Slitherine

By special rules I mean additional to the ones in the rule book. Scythed chariots are covered by the rules and there are to be no additional ones in the supplements hence Phil's suggestion could not be included.

I believe the war rhinos were on the Persian side, along with elephants, mutants, and naptha throwers. Perhaps the EAP should have a "point pool" where for 15% of the army they could create whatever they want....

Of course the Spartan dude just one-shotted that war rhino so not very effective...

Hey if we are going to allow a hostage screen- how about Arty's monks!

Actually, I think these little odd bits add a little flavor to the lists and I sadly miss them in FoG...

vsolfronk wrote:Hey if we are going to allow a hostage screen- how about Arty's monks!

Actually, I think these little odd bits add a little flavor to the lists and I sadly miss them in FoG...

I agree, Vince. Notwithstanding the question of whether there were enough of [oddball troops] to make up a BG, I think that the FoG lists have been deliberately made a little bit vanilla in order to reduce the chance of extra-potent lists such as Ugarits (from DBM). Both a good thing and a bad thing at the same time.

Marc

I don't think that it is any of the little/small interesting bits in the Ugies that make it unbalanced, but a major part of the troop composition allowed within the Ugie list itself. These things come up when rules/army lists are newly created- like

The chain gun archery towers of the Burmese when 7th Ed came out ("the most completely and thoroughtly playtested ancient rules")....

vsolfronk wrote:I don't think that it is any of the little/small interesting bits in the Ugies that make it unbalanced, but a major part of the troop composition allowed within the Ugie list itself. These things come up when rules/army lists are newly created- like

The chain gun archery towers of the Burmese when 7th Ed came out ("the most completely and thoroughtly playtested ancient rules")....

And yet as a long time 7th and Warrior player you didn't see Burmese all that much. In recent years of Warrior in Australia the only time you ever saw any Burmese elephants was one player who favoured Ming Chinese with Burmese Allies. He won a lot because he was a good player, not because of the shooting density on a very narrow frontage of the table!

Adrian

vsolfronk wrote:I believe the war rhinos were on the Persian side, along with elephants, mutants, and naptha throwers. Perhaps the EAP should have a "point pool" where for 15% of the army they could create whatever they want....

LOL, I didn't actually see 300, the trailer was enough to send me into semi-hysterical fits of laughter. On the other hand, given that we have rules for elephants, what's to prevent just using any animal figures one wants and the elephant rules? If they function exactly the same, what do cosmetics matter? It could be giant chickens...

vsolfronk wrote:Of course the Spartan dude just one-shotted that war rhino so not very effective...

Hey, it was a 1-figure BG and it failed the deathroll, no?

vsolfronk wrote:Hey if we are going to allow a hostage screen- how about Arty's monks!

Actually, I think these little odd bits add a little flavor to the lists and I sadly miss them in FoG...

Monks? Shao Lin or Japanese Warrior Monks? Tibetans? Or maybe Monkeys, flying ones, like in Wizard of Oz, oooooohhhh

Monks? ......................... Tibetans?

They were exorcists, not monks, completely different, so obviously worth putting in

vsolfronk wrote:
Hey if we are going to allow a hostage screen- how about Arty's monks!

They should be part of your camp.

I am sure its been said but how about mob? I cant agree with impact foot for prisoners although this would be a great idea for the fantasy version . Mob as a missle screen would work possibly against enemys with foot bows

The conversation has now officially come full circle.

Cheers,
Scott

I play Mongols and would never want to field either of these options, and can't imagine anyone else wanting to.

If full siege rules were to come out I would like to see this type of thing added to some of the earlier Mongol lists (I don't recall reading about them doing this as much in Russia or the Middle East), but otherwise I would not waste points on this even to increase my break point!

Thread Necromancy.

Nik,

Has there been any more thought on the representation of the hostage screens for the earlier e.g. circa 1210-1225 AD Mongol Conquest armies.

I ask because I'm painting up my 28mm Mongols and got to the stage where I need to base my "Hostages".

Are they likely to be part of the list and if so are they 'mob"

I agree with earlier posters that Mob - Poor- Unprotected - Undrilled probably overstates their usefulness - and would probably lead to them being used unhistorical as filler.

Would it be possible to charge them as mob but asterisk them that they don't contribute to the BG total?

Pete

OhReally wrote:I thought the hostages were more used against forts and in sieges?

I also thought that was the case when the captives had almost certain death if they went forward as opposed to an absolutely certain death if they fell back.

plc wrote:Thread Necromancy.

Nik,

Has there been any more thought on the representation of the hostage screens for the earlier e.g. circa 1210-1225 AD Mongol Conquest armies.

Yes, there aren't any.

nikgaukroger wrote:

plc wrote:Thread Necromancy.

Nik,

Has there been any more thought on the representation of the hostage screens for the earlier e.g. circa 1210-1225 AD Mongol Conquest armies.

Yes, there aren't any.

Because they were used in sieges.

Thanks Nik and Richard.

Saves some painting.

Pete

Any thought to rule variations for the hostage screens that were used as shields in battle?

I'm with Pete in that it would e nice to see some mobs fielded not as filler but as genuinely expendable troops.

I haven't checked the sources recently but I was disappointed that the Timurid mob are more likely to be baggage guarders rather than driven forth.

Cheers,

Steve

Try
viewtopic.php?t=8519
As something I dreamt up for the wierd troop types that the rule writers don't want. About third post.

philqw78 wrote:Try
viewtopic.php?t=8519
As something I dreamt up for the wierd troop types that the rule writers don't want. About third post.

Good luck.

There was plenty of talk about the chatti when that list came out. Outright disbelief and disappointment given the generosity given to the Gauls and Ancient Brits. An option for some Superiors in the errata is all it would take to add a little consistency for lists of the same era there.

Steve

The Chatti need something.

They were alleged to be more disciplined than the other Germans, supposedly actually having officers and following their orders, rather than the usual screaming, foaming-at-the-mouth zerg rush most of us imagine.