Slitherine

BlackPrince wrote:I run a Central Asian City States army, and I have not been yet been beaten in four games amongst friends so it is not a true measure but a rough idea. Though it was close last game as one of my generals got knocked of his perch at a very inconvenient point in a close combat fight. My list is;

4xTC
3x 6 LF ave bw
4x 4 LH ave bw (only)
6x 4 CV sup hvy arm lance
1x 4 CV ave hvy arm bw/sw

For the Central Asian City States, "Noble cavalry should be either all Lancers, Swordmen or all Bow, Swordmen".

Yes the Noble are all lancer swordsmen the one BG of CV bw/sw are Persian Exiles allowed in the special campaign option.

Yes I do well because the type of army but it proves the point yes Dark Age lancers armies are fun to use and can win. The hardest fight is against a friend's Viking army if I let my lancers charge his steady shieldwall then 9 times out of 10 you will loose so in this battles my LF are vial to break up that shieldwall.

nikgaukroger wrote:

expendablecinc wrote: One sure way to get the Ghilmenophiles out of the woodwork

Ghilman-ophiles not ghilmen, or ghulam-ophile for the singular

Why so pedantic with an Arabic plural when the rule book consistently refers to 'one dice'? I'm fairly sure 'legionaries' is not the correct Latin plural. Those in glass houses...

Walter

waldo wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

expendablecinc wrote: One sure way to get the Ghilmenophiles out of the woodwork

Ghilman-ophiles not ghilmen, or ghulam-ophile for the singular

Why so pedantic with an Arabic plural when the rule book consistently refers to 'one dice'? I'm fairly sure 'legionaries' is not the correct Latin plural. Those in glass houses...

Walter

Quite true. Especially when dealing with ancient/medieval societies that were mostly illiterate, did not have standardized spellings, oh, and it's a transliteration from a language that lacks vowels.