Eastern Lists - market research

[Phaze_of_the_Moon]

I recognize the following is all just my own opinion, but I might not be the only one who thinks this way and, without getting into any flame wars or anything, it is a viewpoint that should be mentioned.

My honest and real opinion is that the "ancient and medieval wargames" world should end at the Volga, Indus and Sahara and anything outside that should be covered by a seperate set of rules with its own tournaments and not be mixed together.
And, actually, you could say the same for the era before (pick a data) c. 700-500 BC and again after (pick a date) c. 500-900 AD.

I think as a hobby we lost something all those years ago when the 6th ed lists came out and suddenly we had this plethora of armies from all over the world covering three thousand years of history and the Pharoahs started fighting the Yorkists and Lancastrians, or the Japanese fighting the Moors.

All that breadth is fine played on its own, but the comprimises made to fit it all in under one rule set and worse yet into the same open tournament environment are just a big turn off for me, and truthfully for a lot of people who are into those historical eras and play miniatures but look at ancients as something of a pariah for that very reason.

I don't think your post is on topic in this thread. The topic is: there will be one or two eastern army books published, which armies should be included and how should they be split? If you want to rant about the premise of the game you should start an new topic.

Your thesis is valid: why should I as a Legate have a strategy to defeat knights or longbow, troop types that are inconceivable to me. But the same can be said inside your period: why should I as a Camillan Legate have a strategy to defeat a Dominate legion?

The success of 6th, 7th, and DBM rest on their inclusiveness. To refight Arsuf it may most accurate to use Shattered Lances, but to wander into a club and find an opponent for ones Ayyubids it would be better to play FoG, encountering those vile Crusaders is a bonus.

It is a niche hobby as it is, don't make the niches smaller. I will cheerfully play against skeletons, or orcs if it keeps the hobby alive.

[babyshark]

I recognize the following is all just my own opinion, but I might not be the only one who thinks this way and, without getting into any flame wars or anything, it is a viewpoint that should be mentioned.

My honest and real opinion is that the "ancient and medieval wargames" world should end at the Volga, Indus and Sahara and anything outside that should be covered by a seperate set of rules with its own tournaments and not be mixed together.
And, actually, you could say the same for the era before (pick a data) c. 700-500 BC and again after (pick a date) c. 500-900 AD.

I think as a hobby we lost something all those years ago when the 6th ed lists came out and suddenly we had this plethora of armies from all over the world covering three thousand years of history and the Pharoahs started fighting the Yorkists and Lancastrians, or the Japanese fighting the Moors.

All that breadth is fine played on its own, but the comprimises made to fit it all in under one rule set and worse yet into the same open tournament environment are just a big turn off for me, and truthfully for a lot of people who are into those historical eras and play miniatures but look at ancients as something of a pariah for that very reason.

Interesting that you feel that way. One of the real attractions of FoG (and DBx before it) for me is that it offers such a wide range of possible opponents and covers the whole gamut of ancient and medieval history. I like the fact that Pharaoh might fight the Danes.

Marc

[OhReally]

I recognize the following is all just my own opinion, but I might not be the only one who thinks this way and, without getting into any flame wars or anything, it is a viewpoint that should be mentioned.

My honest and real opinion is that the "ancient and medieval wargames" world should end at the Volga, Indus and Sahara and anything outside that should be covered by a seperate set of rules with its own tournaments and not be mixed together.
And, actually, you could say the same for the era before (pick a data) c. 700-500 BC and again after (pick a date) c. 500-900 AD.

I think as a hobby we lost something all those years ago when the 6th ed lists came out and suddenly we had this plethora of armies from all over the world covering three thousand years of history and the Pharoahs started fighting the Yorkists and Lancastrians, or the Japanese fighting the Moors.

All that breadth is fine played on its own, but the comprimises made to fit it all in under one rule set and worse yet into the same open tournament environment are just a big turn off for me, and truthfully for a lot of people who are into those historical eras and play miniatures but look at ancients as something of a pariah for that very reason.

Interesting that you feel that way. One of the real attractions of FoG (and DBx before it) for me is that it offers such a wide range of possible opponents and covers the whole gamut of ancient and medieval history. I like the fact that Pharaoh might fight the Danes.

Marc

Me to the Danish Pharoh: "LET MY PEOPLE GO!"

Sorry couldn't resist...

[rbodleyscott]

suddenly we had this plethora of armies from all over the world covering three thousand years of history and the Pharoahs started fighting the Yorkists and Lancastrians, or the Japanese fighting the Moors.

This is why we have organised the army list books on a thematic basis. If you want a historically plausible matchup all you have to do is use two armies from the same book. Some matchups will not be strictly historical but the culture shock will not be great.

It is still possible to play Pharaohs vs Yorkists, but nothing is forcing anyone to do so. The majority of tournaments so far conducted under FoG in the UK have in fact been thematic.

[warpaintjj]

Mongols, No other reason than they are greatest army ever, in real life if not in games!
Later Muslim Indian, just bought, painted and based a load, implaccable enemies of Timur and endless civil wars
Arab Indian, Arab mini-empire cut off in India slowly assimilating local culture, mental array of troop types, mostly poor!
Khitan Liao, more interesting variant on the Mongols, easily morphed
Ghaznavids, wrong side of India but just amazing troop variants and combos, very popular

So that's my penneth worth, keep up the good work.

JJ

P.S. shame NO flaming camels in the Timurid list, will simply pay for Scythed Chariots and carry on

[rbodleyscott]

Ghaznavids, wrong side of India but just amazing troop variants and combos, very popular

Ghaznavids are in "Decline and Fall", due out in October.

[nikgaukroger]

Arab Indian, Arab mini-empire cut off in India slowly assimilating local culture, mental array of troop types, mostly poor!

Hi, do you have any information that this is based on? Every time I look at these guys I basically draw a blank.

[bertiebeemer]

I imagine that one criteria for inclusion would be availability of models / already existing models in a collection (many people will have PMS figures for example and would therefore EXPECT to see a list for those). 20 years of slowly painting 28mm Dixon's Samurai for example means I will be expecting (at least hoping) to see a list for those bleeders...

Not a comprehensive list but off the top of my head from my own collection:

Various Indian types (using the Classical Indians as a morph one can easily build up the various later Indians) - very common army and plentiful models around

CACS (half an army in the pipeline) - very historical attractive and romantic

CAT - ditto

Early Bulgar - all those stripy trousers

Tibetan - what they said

Khazar - another might morphin monster

Khmer and Cham - my 28 elephants are ready and waiting...

Early Samurai

Khitan Laio - again part of everyone's Mongol Morph, aren't they?!

Mongol Conquest - historical reasons alone should merit their inclusion?

Malays - those great Grumpy's miniatures

Islamic Persian - another morph out of the Ghaznavids and Ilkhanids?

Yuan Chinese - another Mongol Morph

PMS - surely everyone has these chaps?

I think the other Mongols of note are in the other books, IIRC.

As for buying the books, I like collecting the things, so will be getting all of them. Maybe even a second copy of the ones I use a lot, which get tatty and creased and fingermarked... And any with my pictures in too of course. I think I am the typical mug buyer, no?

[domblas]

Khmer & Cham: ignorable !!!!!! blasphem


arg

how can u ignore armies that rules this region for centuries and sculpted their history in such wide ruins. Angkor vat buildings to attest of the size and the power they had.

IMO it is an important unevitable army. And i will add some flesh to debate: were Chams or khmer armies more identicall than irish and scots armies were? Why not 2 armies? ha !

[nikgaukroger]

Rather too late with that comment to influence I'm afraid - we've nearly finished the eastern lists (if I say that often enough I'll start to believe it )

[rbodleyscott]

Rather too late with that comment to influence I'm afraid - we've nearly finished the eastern lists.

And of course, they do include a Khmer and Champa list.

[jhs]

Rather too late with that comment to influence I'm afraid - we've nearly finished the eastern lists.

And of course, they do include a Khmer and Champa list.

Wow, I have to read all the way to the end to get to the punchline--just returned from Angkor Wat, would be disappointed if this weren't the case. Right on!

[Malidor]

Just got to the end and realised I was in a resurrected thread! Oh well, rather than let all this text go to waste (it's mostly redundant if the lists have been chosen) I'll hit the [Submit] button!
.......................................

To answer the OP question:
- Late Samurai. I don't care that they mostly fought each other - I like Samurai, I own Samurai and I like the idea of going as late as possible without bumping into the Arquebus (ie using FoG instead of another system). To clarify - I'll buy whatever FoG book includes a Samurai list; it doesn't have to be this one if they don't fit with the other lists being included.
- Otherwise I have a passing interest in armies from the theme on offer - enough to have a flick through the book to see what they get (and who they are) but maybe not enough to open my wallet.

In response to some of the ideas in this thread:
I believe it all comes down to Themed Tournaments. If all these lists are in the same volume we would have to assume they 'should' be fighting each other more than armies in other books (unless the Themed Tournaments section of our book specifies which armies from the volume are themed opponents and which are not of course). Obviously many kids reading this won't care - but we should still consider the presumed endorsement of which lists are expected to face off against each other even if that presumption is unfair.

Is it an issue? Let's carve up East Asia by period and region based on what's accurate.
Is it not an issue? Chuck a bunch of oddball Asian lists between the covers and grin.

I can't see more than one Asian based army lists being a commercial success. Interest in these types of armies is very limited. Maybe put out a single book covering the main armies of interest with the others being provided free on line. I might buy a single book in this case but no way would I bother getting 2 let alone 3.

I agree; the key here is commercial success. Perhaps this question could be posed to miniature manufacturers; what Asian armies are people asking for at the moment? Are customers waiting for FoG lists to be printed before they will buy figures from your existing Asian range? This will at least give you an indication of what 'new' players are up to (either new to the hobby, new to FoG or new to the theme). Grognards with old lead in the cupboard have probably already spoken here.

Even setting aside the question of interest, I expect that most of the FoG base will buy whatever books are published, if only to have a complete set for tournaments, etc.

Sadly this negates much of the discussion in this thread as it won't matter what's between the covers if the kids will buy anything with FoG stamped on it.

[mellis1644]

Just to be a tease there is always the option of 1 book but bigger than normal

Would I be right in speculating that the feudal book is like this?

I noticed when putting in my pre-order that's it's a little more expensive than the other books. Not that this stopped the pre-order going in to Amazon.

[hammy]

There are more lists in the Feudal book than any of the ones published so far AFAIK.