Slitherine

Just to prove things are still ticking over whilst we wait for feedback from the last few comps of this year here is a slightly updated set of list changes that will be part of the rules update.










There may be the odd one added but this is likely to be pretty much it.

The one big addition, should we implement the proposal, would be reclassifying some Light Lancer cavalry to horse.

I would like to suggest three further alterations to the Early Henrician list, for use only with the 1513 army in France, which was of a superior quality to the Flodden army, and to the 1520s armies that were sent to France:

1) allow the option for the King's Spears (the 2-base Gendarme unit) to be superior, provided that both superior infantry units are also fielded, to reflect the fact that they and the Yeomen of the Guard would both be present with the King - if the French can have superior gendarmes, I don't see why the ones who bested them at the Battle of the Spurs should not be superior also;

2) add "mounted archers" to the optional troops, to operate exactly like dragoons (average, unarmoured, bow/---/sword), as these were a vital component of the mounted arm of the English army - either 1 BG of 4 bases, or 2 BGs of 3 bases - at least one unit of Staves is required for the minimum to be available, and all three units of Staves for the maximum to be used; and

3) if four generals are fielded, one must be an "allied" TC (25 points) who can only command non-English units - ie Burgundian horse, landsknechts pike (and arquebus if fielded as non-English) - to reflect (a) the adherence to the "three ward" system, and (b) the refusal of these units to serve under the command of English noblemen - and to counterbalance the upgrades above, I would prevent English commanders from rallying non-English units in any event (ie whether 3 or 4 generals are used).

You might also want to consider adding the mounted archers option to French armies of this period (say pre-1520 and maybe only in France?), as I believe that they used them as well during this campaign.

Sling for Inca?

Sling is even less effective than before and "Colonies and Conquest" is now packed with armies with free Bw* or Javelin.

Martin

marty wrote: Sling is even less effective than before

Are you perhaps making an assumption on whether a proposal will be implemented when you say that?

One addition to the document I posted above that I'd like to mention will be:

"Any list that includes a minimum number of Dragoons that must be fielded has this minimum removed. E.g 3-8 becomes 0-8."


We feel that given the significant changes to the way Dragoons work that this is appropriate.

Quite possibly.

The range the LI get to fire their sling at is not, however, the primary issue. It's the main Inca infantry been the red-headed step children of the Americas that is the problem.

Martin

I appreciate your point of view, however, the list writer had a different view of how best to represent the Inca foot (as is briefly outlined in the list notes) and I do not have the knowledge to challenge that (or the time to weigh up arguments I'm afraid). On that basis I will be leaving things as they stand.

If we were undertaking a major review of lists things may well be different, but that is not the case I'm afraid. Affects some lists I'd like to change as well so at least I'm annoying myself as well

RonanTheLibrarian wrote:I would like to suggest three further alterations to the Early Henrician list, for use only with the 1513 army in France, which was of a superior quality to the Flodden army, and to the 1520s armies that were sent to France:

1) allow the option for the King's Spears (the 2-base Gendarme unit) to be superior, provided that both superior infantry units are also fielded, to reflect the fact that they and the Yeomen of the Guard would both be present with the King - if the French can have superior gendarmes, I don't see why the ones who bested them at the Battle of the Spurs should not be superior also;

2) add "mounted archers" to the optional troops, to operate exactly like dragoons (average, unarmoured, bow/---/sword), as these were a vital component of the mounted arm of the English army - either 1 BG of 4 bases, or 2 BGs of 3 bases - at least one unit of Staves is required for the minimum to be available, and all three units of Staves for the maximum to be used; and

3) if four generals are fielded, one must be an "allied" TC (25 points) who can only command non-English units - ie Burgundian horse, landsknechts pike (and arquebus if fielded as non-English) - to reflect (a) the adherence to the "three ward" system, and (b) the refusal of these units to serve under the command of English noblemen - and to counterbalance the upgrades above, I would prevent English commanders from rallying non-English units in any event (ie whether 3 or 4 generals are used).

You might also want to consider adding the mounted archers option to French armies of this period (say pre-1520 and maybe only in France?), as I believe that they used them as well during this campaign.

Sorry but (2) is right out - in essence it was discussed when the rules and lists were originally written and for various reasons it was a no (not least that such mounted infantry did not behave in the same was as Dragoons).

(3) is the sort of thing we didn't want in the FoG:R lists.

(1) I'll have a think about allowing them as Superior as a general option - no need to hedge it around with caveats IMO.

Just sad that the change are making them, relatively, even worse.

Oh well I suppose the wait for a rules system/set of lists for ancients/renaissance where there is a reason for Inca to take the table will continue. It has been many a year....

Martin

nikgaukroger wrote: Sorry but (2) is right out - in essence it was discussed when the rules and lists were originally written and for various reasons it was a no (not least that such mounted infantry did not behave in the same was as Dragoons).

(3) is the sort of thing we didn't want in the FoG:R lists.

I don't understand the rejection of (2), can you give me some idea of what was said? As to them not behaving like dragoons, they rode into battle on lower-quality horses, dismounted to fight, occupied difficult terrain, and supported their own horse. In what way is this not behaving like dragoons? Given that they were not far off 10% of the English army, it seems odd to discount them.

Could you expand on your answer to (3) and explain why not? The friction between the English and their German allies was widely noted.

OK, bit of a quick and dirty response but I'm afraid its all I have time for.

(2) - they rode up and dismounted and that was that; Dragoons could (but did not always) remount and go elsewhere to shoot again (examples have been stated over the years and I mentioned one in a topic on Dragoons as part of this update a while ago). Clearly this is a classic YMMV issue, but the rules team were clear on it and I still am so am leaving it.

(3) - basically where we thought such friction was both on the battlefield and caused enough issues to warrant representation we have allied contingents (again, clearly a YMMV issue when to apply this), we didn't want odd list specific arrangements (no doubt somebody will now point one out as I doubt we were 100% consistent).

So I guess ultimately it is a case of YMMV when interpreting the evidence - and mine does from yours in these cases (FWIW I can see where you are coming from and they were valid to raise).

nikgaukroger wrote:OK, bit of a quick and dirty response but I'm afraid its all I have time for.
<snip.>
So I guess ultimately it is a case of YMMV when interpreting the evidence - and mine does from yours in these cases (FWIW I can see where you are coming from and they were valid to raise).

Not at all, thanks for taking the time to respond. Just for the record, my opinions were shaped by talking to an expert on the 1513 army (I'll PM you his name if you want) and not just from my own reading, but I see where you are coming from, too.

"Any list that includes a minimum number of Dragoons that must be fielded has this minimum removed. E.g 3-8 becomes 0-8."

We feel that given the significant changes to the way Dragoons work that this is appropriate.

The cynic in me suggests that having emasculated them we don't want to foist them on anybody

RonanTheLibrarian wrote:
Just for the record, my opinions were shaped by talking to an expert on the 1513 army (I'll PM you his name if you want) and not just from my own reading, but I see where you are coming from, too.

I'd be interested to know who.

Vespasian28 wrote:

"Any list that includes a minimum number of Dragoons that must be fielded has this minimum removed. E.g 3-8 becomes 0-8."

We feel that given the significant changes to the way Dragoons work that this is appropriate.

The cynic in me suggests that having emasculated them we don't want to foist them on anybody

Cynicism was involved in this addition for sure

nikgaukroger wrote:I'd be interested to know who.

PM sent.

Hi,

To be fair to Vespasian I no longer field any dragoons in my TYW or ECW armies unless I have spare points, before the rule change they were always present. As a response to an issue that i have never encountered on the table top, the rule change has emasculated this troop type. A missed opportunity.