New Kingdom Egyptian Basing Warning

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 23070
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

New Kingdom Egyptian Basing Warning

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:51 am

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).
Last edited by rbodleyscott on Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:24 pm, edited 4 times in total.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:56 am

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

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 23070
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:01 am

nikgaukroger wrote:And those DBM players who have them as Bd(O) can start their pleading now :twisted:
Well just don't rebase any NKE foot until the lists are finalised.

stevoid
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:03 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Post by stevoid » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:15 am

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

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 23070
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:33 am

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.

davem
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:49 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by davem » Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:55 pm

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

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:37 pm

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

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark » Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:11 am

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

davem
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:49 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by davem » Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:06 am

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

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:54 am

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.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:28 pm

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

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 23070
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:11 pm

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.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark » Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:46 pm

This makes some sense now.

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

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2968
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by madaxeman » Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:20 pm

any closer to a conclusion on this chaps ?
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

andy63
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:59 am
Location: Mansfield. Notts.

Post by andy63 » Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:08 pm

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.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark » Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:19 am

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.

IanB3406
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:06 am

Post by IanB3406 » Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:15 pm

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.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:26 pm

Its looking like MF for the whole New Kingdom list.

hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy » Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:26 pm

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.

Ironhand
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:34 am

Post by Ironhand » Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:54 pm

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

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”