List Changes

Moderators: terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

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

List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger »

Just to prove things are still ticking over whilst we wait for feedback from the last few comps of this year 8) here is a slightly updated set of list changes that will be part of the rules update.

Image

Image

Image

Image


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

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger »

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

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
RonanTheLibrarian
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:58 am

Re: List Changes

Post by RonanTheLibrarian »

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.
"No plan survives the first contact with the dice."

"There is something wrong with our bloody dice today!"
marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Re: List Changes

Post by marty »

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

Re: List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger »

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?
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger »

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.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Re: List Changes

Post by marty »

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

Re: List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger »

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 :lol:
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger »

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.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Re: List Changes

Post by marty »

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
RonanTheLibrarian
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:58 am

Re: List Changes

Post by RonanTheLibrarian »

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.
"No plan survives the first contact with the dice."

"There is something wrong with our bloody dice today!"
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger »

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).
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
RonanTheLibrarian
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:58 am

Re: List Changes

Post by RonanTheLibrarian »

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.
"No plan survives the first contact with the dice."

"There is something wrong with our bloody dice today!"
Vespasian28
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 477
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:04 pm

Re: List Changes

Post by Vespasian28 »

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

Re: List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger »

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.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: List Changes

Post by nikgaukroger »

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 :D

Cynicism was involved in this addition for sure 8)
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
RonanTheLibrarian
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:58 am

Re: List Changes

Post by RonanTheLibrarian »

nikgaukroger wrote:I'd be interested to know who.
PM sent.
"No plan survives the first contact with the dice."

"There is something wrong with our bloody dice today!"
jonphilp
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:01 pm

Re: List Changes

Post by jonphilp »

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.
Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”