just saw this NKE list and hash on pyrrhus

[pyrrhus]

1 IC, 3 TC's
1x8 Javelinmen (LF, Javelin, Lt Spr)
1x6 Javelinmen (LF, Javelin, Lt Spr)
1x6 Bowmen (LF, Bow)
1x6 Close Fighters (MF, Protected, Drilled, Average, Lt Spr, Swd)
2x8 Bowmen (MF, Unprotected, Drilled, Average, Bow)
2x4 Light Chariots (Lt Chariots, Drilled, Superior, Bow)
1x4 Sherden Guard (HF, Armoured, Drilled, Impact Foot, Swordsmen)
1x4 Egyptian Guard (HF, Armoured, Drilled, Lt Spr, Swordsmen)
2x10 Sherden (MF, Protected, Undrilled, Impact Foot, Swordsmen)

Looks like a good army and I dont have a problem with the guard units being armored . In the tradition of and equalizer for open games
What I do have a problem is that other armys that are not favored have little or no provision for some form of elite foot .Like the possibility of some of pyrrhus foot troops being superior (one BG of 8 pike as "macedonians") . I believe the madatory cavalry when taking lancers forcing you to take a bg of ls cavalry is very resrictive on an already resrictive list .The demand that when taking poor Pike you must also take the MI ls sw armed saminites lets you take neither in numbers that would be to your advantage .The total lack of peltasts is interesting seeing that pyrrhus had close ties with Illyria being King Glaucias's adopted son as well as his conflicts with macedonia and invasion of siciliy it would be I think prudent to include some form of MI protected LTS in his army with its exposure to these elements and the fact that his army was modeled on the hellenistic tradition .

If on the other hand we are arguing that this egyptian guard actually had the armor equivalent of late republic roman legionarys then you have lost me .If your are saying the effect (armor ) is there because against their historical opponents in their "time (book) Frame" that is how these troops would have behaved . I can understand this Clearly . If this is your approach then FOG is a much more resrictive game system than I originally thought and FOG tourneys and games should be played as an IN period in book format only as anything else would possibly result in lopsided games .The system as it stands isn't for the most part being played or sold this way. anyway thats my rant I do like what you guys have done great stuff and thanks .If this is and in period set I would like to see a tournement set or books or something .just my 2 cents Patrick

[batesmotel]

1 IC, 3 TC's
1x8 Javelinmen (LF, Javelin, Lt Spr)
1x6 Javelinmen (LF, Javelin, Lt Spr)
1x6 Bowmen (LF, Bow)
1x6 Close Fighters (MF, Protected, Drilled, Average, Lt Spr, Swd)
2x8 Bowmen (MF, Unprotected, Drilled, Average, Bow)
2x4 Light Chariots (Lt Chariots, Drilled, Superior, Bow)
1x4 Sherden Guard (HF, Armoured, Drilled, Impact Foot, Swordsmen)
1x4 Egyptian Guard (HF, Armoured, Drilled, Lt Spr, Swordsmen)
2x10 Sherden (MF, Protected, Undrilled, Impact Foot, Swordsmen)

Looks like a good army and I dont have a problem with the guard units being armored . In the tradition of and equalizer for open games
What I do have a problem is that other armys that are not favored have little or no provision for some form of elite foot .Like the possibility of some of pyrrhus foot troops being superior (one BG of 8 pike as "macedonians") . I believe the madatory cavalry when taking lancers forcing you to take a bg of ls cavalry is very resrictive on an already resrictive list .The demand that when taking poor Pike you must also take the MI ls sw armed saminites lets you take neither in numbers that would be to your advantage .The total lack of peltasts is interesting seeing that pyrrhus had close ties with Illyria being King Glaucias's adopted son as well as his conflicts with macedonia and invasion of siciliy it would be I think prudent to include some form of MI protected LTS in his army with its exposure to these elements and the fact that his army was modeled on the hellenistic tradition .

If on the other hand we are arguing that this egyptian guard actually had the armor equivalent of late republic roman legionarys then you have lost me .If your are saying the effect (armor ) is there because against their historical opponents in their "time (book) Frame" that is how these troops would have behaved . I can understand this Clearly . If this is your approach then FOG is a much more resrictive game system than I originally thought and FOG tourneys and games should be played as an IN period in book format only as anything else would possibly result in lopsided games .The system as it stands isn't for the most part being played or sold this way. anyway thats my rant I do like what you guys have done great stuff and thanks .If this is and in period set I would like to see a tournement set or books or something .just my 2 cents Patrick

While the Sherden guard may not be as fully protected as LRR legionaries but are depicted with armour well within what the rules qualify as "armoured". See http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/sea.htm for some pictures showing the Sherden and possible reconstructions of their armour.

Chris

[pyrrhus]

just as many other "protected troops could qualify as armored

[rbodleyscott]

As is stated in the rules, more weight was given to ensuring that interactions are correct between contemporary troops than in ensuring strict verisimilitude for anachronistic battles.

The accuracy of any assumptions made about anachronistic matchups could never be tested as there is no historical record of what would happen when troops 1,000 years apart fought each other.

That does not, however, prevent the rules from giving a balanced game when anachronistic opponents meet. However, one must recognise that such matchups are as much fantasy as elves vs goblins.

If the rules did fully acknowledge the real technological differences between earlier and later armies (metallergy etc) the anachronistic games would not be much fun. (Steel plate armoured C15 knights massacring uncountable multitudes of half naked Egyptians armed with bronze sickle-swords).

So:

If you have a serious interest in history and the representation of historically feasible conflicts, play within theme.

If you just want a good game, by all means pit anachronistic opponents against each other, but there is no mileage in agonising over (deliberate) discrepancies between the troop representation in different periods.

[pyrrhus]

Thanks for the reply sorry to bother you about this stuff .I just cant warrent the investment of time and money for an in period system so I will look for a ringworld set of rules