Slitherine

The secret of mastery of the steppe can now be revealed:

http://www.stairmaster.com/section/stairmaster/

But will there be a list of armies that will be revised either by necessity ( rules changes ) or because our complains have been heard ...( nikephorian army )

Nik

I know this opens an old discussion between us, but I still believe that your decisions regarding the type(s) and grading of Viking and Anglo Danish troops. I still think the option of exchanging the Huscarles for cavalry is far too generous (they should be poor not average in my opinion, given the results of the one occasion they tried) and I'm still not sure about the Vikings using LF to support their HF, given that they probably did not face serious numbers of mounted troops.

Spike

Eh staffslings have dissapeared out of history?

No difference betwwen Burmese EL who have a whole bunch of shooters on their howdah and others that have very few fighters...allow Burmese EL to shoot

The Khmer List still need the Ph'Kak'Men included they are not a myth the did exist and would be classed as unprotected MF undrilled heavy weapon even a group of 4-6 would suffice. They are included on the carvings at Ankor Wat beside all the other troops I cant see the problem.

Cheers

Rise of Rome-

Mid Republican Roman: Any chance we might see some loosening of the 1:4 ratio for the front liners and the Triarii? We know larger legions would increase the other types without adding more Triarii, and from a list builder's perspective, it is a bit of a pain to fit an army nicely into 800/900/1000 whatever points when you are obligated to purchase your core troops in chunks of 14 stands.

Gallic: Did they really fight in seperate units of armored and protected types? This seems to be a holdover from the old WRG lists that classified 3/4 as MC and 1/4 as HC based on the old statement, quoted in AEIR or AMPW. that the Gallic cavalry had 3 retainers per cavalryman... I don't recall reading anywhere that they would fight in seperate units. Maybe allow 4-24 protected up to telemon and 4-12 armored later?

Ancient Spanish: I think someone in the "Player Designed" section might have commented on how few legions poor Sertorius gets.

Later Ptolemaic: 1. Should the Egyptian Phalanx even be allowed, considering this list is post Raphia, and upper Egypt went into revolt during that era? 2. One would expect that the Imitation Legions should replace the phalanx, not be allowed in addition to it. If the Ptolemies were running any sort of Sarissa-armed phalanx near the end of their kingdom, no one seems to have seen fit to remark on it.

Numidian: Maybe an allowance for their close-fighters to be light spear, swordsmen from the second punic war era? I'm not positive what all "Roman Training" would entail, but it would be very strange that the Roman expidition to train Numidian infantry didn't involve some sort of sword training.

Pontic: I think I'm in agreement with the fellow who suggested the Pontic legions should be armored. Certainly non-Roman legions in the Roman army get to be Armored Average, and Pontus did have some initial success with that army.

Classical Indians-

1. The "Swordsmen" option for the infantry seems to correspond with their being possibly equipped with the long sword... is their really any evidence of their greater willingness to fight in the early period (or greater unwillingness to go hand-to-hand in the later period?) Seems to be another WRG holdover... I'd think they should either get it through the whole period or not...

2. (rant mode) Were the Indian Cavalry really -that- bad? I mean, they -did- have close combat equipment, -did- appear as mercenaries in other armies, and -were- considered a necessary component of their own armies long after the chariot was obsolete. Yet the list writers seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to make sure they're going to be down 2 POAs in melee against pretty much everything. Sure, Alexander clobbered them, but he also clobbered Achemenid Persian types you've got rated as armored superior LS Sw, too. Pretty pathetic to see that every Classical Indian army I've ever seen over three rule sets takes the minimum number of cavalry and hides them in the back. Could we give the poor guys the swordsman capabilty? Either that or drop them down to poor... if you think they were -that- bad, make them -that- bad.

Jhykronos wrote:Gallic: Did they really fight in seperate units of armored and protected types?

Of course not, but what makes you think that that is what the classification represents?

Of course all irregular "units" had mixed equipment.

The armour classification under the rules is based on the overall effect.

We give the option for Armoured to represent those bodies with a high proportion of armoured men, and Protected for those that don't.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Jhykronos wrote:Gallic: Did they really fight in seperate units of armored and protected types?

Of course not, but what makes you think that that is what the classification represents?

Of course all irregular "units" had mixed equipment.

The armour classification under the rules is based on the overall effect.

We give the option for Armoured to represent those bodies with a high proportion of armoured men, and Protected for those that don't.

Hmmm... I suppose that might make sense... but why then why the Gauls in particular? The same logic could be applied to every list with Medieval Men at Arms in the books, for example.

Most lists that include medieval men at arms treat them all as heavily armored, but there are several that allow for lighter armored BGs, depicting groups with a higher proportion of lightly protected men. Check Hundred Years War English and Free Companies for example.

My vote is for the restriction in this list that you can only have close combat foot and crossbows in either mixed or separate units should go.

Jhykronos wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

Jhykronos wrote:Gallic: Did they really fight in seperate units of armored and protected types?

Of course not, but what makes you think that that is what the classification represents?

Of course all irregular "units" had mixed equipment.

The armour classification under the rules is based on the overall effect.

We give the option for Armoured to represent those bodies with a high proportion of armoured men, and Protected for those that don't.

Hmmm... I suppose that might make sense... but why then why the Gauls in particular? The same logic could be applied to every list with Medieval Men at Arms in the books, for example.

It is. We judge that the vast majority of bodies of men-at-arms had a high enough proportion of heavily armoured men to get the effect of Heavily Armoured under the rules. Those that didn't don't - see, for example the German lists in Lost Scrolls.

Note also that FOG is a top-down set of rules. We sometimes vary our application of the bottom-up definitions to get the overall historical effect we are aiming at. This policy is stated in the rules. The aim is make the interactions in in-period battles work correctly. Consistency between anachronistic periods is a low prioirty.

Here's hoping my comments on the later Komnenon list noted in the player designed lists section will be taken up, with the later Komnenon army still having options for a substantial proportion of mercenaries eg latinikon and Skythikon but being a essentially Byzantine army with the option to have a substantial contingent of native kavalliaroi knights, including some superior units either battle hardened and/or the Imperial Oikos, some more kontatartoi - plus Serb, Georgian and Turkish ghulam subjects and allies

David

With all the proposed changes for version 2 rules it would be odd not to have the lists amended and therefore published. There are already glaring errors in the exisitng books and these can be amended as well. For example in Swifter than Eagles, the book I am most familar with, here is a error that needs changing:
The Assyrian Empire list allows Superior Armoured drilled Cavalry only after 704 BC (which is correct). However, the Kushite Egyptian allows this troop type after 732 BC, sometime before the Assyrians can have it. The Assyrians conquered Egypt in the 7th century and introduced this more advanced armoured cavalry, so how is it that the Kushites can have the more advanced cavalry before the Assyrians. A date for the Superior Armoured Kushite cavalry needs to be added to the Kushite list, which I would suggest is after 670BC - the time of the Assyrian conquest of Egypt.
The same goes for the Urartian list which allows the Superior armoured cavalry after 750BC and some 46 years before that of Assyria. This is patently wrong and needs to fit in with the Assyrian Empire list.
In fact it would have been better to have all these armoured cavalry as average and then give the Assyrians the option of Superior (with horse armour) at a later date - perhaps in Esarhaddon's reign - say 670BC.

Alas the publishers have decreed that there will not be any new lists - we are told the matter is closed

I suppose when you say closed, that will not be forever. When copies of existing stocks run out, are amendments to be included in a re-print? If not, can amendments start to be published officially on-line?

player wrote:I suppose when you say closed, that will not be forever. When copies of existing stocks run out, are amendments to be included in a re-print? If not, can amendments start to be published officially on-line?

Whether things change at some (distant) time in the future I cannot say - the decision will, however, be commercially driven so unless the publishers think it is profitable it won't happen.

Online amendments - who knows, but I doubt it would be soon if it were to happen at all. It isn't in the picture at present as far as I am aware.

When V.2 comes out is it then expected that everyone has to re-interpret the lists with no official amendements? To change the points; change the MF lists to either unformed or formed foot and decide which is which inter alia. A total disaster if everyone is expected to re-adjust these things independently. I don't think it would be a massive effort to release amendment sheets on-line like the ones that already exist anyway. I would be prepared to assist in doing this on a book or two.

If a FoG 2.0 rulebook is released by Slitherine/Osprey, but the publishers decline to allow any new official army lists, then it won't sell very well.
Many people have mentioned the easy, obvious solution of free online updates/amendments to the army lists. However, this might not be commercially such an obviously good idea to the publishers. Perhaps they need to be nudged in the direction of a DVD tucked in the inside back cover of the book. The DVD could contain all the army list changes in the same format used for the official errata (that is, the changes are listed, not the whole lists), so that the publishers need not fear piracy eating into continued sales of (version 1) army-list books.
And there would be an additional benefit: without adding bulk and expense to the rule book, we could have an appendix of numerous examples - with simple diagrams - of what the rules actually mean in various, complex situations.
My personal bugbear with the current rule book is that it is so parsimonious with the details of how routing and pursuit works. So much so, that after going to some 40-odd competitions I still encounter very experienced players defending bizarre, entirely new-to-me interpretations of how these rules are supposed to work (and often saying, 'well, that's how we've always played it...'). A few more diagrams would have saved hours of umpires' time, never mind the time spent hunting through the rulebook for insight.
A DVD would be cheap (but still look like it was adding lots of value) and would keep the rulebook itself nice and slim.

I suspect the authors are looking at comments and are striving for something intelligent and clarifying rather than useless and frustrating. So I think cautiously optimistic is still in order.