anything they might ever want.

In contrast, virtually all of the Aurelianic/Middle Imperial ...

As in "a litmus test for any Ancients rules is how effective Romans are."
If they can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag - ie WRG 5th edition - then there is lamentation.

If they are sexy, armed with chainswords/Gladii of Barbarian Slaying and a popular starter army, then the rules work and ...

Loved the Late Roman (Dominate) list. It is my OTA.

All my dreams came true. A plethora of options. A yardstick by which other lists can be measured.

A bunch of supporting psiloi/light foot disappeared in transition from the DBM list, but most adherents knew from credible sources that the ...

Hi Nik

Thanks for the reference. I have got lazy over the years in terms of my own research. Perhaps this is the stimulus I need.

cheers
Nick

Quality has a quality all its own :-)

cheers
Nick
Quantity has a quality all its own. :twisted:

Hi

My point is that were I to have the choice of quality over quantity in an Early German army whilst trying to beat Romans (FOG's "Space Marines" :P ) I would choose quality; to wit the blunt ...

Indeed a helpful suggestion

cheers Hammy

Nick

Hi Nik

The "current view" of whom expressed where exactly?

As you brought up the subject of the DBMM list - am I right in thinking that whilst psiloi support has gone (no great surprise), sanity is still currently prevailing in terms of numbers available ?

Could it pan out that even the ...

Hi Richard

Your rules. Your lists. Your call.
Your forum - so this post is a study in politeness.

Just bear with me for a while.
Once upon a time Picts had a DBM list in a list volume you co-authored.
In those happy days I purchased and lovingly painted the 36 elements of archers/crossbows ...

Darn.

I was hoping 0 to 16 bases for the archers was a "typo" for 16 to 36. Especially as it is in the "core troops" section, where one assumes because they are "core" that some are compulsory?
0-16 seems "optional" to me :-)

If not a typo - I am curious about the rationale behind mass Pictish ...

Quality has a quality all its own

cheers
Nick

Thanks for your reply Richard.

Of all the possible replies, what you said gave me the most confidence going forward - namely that (unless I have misread what you meant) the Gallic and Ancient British chrome uber-units may in hindsight not have been the best of moves and presumably are unlikely to ...

Thanks Hammy

I am not particularly sanguine about a head-on grinding match, but as you say it is not impossible.

My army has scarcely more than the minimum spearmen, so perhaps some painting is required to make the wall of cr*p option more viable

cheers
Nick

Hi
I was hoping that the list design process would be guided by the same level of pragmatism which shows through with FOG basing conventions - ie use what is trad and also be as flexible as possible so as not to annoy anybody.

I could live easier with Ancient British and Gauls having chrome as long ...

Hi

Bit of background:
I have EPs in 28mm. We play on 8x5 tables using 35mm MU.
Main opponents tend to be something Roman.
The boys were extremely successful under the previous version of "The Other Game". Not quite so successful in the latest version of "The Other Game".
Batting .166 under FOG.
My ...

Hi

I will start this by saying overall that Legions Triumphant excited me heaps more than anything produced to date. These are the armies I cut my teeth on.

Having bought LT I feel I have a brief licence to express disappointment with how Early Germans "fared". Having played Ancients for nearly 25 ...

Hi Cam

We trialled 35mm MU on a 8x5 table on Sunday. Felt about right, although my current thinking would be to go for slightly less points, say 725-750 and trial again.

Going to 33mm seems a bit, err, well, y'know, scientific

cheers
Nick