Nikephorian Byzentine

[stevoid]

Hi,

I'm just vetting a Nikephorian list (from a beta) for the NZ nationals and wondered if I'm reading the Kataphraktoi right: their BGs can be at most 2 bases in size, with 1 front rank base with lance and sword, and 1 rear rank base with bow and sword, and they can have a total of 2 of these micro BGs.

Is that the correct interpretation of the list?

Cheers,

Steve

[rbodleyscott]

Hi,

I'm just vetting a Nikephorian list (from a beta) for the NZ nationals and wondered if I'm reading the Kataphraktoi right: their BGs can be at most 2 bases in size, with 1 front rank base with lance and sword, and 1 rear rank base with bow and sword, and they can have a total of 2 of these micro BGs.

Is that the correct interpretation of the list?

Yep. As PB would say, we are the slaves of history.

[stevoid]

Thanks Richard. My first list rejection...

[hazelbark]

Yep. As PB would say, we are the slaves of history.

yes but he would also accuse people of being geometric tournament tigers.

Still he can now revel in the fact he can point to an entire volume of "Bodley-Scottese" instead of his own "Barkerese"

[RichardD]

The big difference being that I can read "Bodley-Scottese" (whatever that really is). OK, the rules barely sank in the first time I read them, but they required none of the mental gymnastics that certain other rulesets required

[batesmotel]

Hi,

I'm just vetting a Nikephorian list (from a beta) for the NZ nationals and wondered if I'm reading the Kataphraktoi right: their BGs can be at most 2 bases in size, with 1 front rank base with lance and sword, and 1 rear rank base with bow and sword, and they can have a total of 2 of these micro BGs.

Is that the correct interpretation of the list?

Yep. As PB would say, we are the slaves of history.

Maybe I am reading too much into this, but restricting Nikephorian Byzantine Kataphratoi (the normal line cavalry, not the Klibanophoroi (= SHC in WRG terms, cataphracts in FoG I would expect), to BG with a maximum size of 2 would seem completely contrary to the spirit of lists like the Mid Republican Roman where a battle group can represent 8 mixed maniples of Hastati/Principes. Similarly for the Late Republican Roman list, I doubt that BG of 4-8 Legionaries represent individual cohorts.

I assume that the real intent of the beta list would have been to restrict the Klibanophoroi who were completely armored and traditionally fought in deep wedges with some more lightly armored archers in interior/rear ranks, not the Kataphraktoi. It is probably arguable whether the Klibanophoroi should have lances at all since they seem to have relied far more on dense formation and sowrds/maces for their effect rather than charging home with lance, but that is a separate issue.

[rbodleyscott]

It is the Klibanophoroi we are talking about. The ordinary cavalry are in BG of 4-6 like everyone else's.

It is probably arguable whether the Klibanophoroi should have lances at all since they seem to have relied far more on dense formation and sowrds/maces for their effect rather than charging home with lance, but that is a separate issue.

True, but giving them lancers capability gets the right effect in the impact phase.

[shall]

Tis a nice army that

IIRC Richard and I played a very good test game with it and some araby army. The Cts in 2 as Elites are fun. Varangians also a laugh.

Si

[batesmotel]

It is the Klibanophoroi we are talking about. The ordinary cavalry are in BG of 4-6 like everyone else's.

It is probably arguable whether the Klibanophoroi should have lances at all since they seem to have relied far more on dense formation and sowrds/maces for their effect rather than charging home with lance, but that is a separate issue.

True, but giving them lancers capability gets the right effect in the impact phase.

Would the maximum (and ideal?) wedge formation described in the sources with 500 or so men be big enough to justify representation as a BG of 4 rather than 2. I think existing diagrams often show a single wedge formation in the line of battle as well which might justify the larger BG size. (I haven't played FoG yet so don't have an opinion about which BG size is likely to be more effective game wise.)

[rbodleyscott]

Would the maximum (and ideal?) wedge formation described in the sources with 500 or so men be big enough to justify representation as a BG of 4 rather than 2. I think existing diagrams often show a single wedge formation in the line of battle as well which might justify the larger BG size. (I haven't played FoG yet so don't have an opinion about which BG size is likely to be more effective game wise.)

At the standard representational scale 2 bases perfectly represents the 500 man formation.

Nothing to stop you putting 2 BGs of 2 side by side though if you want.

[nikgaukroger]

One additional advantage of having a 2 base wedge for the katafraktoi (please note that is what Nikeforos calls them) is that it gives a great incentive for them to fight supported by other units just like the Praecepta and Taktika detail