Slitherine

Ethan, agree it should not matter using bases that are deeper than intended but shallower than intended cause problems with aligment, stepping forwards etc. Yes it can be done but it is hard work for the players (if I want the players to work hard I will choose DBMM instead...)

Rebasing from a smaller to a larger base is not that onerous. You only need to stick a larger base under the smaller and fill the "step" with some filler to make it a gentle slope or curve.

Rebasing to a smaller base is not necessary as deeper-than-normal bases are allowed (in Appendix 1) if the figures are on stands that are too deep.

No plan to rebase as the army is viable in DBM. Might consider sabots but not that many.

timmy1 wrote:No plan to rebase as the army is viable in DBM. Might consider sabots but not that many.

Might be worth modifying Appendix 1 in FOG 2.0 to explicitly allow shallower depths. In that case I suppose stepping forward would have to use the actual base depth, not theoretical (and this should be stated). Alternatively allow all troops to step forward 2 MU even if it breaks up the BG. BGs can already lose continuity due to partial interpenetration, so it's not as if it is a fundamental principle.

waldo wrote:

dave_r wrote:If we are in the process of thinking about V2.0 of FoG, I was wondering if we needed a V2.0 of army lists.

I would hope an errata would be sufficient as I don't want to buy 13 more army books.... What do we think needs the most attention? I suspect the Romans in four's might need some attention - is there anything else?

Whatever happened to the Bactrian Greek bow (I know it was lost in DBM)? Szekelers get a choice of 7 types of cavalry/light horse to allow for various interpretations - but no alternative for Bactrian Greek lance/bow cavalry?

Walter

maybe someone grubbing in the dirt with a little hammer and a puffer brush found something definititve?

expendablecinc wrote:maybe someone grubbing in the dirt with a little hammer and a puffer brush found something definititve?

Its far too easy to imagine Nik with a little hammer and a puffer brush.

philqw78 wrote:

expendablecinc wrote:maybe someone grubbing in the dirt with a little hammer and a puffer brush found something definititve?

Its far too easy to imagine Nik with a little hammer and a puffer brush.

Putting my make up on in the morning ...

nikgaukroger wrote:Putting my make up on in the morning ...

Would need a bigger hammer

Phil, that is an image that I shall try to file away with those of Briggs and Morgan in their finery - very far away...

nikgaukroger wrote:Putting my make up on in the morning ...

Perhaps you could give me a makeover Nik

timurilenk wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Putting my make up on in the morning ...

Perhaps you could give me a makeover Nik

Using the archeologist's hammer, or the paleontolgist's?

philqw78 wrote:Using the archeologist's hammer, or the paleontolgist's?

Ruby Hammer

The "Bactrian Greek" bow interpretation is still there. But you need to look in the separate Indo-Greek list.

And it's there in DBMM as well, in the Indo-Greek subsection of the shared list.

Same as above in DBM 1998 list.

Looks like it's there in DBM 1993 list too. The difference compared to later DBx being that it is Cv(S) not (O), and that it is available to both Graeco-Bactrian and Graeco-Indian flavours.

So it's not been forgotten about. What appears to have happened is that over the years there has been a greater understanding gained (hopefully) of the differences between two related but distinct entities and lists have evolved to reflect this fact.

lawrenceg wrote:

Mehrunes wrote:Early Germans desperately need said attention.

Yes, with 4 BGs of 4 drilled armoured MF they need cutting back a bit.

It is rumoured that there are people out there who don't want to play some special campaign lists over and over again only because they are 'hard as nails'.
Or especially for you: Of course the main list needs those attention. I would like to play Early Germans and have a chance without taking Roman drilled troops with me every time.

You bet Nic. The Byzantines from Decline and Fall and Swords and Scimitars need serious revision IMHO. But then everybody already knows my opinion on that. Happy to devote whatever time and effort is needed on that project.

I do agree but eveybody knows that

lawrenceg wrote:
Might be worth modifying Appendix 1 in FOG 2.0 to explicitly allow shallower depths. In that case I suppose stepping forward would have to use the actual base depth, not theoretical (and this should be stated). Alternatively allow all troops to step forward 2 MU even if it breaks up the BG. BGs can already lose continuity due to partial interpenetration, so it's not as if it is a fundamental principle.

If anyone is that fussed about the extra 10mm of occasionally stepping forward, they are probably the same people who would choose to rebase....

I am quite happy with a V2 of the rules and an errata sheet for the lists. Lets not go all GW.

I've said it before.....

Give the Incas their slings back!

I cant help but feel the most succesfull empire the Americas ever produced (at least pre 20th century) cops an absolute beating from the interpretation stick in BandG! Having said that, I just bought 150 or so more of them so I can field them in FOG, but I'm a glutton for punishment and hope to field them in FOGR as well, where they will no doubt be a real top tier army.

I know the list books claim the troops had clearly defined roles in battle but deep in my cynical heart I suspect this was a misguided game balance decision (ie we dont want a whole army with a free shooting capability that can fire 4"). After all how much do the sources really tell us about exactly who was doing what in an Inca army?

The other one in this list that really grates is the fairly uniquely restrictive prohibition on the poor LF. It amounts to a tease.IE looks like you can get a whole lot of cheap units till you read the list notes and wham its gone! How about "The number of average MF LS units may not exceed the number of average sling units" as a less restrictive alternative?

If nothing else consider my poor opponents who will eventually tire of my "I might of had you if I had sling" rants at the end of our games.

Martin

If anyone is that fussed about the extra 10mm of occasionally stepping forward, they are probably the same people who would choose to rebase....

I would fuss, especially if it means being in a zoc or not . 10 mm is 1 cm .... it might make a very big difference . I would not fuss in a freindly game but during a tournament it is very important ( or might be ... )

bahdahbum wrote:

If anyone is that fussed about the extra 10mm of occasionally stepping forward, they are probably the same people who would choose to rebase....

I would fuss, especially if it means being in a zoc or not . 10 mm is 1 cm .... it might make a very big difference . I would not fuss in a freindly game but during a tournament it is very important ( or might be ... )

There's a link on my site to companies who sell new bases on eBay then - you might be needing some !

http://www.madaxeman.com/auction_listin ... stings.php