Scrumpy wrote:Do Hammy's French on a Welsh list not count as fantasy list candidates ? ;
No, because they are entirely historical, and the combined Welsh/French army spent 3 days faced off against the English army - although no battle ensued.
The issue re the DBM "Fantasy Welsh" was not the inclusion of French allies, but the fact that the list allowed you to have them in a South Welsh army.
And the fact that in DBM the Welsh can appear as allied commands for Native Americans...
WhiteKnight wrote:...I wouldn't mind if an opponent fielded something in a friendly game that their understanding of a text/archaeological find could justify!...Martin
Agreed. If you pays your points I don't care WHAT you run, but if I was at a comp and asked what army you were running and was told "Inca" I wouldn't expect elepants so would be raising an eyebrow, but I couldn't care if it was in a fun game. The other Martin might even have Incans with slings .
WombatDazzler wrote:no Roman chariots
no Viking berserks
no Spartan elites
probably no Tibetan exorcists, or Incan wardogs
Daz
Yes I miss all of these. From your name I assume you are an Aussie??
If so why not write some competing Aussie Rules. No troops removed form play (sent off), lots of different wierd ways of scoring points, Attrition through injury and make the rest up as you go along. Oh, and IIRC, all the troops must have long hair but no ****ing Sheilas.
philqw78 wrote:
Yes I miss all of these. From your name I assume you are an Aussie??
If so why not write some competing Aussie Rules. No troops removed form play (sent off), lots of different wierd ways of scoring points, Attrition through injury and make the rest up as you go along. Oh, and IIRC, all the troops must have long hair but no ****ing Sheilas.
...because he's from NSW and wouldn't know what f'ing Aussie Rules IS
I'll bite.
Does it really matter weather or not they existed?
Were there enough of these cataphract-chariot things to make up an independent battlegroup?
Were they used as anything other than a stratagem?
Did they have any independent effect on any recorded battle?
I'm not an expert, but I think the answer is 'no' for all three questions....
Including them as a troop type in FoG would say 'yes' to all of these questions. This would be an error.
As a contrast, compare Achaemenid style Scythed chariots. They would answer "yes" to all of these questions (though they usual effect was to help lose the battle).
Instead, think of them like this (and this goes for Viking Berserks, etc):
Model these cool things into your battlegroups and command stands. They have no obvious rule effect, but contribute to the rather vague classification of "superior" as well as command rerolls and modifiers. When a viking commander "bolsters" a battlegroup perhaps he's adding a few berserks to the front line. When a superior cavalry unit rolls well and defeats some elephants, perhaps it's because of a few cataphract-chariot dudes. A little imagination goes a long way. "Superior" is left rather vague and can mean different things. Some troops may be superior to others for many different reasons -- better men, better quality equipment, better tactics, better local-level formations, better motivation, better training, better junior officers ... and so much more.
A mistake would be to include such things as battlegroups, and give them effects they didn't have at the scale represented. This has been done with other rules sets, and players will use these unique devices in ways they were never intended, in order to win more games in ways that Romans never won battles.
I'd be very sad to see that happen here.
Agreed, I think the best way of representing the Currus Drepanus would be to have just one within a battlegroup and that its treated no differently than the other troop types its with.
[/quote]
.
