Slitherine

Please accept my apology if this has been done before.

Which army is the worst for list checkers? In another Ancients set Medieval German had the reputation of being the worst by a county mile. Is there anything similar in FoG? Principate Roman perhaps? Or are the lists made simple enough to avoid the bear traps?

WotR English. Many list notes to check.

The armies with lots of stuff on the notes are a pain. Principate Roman and Dominate Roman spring to mind.

Others where there are multiple upgrades. Muromachi is a bit of a pain for example.

To be honest, the biggest problem I have is finding the army from the description. There being thirteen books rather than four (to pick a number out of the air) means sometimes you have to do a lot of searching. I keep meaning to print off the army list and what book they are in thingy....

I was on ages finding Muslim Indian Sultanatates

dave_r wrote:To be honest, the biggest problem I have is finding the army from the description. There being thirteen books rather than four (to pick a number out of the air) means sometimes you have to do a lot of searching. I keep meaning to print off the army list and what book they are in thingy....

I was on ages finding Muslim Indian Sultanatates

EotD dave

dave_r wrote:The armies with lots of stuff on the notes are a pain. Principate Roman and Dominate Roman spring to mind.

Others where there are multiple upgrades. Muromachi is a bit of a pain for example.

To be honest, the biggest problem I have is finding the army from the description. There being thirteen books rather than four (to pick a number out of the air) means sometimes you have to do a lot of searching. I keep meaning to print off the army list and what book they are in thingy....

I was on ages finding Muslim Indian Sultanatates

Is a sultanatate a cross between a sultana and a potato?

timmy1 wrote:Which army is the worst for list checkers? In another Ancients set Medieval German had the reputation of being the worst by a county mile.

For this reason, Medieval German was the very first list I wrote for FOG. It ain't perfect but it works. Karsten's German lists in Lost Scrolls and Oath of Fealty are a bit better though.

EotD dave

It's a bit flipping late now...

dave_r wrote:The armies with lots of stuff on the notes are a pain. Principate Roman and Dominate Roman spring to mind.

Others where there are multiple upgrades. Muromachi is a bit of a pain for example.

To be honest, the biggest problem I have is finding the army from the description. There being thirteen books rather than four (to pick a number out of the air) means sometimes you have to do a lot of searching. I keep meaning to print off the army list and what book they are in thingy....

I was on ages finding Muslim Indian Sultanatates

Italian Condotta must be fun to check

Jilu wrote:

dave_r wrote:The armies with lots of stuff on the notes are a pain. Principate Roman and Dominate Roman spring to mind.

Others where there are multiple upgrades. Muromachi is a bit of a pain for example.

To be honest, the biggest problem I have is finding the army from the description. There being thirteen books rather than four (to pick a number out of the air) means sometimes you have to do a lot of searching. I keep meaning to print off the army list and what book they are in thingy....

I was on ages finding Muslim Indian Sultanatates

Italian Condotta must be fun to check

Not too bad actually. Crusaders were worse.

rbodleyscott wrote:

timmy1 wrote:Which army is the worst for list checkers? In another Ancients set Medieval German had the reputation of being the worst by a county mile.

For this reason, Medieval German was the very first list I wrote for FOG. It ain't perfect but it works. Karsten's German lists in Lost Scrolls and Oath of Fealty are a bit better though.

Thank you both.

Three Kingdom Korean looks like one I wouldn't want to have to check.

LambertSimnel wrote:Three Kingdom Korean looks like one I wouldn't want to have to check.

Hmm War of the roses?

Any list where the player who sent the list seems to be using a different list to the one the list checker has...


Being serious, the FoG lists are both clearer and on the whole simpler when compared to another well-known set of army lists. As others have said, complex list notes can take a little longer to check, like for WotR. But even these are laid out by bullet points rather than buried in an enormous paragraph of text - the now legendary Medieval German being a perfect example of this.

Things that make a list checkers life easier:
- renaming the file from "FOG_ArmyListGenerator.xls" or whatever the default name is (including the player name is ideal).
- if it's excel, not saving it as xlsx or whatever latest and greatest file format Microsoft has come up with; stick to excel 2000 format.
- giving the list name, book and page number.
- using the exact troop name from the list, rather than just say "foot".
- putting BGs in order of the troops in the list, makes checking SO much easier.
- clearly indicating if any BGs are allied.

- putting BGs in order of the troops in the list, makes checking SO much easier.

I guess it's horse for courses on some points. Largely I agree with you, except on this one. I much prefer to see lists in order of battle and not order in book.

dave_r wrote:

EotD dave

It's a bit flipping late now...

No, early for next time!