Slitherine

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?

Correct - should be allowed 2s and 4s, just like the early one...

Great idea Dave.

Early Germans desperately need said attention.

Mehrunes wrote:Early Germans desperately need said attention.

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

If FoG 2 works the only lists that need attention are the barbarians in LegIrons and trumpets.

The Brits should be able to beat Ceasar. They did. The Germans should have a chance, despite their penchant for sausage, because the put up a decent fight as well.

And add some character. I have been through many things before that could be added.

dave_r wrote: I would hope an errata would be sufficient as I don't want to buy 13 more army books....

I have a feeling new books will make themselves felt..................

philqw78 wrote:If FoG 2 works the only lists that need attention are the barbarians in LegIrons and trumpets.

I'd be very surprised if people think only those would be revision candidates

david53 wrote: I have a feeling new books will make themselves felt..................

Well the list writers haven't heard anything yet, unlike the rules team. However, I guess the sort of things written in this topic may well indicate to Slitherine whether revised lists are something the punters are interested in, and if so the best way to do that could then be considered. FWIW, and based on exactly zero inside knowledge, I think we are safe to say there won't be 13 revised list books

I think we are safe to say there won't be 13 revised list books

Good news !

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.

Paul G

nikgaukroger wrote:

philqw78 wrote:If FoG 2 works the only lists that need attention are the barbarians in LegIrons and trumpets.

I'd be very surprised if people think only those would be revision candidates

david53 wrote: I have a feeling new books will make themselves felt..................

Well the list writers haven't heard anything yet, unlike the rules team. However, I guess the sort of things written in this topic may well indicate to Slitherine whether revised lists are something the punters are interested in, and if so the best way to do that could then be considered. FWIW, and based on exactly zero inside knowledge, I think we are safe to say there won't be 13 revised list books

PaulByzan wrote:You bet Nic. The Byzantines from Decline and Fall and Swords and Scimitars need serious revision IMHO.

Well I'm not surprised to hear that

I am surprised it took so long for you to post

I Think its difficult to comment on the lists without knowing the extent of the V2 rules revisions. A fix in one may make a change to the other unecessary.

eg changing the skilled sword vs sword and armour POA relationships may keey the barbarian apologists happy. As a general principle however I woul like to see a consistant approach to adding flavour to the fairly simple army lists in wolves and StE when compared to the american book. ie giving some facility for a guard/veteran BG or two of superiors in what is otherwise a mass of mediocrity.

If superior is increased in cost along the lines of Fog R this may not even be necessary.

In terms of the 'swarmy' romans - a change could be to either ammend the calculation of the army break point (capping based on total army cost) or to force the swine into BGs of six at a minimum.

I dont think light horse skirmisher lists need ammending in any way. Having skirmishers hard to break decisively woudl be expected. Scoring systems would be a better fix for this. eg evade off table = 2ap.

I dont know what the fixes shoudl be to the Byzantine lists? Whats wrong with them other than they are not worth the points even agaisnt contemporary enemies. The lists seem ok. Many of the CAV heavy Byzantines are armoured average and lancer/Bow double armed. a simple change in the rules to make double armed BGs non shock and to increase superiority may have a side effect of making byzantines reliable once again. I have a Thematic Byzantine army and it woudl be good for it to be competitive.

expendablecinc wrote:I Think its difficult to comment on the lists without knowing the extent of the V2 rules revisions. A fix in one may make a change to the other unnecessary.

I would expect, rules changes aside, that many players have a number of lists that they feel could do with changing for basic historical reasons - such as Paul with the Byzantines.

Whilst surprised, perhaps I should be gratified that so few suggestion have been made

I will mention one thing I'd like to do - where we hedged between HF and MF for "backward compatibility" reasons, I'd like to be definite one way or the other based on what we think is right. The rules can cope with non-standard basing so existing basing isn't an issue, and we went with what was right for the Chinese and the world didn't end.

VMadeira wrote:

I think we are safe to say there won't be 13 revised list books

Good news !

He didn't rule out the possibility of there being more...

classical indian !
only 6 lf
only 2 sub general
you are protected or unpro with a sword

three things together unique in all list book !
here no doubt help this army while sometimes text are : "without certitude, we let the option to choose between..."

marc from the STEWIM (save the elephants or without me)

>three things together unique in all list book !

So it's an army with a totally unique flavour.

Surely that's a good thing???

Although I feel I should point out that some of the Roman lists have even fewer LF than that - if you ignore the LF forming rear rank of the mixed BGs.

Elephants in BG's of 3 would make them a lot less brittle

El 3 dice per base in 2 base BG is probably more realistic

Nik 'we went with what was right for the Chinese and the world didn't end'.

Well maybe not for some. However for me it means I am unlikely to ever play Chinese in FoG as I am not rebasing Chin or any of my other chinese armies where the majority of the foot are not already MF. Rebasing Tercio, PoW, and Gush for FoG:R has been enough for me...

timmy1 wrote:Nik 'we went with what was right for the Chinese and the world didn't end'.

Well maybe not for some. However for me it means I am unlikely to ever play Chinese in FoG as I am not rebasing Chin or any of my other chinese armies where the majority of the foot are not already MF. Rebasing Tercio, PoW, and Gush for FoG:R has been enough for me...

Use them as is, it really shouldn't matter from a game play perspective.

I think this is really the way to go. If something should be MF, HF or whatever to fit the rules, go for it with a suitable note to keep the rebasing to a minimum. A simple "treat Qin based as HF as MF for all other purposes" would be fine.

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