Slitherine

Apologies if this has been brought up already, Im usually a denizen of the FOG PC boards and dont stray over to this side of the fence too often.

Numidians cavalry. With other LH (steppe) cavalry armies, the mounted troops in these lists usually have a choice of being LH OR Cv. I was wondering why Numidians don't have the same option. They did rather well chasing off Roman cavalry while fighting for Hannibal, but under the current FOG lists they can only be LH and any LH, even superior ones, would have an extremely hard time driving off any Cv under the current rules. Even rubbish Roman cavalry!

Surely there is a case for Numidian cavalry forming in closer order to drive off the Romans instead of using their usual skirmish tactics. From a game point of view it would make the Numidians a far more viable list.

Cheers,
Ian

ianiow wrote:Apologies if this has been brought up already, Im usually a denizen of the FOG PC boards and dont stray over to this side of the fence too often.

Numidians cavalry. With other LH (steppe) cavalry armies, the mounted troops in these lists usually have a choice of being LH OR Cv. I was wondering why Numidians don't have the same option. They did rather well chasing off Roman cavalry while fighting for Hannibal, but under the current FOG lists they can only be LH and any LH, even superior ones, would have an extremely hard time driving off any Cv under the current rules. Even rubbish Roman cavalry!

Surely there is a case for Numidian cavalry forming in closer order to drive off the Romans instead of using their usual skirmish tactics. From a game point of view it would make the Numidians a far more viable list.

Cheers,
Ian

I think it's a different argument. For the steppe armies it was "feels like cavalry who can skirmish and charge proper enemy, but might be LH so we'll give the option". For the Numidians there are quite a lot of sources, and (though I'm not personally familiar) the sense seems to be "really good lightly armed skirmishers who could slaughter velites and mob roman cavalry when supported by other mounted". So I can't see them being anything other than LH.

grahambriggs wrote:
I think it's a different argument. For the steppe armies it was "feels like cavalry who can skirmish and charge proper enemy, but might be LH so we'll give the option". For the Numidians there are quite a lot of sources, and (though I'm not personally familiar) the sense seems to be "really good lightly armed skirmishers who could slaughter velites and mob roman cavalry when supported by other mounted". So I can't see them being anything other than LH.

Thanks for the reply Graham. Well I cant really argue against a tonne of research and primary sources. But I still dont feel that FOG caters very well for the Numidian Cavalry. In the current rules 'mobbing' Cavalry can only mean shooting them for many turns or waiting for the Gallic cavalry to put the Romans down to fragmented so that a rear charge can finally go in.

Maybe I am getting this wrong because I am coming from the PC FOG angle where LH are the worst troop type in the game. Maybe tabletop LH are more effective at shooting the enemy to bits. For me it would be nice if perhaps Jav armed LH could be allowed to charge steady enemy. The 'mobbing' of an enemy cavalry unit would certainly be more viable then!

ianiow wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:
I think it's a different argument. For the steppe armies it was "feels like cavalry who can skirmish and charge proper enemy, but might be LH so we'll give the option". For the Numidians there are quite a lot of sources, and (though I'm not personally familiar) the sense seems to be "really good lightly armed skirmishers who could slaughter velites and mob roman cavalry when supported by other mounted". So I can't see them being anything other than LH.

Thanks for the reply Graham. Well I cant really argue against a tonne of research and primary sources. But I still dont feel that FOG caters very well for the Numidian Cavalry. In the current rules 'mobbing' Cavalry can only mean shooting them for many turns or waiting for the Gallic cavalry to put the Romans down to fragmented so that a rear charge can finally go in.

Maybe I am getting this wrong because I am coming from the PC FOG angle where LH are the worst troop type in the game. Maybe tabletop LH are more effective at shooting the enemy to bits. For me it would be nice if perhaps Jav armed LH could be allowed to charge steady enemy. The 'mobbing' of an enemy cavalry unit would certainly be more viable then!

Yes but that's exactly how the Numidians operated. for example, at Cannae, they kept one wing of Roman cavlary occupied while the Spanish/Celt horse smashed the other, rode round the back and tonked the roman cavalry.

In TT FoG LH (in v1) are very good value, and they can charge flanks and rears, though shooting is better.

I think that the key point here for the Numidians is being only javelinmen. LH is a very good value with bows because in V1 it was quite easy to group your fire with them. With javelins they are ok (or a bad value if you don't have enough room) and it is quite hard to reduce the enemy cavalry on shooting alone or leave it prepared for the close combat. Basically you throw 2 dice and you have to impact with both and the enemy has to fail a test usually at +2. I also think that my Numidians under perform compared to their historical counterparts. Maybe if they were superior (I am referring to the ones in Cannae) and possibly also protected, that would fix them a little bit.

There have been some errata's , so most of the army list changes could be part of those errata.

otherwise, why discuss army list changes .

Or we quit FOG and seek another rule were the publisher is willing to listen to his customers

Now let's be serious : no new army list books, no online lists, no addenda, no errata , so why discuss army list changes

No news : is there at least some hope to see the nikephorian's varangian being able to become at least drilled, average, armoured during Basill II reign . You know where it is said they become bodyguards and that Basil trains and drill with them everyday ( before the year 1000 ...). It has been discussed , now please do not say that the histrical text submitted is not enough . I cannot do better .

You're absolutely correct. One only has to read the battle descriptions of the way they were Basil's favored shock troops and basically kicked butt on everyone they fought under Basil including Byzantines, Bulgarians, Georgians, Arabs. Frankly, they should count as superior as well. If anything they probably got less elite during the later period than under Basil when they fought every engagement under the Emperor's watchful eye.

PaulByzan

bahdahbum wrote:No news : is there at least some hope to see the nikephorian's varangian being able to become at least drilled, average, armoured during Basill II reign . You know where it is said they become bodyguards and that Basil trains and drill with them everyday ( before the year 1000 ...). It has been discussed , now please do not say that the histrical text submitted is not enough . I cannot do better .

bahdahbum wrote:Now let's be serious : no new army list books, no online lists, no addenda, no errata , so why discuss army list changes

True

bahdahbum wrote:No news : is there at least some hope to see the nikephorian's varangian being able to become at least drilled, average, armoured during Basill II reign .

Now let's be serious : no new army list books, no online lists, no addenda, no errata , so why discuss army list changes

david53 wrote:

bahdahbum wrote:Now let's be serious : no new army list books, no online lists, no addenda, no errata , so why discuss army list changes

True

bahdahbum wrote:No news : is there at least some hope to see the nikephorian's varangian being able to become at least drilled, average, armoured during Basill II reign .

Now let's be serious : no new army list books, no online lists, no addenda, no errata , so why discuss army list changes

hehehehe I thought the same thing but I contained myself. Glad you threw the stone the first one...

Because , in the very basic V2 version, there are army list changes . I did suppose so intelligent people as you would have noticed

And if we do not try now, it will be never

bahdahbum wrote:Because , in the very basic V2 version, there are army list changes . I did suppose so intelligent people as you would have noticed

And if we do not try now, it will be never

I looked before but IMO an amendment in the V2 rules to certain lists has all the bad aspects. Since lists are imo best kept seperate from rules and the only reason to do this is cause opsrey will not change the lists. IMO V2 should have been kept back till the lists/points could have been changed.

david53 wrote:

bahdahbum wrote:Because , in the very basic V2 version, there are army list changes . I did suppose so intelligent people as you would have noticed

And if we do not try now, it will be never

I looked before but IMO an amendment in the V2 rules to certain lists has all the bad aspects. Since lists are imo best kept seperate from rules and the only reason to do this is cause opsrey will not change the lists. IMO V2 should have been kept back till the lists/points could have been changed.

In which case it would never have happened.

dave_r wrote:

david53 wrote:

bahdahbum wrote:Because , in the very basic V2 version, there are army list changes . I did suppose so intelligent people as you would have noticed

And if we do not try now, it will be never

I looked before but IMO an amendment in the V2 rules to certain lists has all the bad aspects. Since lists are imo best kept seperate from rules and the only reason to do this is cause opsrey will not change the lists. IMO V2 should have been kept back till the lists/points could have been changed.

In which case it would never have happened.

And the problum is, there is little IMO coming through that makes a great deal of difference to the rule set. I bet given and then taken back somewhere elese, I was of the belief that there was very little that required changing in the old rules and non that can justify £25 for another flash rule set.

david53 wrote:And the problum is, there is little IMO coming through that makes a great deal of difference to the rule set. I bet given and then taken back somewhere elese, I was of the belief that there was very little that required changing in the old rules and non that can justify £25 for another flash rule set.

Depends how radical they are willing to be on the sticking points. LH too good, undrilled foot too bad.

make a whish

david53 wrote: Now let's be serious : no new army list books, no online lists, no addenda, no errata , so why discuss army list changes

Amendments to lists could easily be added to the new rulebook or a link could be given to a webpage; both old and new lists being considered "legal". The updates could be presented as extra options rather than superceding the lists in the books.
If anyone wanted it done, it shouldn't be difficult.

I want historical varan gian guards in the nikephorian army list ( I know make a whish )

Sarmaticus wrote:If anyone wanted it done, it shouldn't be difficult.

But the publishers don't want it. So difficulty is not the issue. It won't happen

philqw78 wrote:

Sarmaticus wrote:If anyone wanted it done, it shouldn't be difficult.

But the publishers don't want it. So difficulty is not the issue. It won't happen

Won't that cause problems in the long run? The interaction of historical research and army lists has always seemed to me to be part of the dynamism of the ancients hobby.