Army lists

[firefalluk]

Who would have thought, after all the years of bitching about the unreasonableness of the Barker army lists, that we'd look back fondly on them, and compare them favourably to the current, costive, prohibitive, pinched and punitive approach to army lists, with it's absurd arbritary approach to every possible question?

[Hepius]

I'm not sure who is included in your "we".

I find the FoG lists to be far superior. I used to be a very competitive DBM player. I could take a walk though the DBM lists and laugh at the number of hopeless armies one would never consider taking to a tournament.

FoG armies are far more balanced. Even without all the books/lists out yet, there are many more armies I would take to a tournament.

In any case, leave me out of your all-inclusive "we". None of the people I game with are looking back fondly at what used to be. That is why we are playing FoG.

Hep

[daleivan]

For my part I'm quite pleased with the lists. The FoG team has a done a fine job of producing lists for a miniature game from sources often thin on numbers. By necessity some guess work is involved.

The result here is excellent IMHO.

Cheers,

Dale

[ethan]

Certainly there are a few choices here and there were I might wish something different was done but one the whole I find the FoG lists pretty good. I would be curious as to what you find particularly problematic?

[willb]

The initial post comes across as "trolling". I can understand if someone is not happy with some parts of the lists or even all, but not providing any examples or reasons to go with the above statement doesn't cut it.

[Scrumpy]

Has phil really restorted to an assumed id ?

[Omar]

Who?

[nikgaukroger]

Has phil really restorted to an assumed id ?

Phil has been "Firefall" of one sort or another for as long as I can remember (albeit that may be just 5 minutes due to whisky consumption - rule 1, don't try and out drink my mother; she may be built like Victoria Beckham but she can drink for any 5 countries you care to name ).

I'd be interested for Phil to expand on his comments.

[peterrjohnston]

Who bitched about the DBM lists? I always preferred a list releases to a rules release, far more interesting. I'm
sure there are points of disagreement about interpretations, but one can't please everyone.

The same applies for the FoG lists. They are certainly simpler, but that's to match the rules as it's a unit
based game, rather than 1 element of this, one of another. There's also some "new" lists in there, like
the medieval Spain armies, and some radical simplification of some past horrors like Medieval German
(known to give Duncan nightmares )

One of the oddest complaints I have heard is that the lists are not "new" when compared to past
lists. What are folks expecting, French Ordonnance knights reclassified as T-34s?

My only complaint is not enough list notes. Osprey could solve that by doing matching history
books. For example, an historical overview of the matching army list book followed by detailed
historical notes on each army.

[andy63]

I'm not sure who is included in your "we".

I find the FoG lists to be far superior. I used to be a very competitive DBM player. I could take a walk though the DBM lists and laugh at the number of hopeless armies one would never consider taking to a tournament.

FoG armies are far more balanced. Even without all the books/lists out yet, there are many more armies I would take to a tournament.

In any case, leave me out of your all-inclusive "we". None of the people I game with are looking back fondly at what used to be. That is why we are playing FoG.

Hep

Look chaps its easy to bitch about a man and his work but let us not forget of the years of dedication this man as put in to this hobby of which i love.
In the 80s there was not a single set of Ancient rules what could compete with 5th & 6th Edition that's why every tournament used them,and like wise when he published DBM nothing could touch them and still some would say that now. The problem with Phil Barker he would not listen at a time when DBM had run its course that's why we have FOG for which i am truly grateful and think the rules and army lists are "FANTASTIC"
I will always give the FOG team respect for there sheer hard work and likewise i will always give Phil the due respect he deserves too.

Andy.

[madaxeman]

Who would have thought, after all the years of bitching about the unreasonableness of the Barker army lists, that we'd look back fondly on them, and compare them favourably to the current, costive, prohibitive, pinched and punitive approach to army lists, with it's absurd arbritary approach to every possible question?

Roman auxilia can be MF or HF - what else do you want ???

Joking aside, going back to units inevitably means small stuff falls between the gaps - be that small (historical) units or the sort of interesting (game-based) things a mixture of penny packets of different troop types working together could sometimes deliver.

tim
www.madaxeman.com

[WhiteKnight]

By the way, unless for comp purposes where mutual trust etc is the major issue, there's no reason to base your own army on lists unless you wish to. They are extremely well-researched but represent a consensual view of an authorship group's reading of the evidence.

The rule writers, being mindful of History, would be the first to admit that a) by and large our knowledge of the actual forces in many ancient battles is quite limited and the evidence sometimes written by people who were not there or had motive to bend the truth and b) there would be occasions on which a well-researched army for an actual battle may not fit within the restrictions of a list!

Martin

[carlos]

I don't look back w/ fondness to the DBM lists so don't include me in that "we" please. The only thing I miss from the DBM lists is some of the wackiness like stampedes, flaming pigs and mobs of prisoners. I prefer the more sober approach taken by the FoG team.

[firefalluk]

I'd be interested for Phil to expand on his comments

Fair enough, a snide comment doesn't really cut it as criticism. So, my general criticisms are:

1. that the lists constrain armies far too much:where there could be multiple interpretations, too often, the list writer(s) have enforced only their own view

2. some army lists are - at least to my perception and that of those I've talked to about this f2f - being punished for having been seen as too effective previously, by being excessively downgraded.

3. quite a few possible gradings of troops seem to be ruled out sui generis, without any actual reasoning - examples that spring to mind offhand include armoured pike, dark age superior impact foot, how bow/spear armed troop are handled, and I'm sure a bit more concentration would produce more.

4. Overall, there is a depressing 'sameness about the lists, the variations are ... well I suppose you could qualify them as subtle inflections, but, overall it seems to me that there are actually a lot fewer 'competitively viable' armies than DBM produced.

5. There seem to be some fairly non-rational distinctions about unit sizes (e.g. Arab conquest infantry being sized 8-9? only? oh really? ... or classical armies get small (cheap) units of skirmishers so get to bulk out their attrition point cheaply, but others don't ... this is realistic?)

Please understand, I got as bored with DBM as any of y'all, and wanted a good replacement - and the FOG rules sure look good, it's the army lists that I'm carping about.

cheers
firefall

[Scrumpy]

Don't all army lists reflect the view of their writers ?

It was often joked that you could tell which armies Phil was currently playing if you studied the lists, and I was told an apocryphal tale that he hated pikes after a nasty incident involving his groin and a piano wired pike block.

I agree some of the lists look strange at first glance, but they make some sense when you use them, and if they cut out the cheesey aspect that other games offer list builders that is a bonus imho.

[Polkovnik]

I think the lists are very well done, and give a much higher proportion of useable and competitive armies than DBM did. Personally I'd rather the list authors made an arbitary decision where a troop classification is in question rather than give too many options, as otherwise too many lists end up looking the same. If anything, I think the FOG lists give the players too much choice as to how troops are graded.

[madaxeman]

my comments indenteed with >>

1. that the lists constrain armies far too much:where there could be multiple interpretations, too often, the list writer(s) have enforced only their own view
>> Yep, agree with that. Maybe a reaction against the overly-flexible DBx lists .. ?

2. some army lists are - at least to my perception and that of those I've talked to about this f2f - being punished for having been seen as too effective previously, by being excessively downgraded.
>> I suspect there is some desire to prevent "obscure" armies being "super" armies - whichh happened in pervious sets often due to lack of detailed information. For a mass market game availabe on Amazon and at Borders, I can see this is probably a reasonable position to take as otherwise new players might get teed off their Romans are beaten up by the Obscurist Militia from Never-neverland.

3. quite a few possible gradings of troops seem to be ruled out sui generis, without any actual reasoning - examples that spring to mind offhand include armoured pike, dark age superior impact foot, how bow/spear armed troop are handled, and I'm sure a bit more concentration would produce more.
>>This might be having gamers design the game and planning for balance - ie Armoured pike would just be too good in the game. Dark ages, well, maybe there will be some in the next book?

4. Overall, there is a depressing 'sameness about the lists, the variations are ... well I suppose you could qualify them as subtle inflections, but, overall it seems to me that there are actually a lot fewer 'competitively viable' armies than DBM produced.
>> Part of this may be due to us all not yet being used to know what to look for to make an army "exciting"? Part is definately that there are less armies in each book than in DBM - so the Legions book contains lots of similar armies as does the Ottoman one - but a similarly tightly themed DBx list book would be very, very samey too (The "Romans and their Wb(O)/Sp(I) Enemies book, or the "Cv(S) and some supporting Dailami Book"). I haven't seen the WAB books but they too have tight theming - anyone know how samey they are?

5. There seem to be some fairly non-rational distinctions about unit sizes (e.g. Arab conquest infantry being sized 8-9? only? oh really? ... or classical armies get small (cheap) units of skirmishers so get to bulk out their attrition point cheaply, but others don't ... this is realistic?)
>> I do reckon the "how many small units" question may be one that in retrospect has slipped thru the gaps. But before Graham took the Famous Roman Swarm to Britcon, I'm not sure anyone really realised how big a gap it might prove to be.

Tim

[MCollett]

4. Overall, there is a depressing 'sameness about the lists, the variations are ... well I suppose you could qualify them as subtle inflections, but, overall it seems to me that there are actually a lot fewer 'competitively viable' armies than DBM produced.

It is ironic that while in principle the multidimensional troop description of FoG allows for much greater variety in troop types than the fixed classifications of DBM, in practice there seems to be _less_ variety in FoG armies. Many of the lists do seem to be microscopically differing variants. (I've lost count of the lists which consist of a few armoured cavalry with bow or lance plus lots of unarmoured ones with bow.)

Best wishes,
Matthew

[nikgaukroger]

So, my general criticisms are:

1. that the lists constrain armies far too much:where there could be multiple interpretations, too often, the list writer(s) have enforced only their own view

Depends on how credible we have thought the different intepretations are. I don't think any "mainstream" possibility has been kicked out - in fact I think we've kept in some "wargamers myths" which should have gone to be honest.

2. some army lists are - at least to my perception and that of those I've talked to about this f2f - being punished for having been seen as too effective previously, by being excessively downgraded.

Definitely not a criteria. It'd be very interesting to hear from people who think this has happened and which armies they think it has happened to.

3. quite a few possible gradings of troops seem to be ruled out sui generis, without any actual reasoning - examples that spring to mind offhand include armoured pike, dark age superior impact foot, how bow/spear armed troop are handled, and I'm sure a bit more concentration would produce more.

There is the odd case - armoured pike are one - where we have been pretty tough on the criteria, whereas with other troops we would have been a bit more flexible, in order to avoid creating monsters and to ensure that the historical interactions come out correctly. However, I think the only things that are absolutely ruled out are those which would contravene the basic concepts on which the FoG classifications were bases e.g. there are no HF Bow troops.

4. Overall, there is a depressing 'sameness about the lists, the variations are ... well I suppose you could qualify them as subtle inflections, but, overall it seems to me that there are actually a lot fewer 'competitively viable' armies than DBM produced.

Currently I'd disagree with that - depends on what you call "competatively viable" I guess.

5. There seem to be some fairly non-rational distinctions about unit sizes (e.g. Arab conquest infantry being sized 8-9? only? oh really? ... or classical armies get small (cheap) units of skirmishers so get to bulk out their attrition point cheaply, but others don't ... this is realistic?)

Some of these are about making sure lists are not overly flexible and get the "feel" of how we perceive the armies. The Arab example is quite a good one - if they had been 6-9 (which I think they were initially) with the 1/3 LF being optional they would have been, in our view, too flexible with the possibility of fairly small Bgs running around the table whereas we think they should be in reasonably solid blocks. Now you may disagree with the reasons, but they have been thought about - although there may well be the odd cock uo along the way.

Please understand, I got as bored with DBM as any of y'all, and wanted a good replacement - and the FOG rules sure look good, it's the army lists that I'm carping about.

cheers
firefall

No worries, thanks for taking the time. Hope my answers help with where we are coming from even if they don't put your mind at ease.

[nikgaukroger]

>> I do reckon the "how many small units" question may be one that in retrospect has slipped thru the gaps. But before Graham took the Famous Roman Swarm to Britcon, I'm not sure anyone really realised how big a gap it might prove to be.

Of course the Romans are an army where we very much wanted small BGs as an option ...