Slitherine

Hi,

Curious as the lack of armoured archers in the PR list with the best being protected. Makes my superb A&A Miniature chaps look a little over dressed for just protected,

Reading the rules definition of armoured I would have thought that some of these lads qualified.

Cheers,

Steve

Armoured archers are not common (actually almost unheard of), mail armoured archers with no shield are classed as protected.

In the early days of FoG I was so impressed by armoured archers that I went out of my way to get some nice Ghaznavid ones then at the next version of the lists they dropped to protected

Such is life when you try to get an advantage from testing...

Fair enough Hammy but reading the definitions on page 76 I'd have thought that the PR eastern archers - especially up-armoured to cope with conditions would be classified as armoured, i.e. "Metal armour at least for the head and thorax [yes]- combined, in the case of foot, either with a substantial shield [no] or with additional metallic protection [yes].

I'm not looking at special pleading here for an advantage - protected are probably better value for this army - but I believe the figures accurately model what was worn by 2nd/3rd C Romans out there and they look a lot heavier than just protected.

Cheers,

Steve

If you think those figures are an accurate representation could you point towards some historical source please? I'm afraid that wargames figures aren't enough

stevoid wrote:Fair enough Hammy but reading the definitions on page 76 I'd have thought that the PR eastern archers - especially up-armoured to cope with conditions would be classified as armoured, i.e. "Metal armour at least for the head and thorax [yes]- combined, in the case of foot, either with a substantial shield [no] or with additional metallic protection [yes].Steve

The thorax is the upper chest (incl the lung area) so only point 1 is met. The scale armour extends to some of the upper arm and down to the hips. They have no shield and no additional metallic protection (i.e. for most of the arms or the legs or groin). It's a fine point, but protected seems reasonable.

Just a note on protection - there is no absolute degree of armour coverage that gives a certain armour classification, it is all a bit relative. This avoids getting into ultimately futile arguments based on how far down the arm mail covers and the like.

nikgaukroger wrote:If you think those figures are an accurate representation could you point towards some historical source please? I'm afraid that wargames figures aren't enough

Absolutely! My reference stuff is on loan at the moment but I'll look into it and respond when I get it back. BTW - as you're building this same army Nik, what is your opinion on the amount of armour worn by the archers in question?

Steve

Fanciful

BTW the A&A figures are based on I.P. Stephenson's book on late Roman infantry which is rather devoid of actual evidence for a number of his ideas

nikgaukroger wrote:Just a note on protection - there is no absolute degree of armour coverage that gives a certain armour classification, it is all a bit relative. This avoids getting into ultimately futile arguments based on how far down the arm mail covers and the like.

Surely you're not trying to stop those heady days of 5th, 6th and 7th edition where wargamers would go through all sorts of tourtuous arguements to prove that their cavalry could have a shield; formed wedge, and had lance AND javelin; and were EHC