Nikephorian Varangian guard

[bahdahbum]

3rd at britcon

[bahdahbum]

Ok , now I have read the book "The Varangians of Byzantium" .

Concerning the equipment of the varangians, once they are in the service of the emperor as a guard unit, nothing is sure and the only description dates from 1200 AD . But many sources describes them equipped with chainmails and armbraces and so on .

About the creation as a guard unit, there is the description in psellus's Chronographia : " The emperor Basilknew the folly of the Romans and, since a select force of Tauro-Scythians ( i.e. Russians )had joined him recently, he trained them and putthemin a division with other foreign troops, and so sent them against the ennemy."

So they seem to be trained from the beginning . Quickly some of those varangians will become know as "the Varangians of the city" in distinction from the other varangians units, who were know as "Varangians outside the city" . Ther famous and feared varangian guard which was to spearhead many of Basil's battles and win many victories for him were the "Varangians of the City" . As they served as a imperial guard unit , they would be rather well equiped and well before the ludicrous 1042 date that appears in he army list .

I do not know how much more it takes to convince some people that there is a real and high probability that the varangians might be upgraded as armoured/heavily armoured / drilled / superior or Elite in the early years of Basil's II reign, but here it is .

It would not take much to change it in the army list book, just in one of the errata change one line : varangians : only from 995 ( or any other possible date before the death of Basil II )

Now what is the answer of the conceptors

So now can we have a real discussion about it . it is a very minor change I propose in the official list . It might just be an errata .

Varangian : before 1000 heavy foot, protected, average, undrilled , offensive spearmen 7 points, 6-8 per BG , 0-12 max
from 1000 , allow for the possibility to upgrade 6 of the varangian as varangian guards as specified in the original army list but originaly from 1042 .

[Ghaznavid]

So now can we have a real discussion about it . it is a very minor change I propose in the official list . It might just be an errata .

Varangian : before 1000 heavy foot, protected, average, undrilled , offensive spearmen 7 points, 6-8 per BG , 0-12 max
from 1000 , allow for the possibility to upgrade 6 of the varangian as varangian guards as specified in the original army list but originaly from 1042 .

The problem is, it is not an errata it is an list change. I doubt we will see these (until the lists are revamped and reprinted in a couple of years that is). It is not about it being a major change or not; or about it being well documented and sensible or not. It is because making that change would open a flood gate and no one at Slitherine or Osprey is likely to risk that.
This forum is about collecting ideas, suggestions, etc. for that day in the future when the list will be revamped. Expecting direct change to the lists is IMHO not realistic, sorry.

[bahdahbum]

(until the lists are revamped and reprinted in a couple of years that is).

Ever heard of downloadable lists [/list]

[ShrubMiK]

I think you have to separate games into "official" games and "friendly" games.

In friendly games you can use whatever amendments to lists you agree with your opponent. You could agree to throw away the lists and choose your armies from the points values listed in the main rulebook if you wanted to. Or you can use the standard lists.

In official games, you must use standard lists. both players have to be able to agree on what the standard lists are. Having downloadable lists is all fine and dandy, but it does add more complication into the process of ensuring that two players who may never have met before turn up with armies that both consider legal, and don't have any nasty surprises for the opponent in.

[Maniakes]

Varangian : before 1000 heavy foot, protected, average, undrilled , offensive spearmen 7 points, 6-8 per BG , 0-12 max
from 1000 , allow for the possibility to upgrade 6 of the varangian as varangian guards as specified in the original army list but originaly from 1042 .

Admitedly the date of 1042 is a bit of an arbitrary choice - probably come from reading Michael Psellus who blamed the Empress Zoe for just about everything that went wrong at that time, including the decline of the army as he saw it. But it does divide the Nik into two lists and I don't think you can change the date of one troop type without looking at all the others that are linked to that date. In particular your change would allow the best equiped Varangians to be fielded alongside lots of the best quality cavalry - and this would become the wargamers choice of list, I imagine. Is there any evidence that they fought together? I thought that the conventional view was that the cavalry was declining at the same time as the number of foreign troops was increasing. I also thought that the Varangians were mostly used on foreign expeditions such as Crete and Sicily, where their seamanship skills would come in useful (almost acting as "marines") and where it might be difficult to transport large numbers of the high quality cavalry.

Perhaps a little imagination is needed. I field the post 1042 list with Varangians and Normans - but in my head I know it is the 1038 expedition to Sicily lead by George Maniakes, Harald Hardrada and William "Ironarm" de Hauteville ... possibly the three hardest men on the planet at the time.

[Ghaznavid]

(until the lists are revamped and reprinted in a couple of years that is).

Ever heard of downloadable lists

I did, but for the reasons given I continue to have my doubts that those will include alternate versions of lists already published. Personally I wouldn't like to have two versions of the same list where everyone can pick the one he likes better. OTOH I heavily doubt Slitherine is going to devalue the army books by saying that the list in the book is no longer permitted/official/whatever if there is a newer one online. Personally I would like that to happen, I just don't see it coming and I as stated I don't like the two list variant alternative.

[bahdahbum]

Did the varangian guards and the "best" byzantine cavalry fight side by side ...As the varangian were part of the army of Basile, were his infantry and he had the byzantine cavalry as cavalry ... the answer is YES . The Varangian were not only used for foreign expeditions but were often sent, piecemal , to support those expeditions .

[Maniakes]

Did the varangian guards and the "best" byzantine cavalry fight side by side ...As the varangian were part of the army of Basile, were his infantry and he had the byzantine cavalry as cavalry ... the answer is YES . The Varangian were not only used for foreign expeditions but were often sent, piecemal , to support those expeditions .

What I meant (and wrote) was did the best equiped Varangians (Heavily Armoured) fight alongside the Superior rated cavalry? That will end up as a common choice on the table under your suggestion.

[bahdahbum]

If basile commanded his army in campaign, as he did, it seems logical he took his best rated cavalry . Where the emperor was, the varangian guard was ... so the answer is yes , most higly possible . But I do not see the point .

In all the army lists , a player chooses his combination of army which is not always most historical but might have happened . so There should be no problems here .

Anyway, the rule conceptors do not want to listen to us and have just enabled us to discuss it on the forum so we would let them in peace . There will be no new army list book, no dowloadable lists , no real discussion about what we perceive as incomplete or incorrect lists .

So be it . It is a useless task so let's forget it .

[philqw78]

pessimism is self defeating in this argument, or indeed any argument.

[bahdahbum]

no being pessimistic : realpolitik

You know the story about Don Quichotte and the windmills ...well I have enough wndmills to tackle at my work

I would have appreciated at least a reaction of our dear conceptors . They could agree , disagree but react ..you know just say : we aknoweldge what you say ...

[Ghaznavid]

Anyway, the rule conceptors do not want to listen to us and have just enabled us to discuss it on the forum so we would let them in peace . There will be no new army list book, no dowloadable lists , no real discussion about what we perceive as incomplete or incorrect lists .

So be it . It is a useless task so let's forget it .

That is patently wrong, what is not going to happen though is that changes will come as quickly as you might like. FoG is meant to provide a stable rule set, that of course includes the army lists. It's not set into stone and I'm sure there will be a revised rule set and set of army lists at some time in the future, just not this year (and pretty certainly not next year either). When that time comes however the postings here will be looked at. It is simply not a good idea to (IMO) to have a rule set (including its army lists) in constant flux (even more true for FoG as it isn't exactly the cheapest set on the market).

This forum here can be seen as sort of a TNE for FoG (and anyone who has been on TNE knows how long it took for their ideas to be picked up since their been no new editions of the DBM(M) Army books for years). It's a long term commitment at least for those armies already published. So far unpublished army lists, now that is another matter (don't believe everything Nik says, he is blonde after all).

That said, I assume you read the welcome thread to this forum? viewtopic.php?t=9643

[bahdahbum]

I satnd corrected Sir . yes Sir .

Thanks for enlighting me

[rbodleyscott]

To add to Karsten's comments above, I (and no doubt Nik) do in fact read all the posts in this forum - and the ones on the army design forum which ought to be on this forum.

We even agree with many of them, or at least do not disagree strongly enough to post back until we have time to re-examine the evidence ourselves. I am sure you would prefer us not to respond with an ill-considered knee-jerk reaction.

However, as Karsten said, work on revising the army lists will not start for some time. When it does occur, this forum will be a very useful resource.

We are listening, but please do not expect us to take part in the debate until such time as we are actively working on revising the lists.

(The points raised on the Army Design forum re Nikephorian skutatoi/archers, however, are unlikely to be remembered at that time unless someone reposts them on this forum. If someone does so, I suggest that they include Maniakes's points, which are very pertinent from a rules design philosophy point of view - remember that these rules, including the lists, are a top-down design intended to get the right effect for each army - we don't necessarily slavishly adhere to the armour classifications in the rules if it gets the wrong top-down effect.)

[nikgaukroger]

(don't believe everything Nik says, he is blonde after all).

Out of a bottle though

Just to add to what Richard wrote - I do read all these posts with interest, however, I don't at present have time to get into the discussion the points deserve as my time is almost wholly taken up with FoG:R at the moment.

I will also add that I deeply resent the implication that either Richard or I are not supporting FoG - I rather suspect that if either of us (or indeed those helping us or the other rules authors) were paid a commercial rate for the time we put into this project, there would in fact be no FoG as it would not be economically viable for Slitherine or Osprey. (Apologies if that is a bit of a rant.)

[bahdahbum]

It did take some workin to have you answers gentlemen .

And I did it on purpose .

My message is : many people say in private what I said here . So there is a feeling . The feeling that you do not listen . You are busy ( I am also busy do not worry , I now what it is to have only 24 hours a day ) . But the feeling is so important , even with some UK players that it needs to be corrected .

In reading some of the posts , you might note that some answers from representatives are : we do not know if we will restudy some lists , latter, still latter ...and so on . So people are starting to wonder and if nobody says as I did "enough" . It might grow and grow .

Now you have reacted . in fact it is all I wanted, have your official point of view .

Accept my appologies and next time, beer is for me ( alas I cannot attend britcon 2010, but will be there in 2011 unless you come to have some real beer in Belgium next year at IWC2011, 5-6 february 2011 ).

regards

Jacques

[nikgaukroger]

Accept my appologies and next time, beer is for me ( alas I cannot attend britcon 2010, but will be there in 2011 unless you come to have some real beer in Belgium next year at IWC2011, 5-6 february 2011 ).

I may take you up on that beer - and even discuss Byzantines over it

[Ghaznavid]

Accept my appologies and next time, beer is for me ( alas I cannot attend britcon 2010, but will be there in 2011 unless you come to have some real beer in Belgium next year at IWC2011, 5-6 february 2011 ).

I may take you up on that beer - and even discuss Byzantines over it

I will take that as the promise that you make it to Brussel next year Nik.

[nikgaukroger]

"May"


I'll certainly consider it - a lot will depend on my employment situation, but as Jacques has come to Britcon it would only be polite to go to his comp.