Slitherine

If anyone is contemplating rebasing their NKE close fighters as HF, don't do it yet. We are contemplating removing the HF option.

Update as of 6/4/08

NKE Egyptian close fighters are MF only
NKE Egyptian archers are MF (with a few LF)
Sherden and other Sea Peoples swordsmen are MF, apart from the NKE Sherden Royal Guard (0-4 bases) which is HF. The NKE also have 0-4 bases of Egyptian Royal Guard HF.

"Invincible Meshwesh" in the Libyan Egyptian army are also be MF. (But there are 0-6 Royal Guard HF).

And those DBM players who have them as Bd(O) can start their pleading now

nikgaukroger wrote:And those DBM players who have them as Bd(O) can start their pleading now

Well just don't rebase any NKE foot until the lists are finalised.

Than you very much for that! Very timely.

I was actually going to start a thread asking how people are finding NKE under FOG as I felt that I'd need to rebase to HI to have any chance of surviving in the open. Now I'll persevere with MI until I hear otherwise.

Would this rebasing warning also apply to the Sherdan?

Cheers,

Steve

stevoid wrote:Would this rebasing warning also apply to the Sherdan?

To be on the safe side, yes, although at the moment they retain the option to be MF or HF.

nikgaukroger wrote:And those DBM players who have them as Bd(O) can start their pleading now

Well as I have some of my NKE as Bd(O), you can put me in the "pleading" group:-)

Seriously, I can go off and check my sources before coming back to argue my case, but what is the difference between MF and HF in FOG terms so I can look for supporting evidence?

Regards

Dave M

MF are less affected by terrain, worse against mounted in the open and at a disadvantage on CTs if fighting HF.

I think Dave M meant what is the historical definiation that makes you HF verswus Mf, not game terms.

hazelbark wrote:I think Dave M meant what is the historical definiation that makes you HF verswus Mf, not game terms.

Yes, that's spot on the money...;-p

Well there is no such thing as a historical definition as HF/MF/etc. aren't historical terms!

Dave has the rules and the differences between HF and MF so he needs to present the evidence that troops meet one or the other.

However, please note that the assumption is that bronze age infantry are MF in order that the interactions with chariotry work.

nikgaukroger wrote: However, please note that the assumption is that bronze age infantry are MF in order that the interactions with chariotry work.

Excellent. So to be HF means the bronze age infantry have to be considerably unusual from the common types.

HF
Sherden/Sea Peoples
Not certain these shouldn't be MF then.

Forgeting when teh bronze age ends the beta lists have
Assyrian guards post 70
Other Assyrain foot from 681
also being HF

hazelbark wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: However, please note that the assumption is that bronze age infantry are MF in order that the interactions with chariotry work.

Excellent. So to be HF means the bronze age infantry have to be considerably unusual from the common types.

HF
Sherden/Sea Peoples
Not certain these shouldn't be MF then.

Nor are we, the jury is out on them at present.

Forgeting when the bronze age ends the beta lists have
Assyrian guards post 70
Other Assyrain foot from 681
also being HF

That would be the Iron Age.

Even in the Bronze Age, however, troops with tower shields or very large round shields pretty much have to be HF. (Ditto Minoan foot for the same reason). The Assyrian foot with smaller shield would still be MF.

This makes some sense now.

Best wishes on your deliberations. Dave, start submitting your research.

any closer to a conclusion on this chaps ?

Its funny you should ask that question,i"ve been at Burton this weekend and i asked RBS the same question his reply was: Its looking like all MF.

Andy.

I suspect the best argument for HF is to make them better in ahisotrical figths versus say knights and that is not an enthusisatic thing as far as I am concerned.

I suspect the best argument for HF is to make them better in ahisotrical figths versus say knights and that is not an enthusisatic thing as far as I am concerned.

So what about the later period ----Bd(o) in DBX speak. Mine are already done that way....and I don't want to rebase.

Its looking like MF for the whole New Kingdom list.

IanB3406 wrote:I suspect the best argument for HF is to make them better in ahisotrical figths versus say knights and that is not an enthusisatic thing as far as I am concerned.

So what about the later period ----Bd(o) in DBX speak. Mine are already done that way....and I don't want to rebase.

I believe that is the whole point of this thread.

Should Egyptian close fighter be heavy foot at any period?

That said there would really be nothing to stop you using figures based 4 to a 15mm deep base as MF anyway, you are allowed 4 figures on an MF base and if you declare them there will not be a problem IMO.

FWIW my Swiss halberdiers are 3 figures to a 20mm base (DBM Bd(X)) and I have no intention of rebasing for FOG, I will just use them as i s and declare it so.

Fortunately I haven't painted my NKE army yet, so I'll just wait until the book comes out.