Points question and discussion

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:37 pm

FC CnC (cav)
Tc (Cav)
Tc (INF)

2x6base HF Legionaires armoured, superior, drilled, Imp./skilled sw.
1x6base HF Leg. arm., average, dr, IMP/s.s.
3x6base MF Auxilia, armoured, average, drilled, Lt. spear/sword
2x6base LF Aux, protected, average, drilled, bow
2x6base Cav Armoured, average, drilled, lt.spear/sword
1x4base LH unprot., average, drilled(do not have the list so cannot remember if drilled or undrilled) Bow
Fort. camp

No real need for an FC with this army. IMO all your BG except the LF are better in 4's. They are much more manouverable. And it gives a bigger BG count for army break. Being armoured they are very difficult to shoot a base off, nigh on impossible. You have an error with what you have for LF though. There are no LF prot Bw.

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:29 pm

msuspartan wrote:Ok, question for looking at the way FoG is played (sorry, old DBx player coming to the Light side) here is what I have for my list. I do not know how commanders are used in this AND their effectiveness in the game. (honestly have not played but need to paint up me army first)

FC CnC (cav)
Tc (Cav)
Tc (INF)

2x6base HF Legionaires armoured, superior, drilled, Imp./skilled sw.
1x6base HF Leg. arm., average, dr, IMP/s.s.
3x6base MF Auxilia, armoured, average, drilled, Lt. spear/sword
2x6base LF Aux, protected, average, drilled, bow
2x6base Cav Armoured, average, drilled, lt.spear/sword
1x4base LH unprot., average, drilled(do not have the list so cannot remember if drilled or undrilled) Bow
Fort. camp

All told 800points exact....surprise!!! (per excel sheet, nice work to Dader!!)

I tried to keep units at 6 base for survivability and use the LH for harrasment, camp capture or for stop gap.

Since the game mechanics are unfamiliar I tried to go with a combined arms approach since in FoW that is what wins most games.
Thanks for all of your input. It is most valuable and appreciated. Any critiques are welcome.

Is this Principate? I don't think you get average legionaries that are also skilled sword in any list.
I would use more legionaries, much more. The problem is, everyone knows they are tough as nails, so everyone tries to avoid them and kill the support cast instead. IMO the key is to make sure you have only little support cast, so the opponent can't win without killing a few legionary BGs. That way he HAS to fight them. I would also use most legionaries (at least if superior) in 4's, maybe keep two units of 6 for the staying power. Same goes for the Cv, you only need them for flank protection and support, 4's are sufficient (and since they are light spaer you may occasionally wish to evade with them. BGs of 6's in a single line (required for Cv to skirmish) are rather wide; you will find things to confined all to often with them (not to mention you can exapnd from 2 deep to one 1 deep in one move with 4's, but need two moves with a six strong BG).

msuspartan · Post by **msuspartan** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:44 am

Ghaz,
Sorry, I had the wrong listing on the Excel sheet. Me eyes aint' what the used to be. (fumbles with glasses....) The trend here is seems to be with smaller BG's instaed of larger ones. Is this an intregal game mechanic or just a tournement one. I have noticed in doing tourney's for FoW that people favour tank companies vs. combined arms (some do really well and others....Welllllll.......) but that is due to having a limited amount of scenario's for comps. I am not knocking the way anyone plays but more finding out how to play a more limited frontage army (romans) than say a Dacian, Romano-Celt, Germanic army. I also realize that as with FoW, that there are many parts to playing than say GW Fantasy where you go and wipe out the whole army thus you win. Not much strategy involved there.

So having groups of 4 BG Legionaire and 4 BG Cav is the way to go.? What about LF and MF? I have quite a bit of both so am interested in those views too. And having 3-4 TC's vs a FC and 2 TC's. Are the Romans that good.
Also, I know that Legionaire's had Pilum for their opening shot and then charged. Why no pilum?? I know in WRG that they had everything BUT the kitchen sink so why no Pilum here? Ease of play, too powerful, no easy way to work the damage?? Just curious.

Thank you all for your advice, pointers and help. This looks to be the same type of people that I find in FoW. Intelligent, dedicated, historically driven and a lot of fun to play against or hang with. Glad to see this as 40k and Fantasy have worn out my patience.

Cheers.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:51 am

msuspartan wrote: Thank you all for your advice, pointers and help. This looks to be the same type of people that I find in FoW. Intelligent, dedicated, historically driven and a lot of fun to play against or hang with. Glad to see this as 40k and Fantasy have worn out my patience.
Cheers.

I like the innocent ones

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:27 pm

msuspartan wrote:So having groups of 4 BG Legionaire and 4 BG Cav is the way to go.? What about LF and MF? I have quite a bit of both so am interested in those views too. And having 3-4 TC's vs a FC and 2 TC's. Are the Romans that good.
Also, I know that Legionaire's had Pilum for their opening shot and then charged. Why no pilum?? I know in WRG that they had everything BUT the kitchen sink so why no Pilum here? Ease of play, too powerful, no easy way to work the damage?? Just curious.

Cavalry nearly always work better in BGs of 4 bases. There are a few situations where I can imagine that a 6 might be a good idea but only for lancers. Equites who can evade if they are in one rank are much better as a BG of 4 because they can switch from 2 ranks to 1 in a single move.

Legionaries in 4s are good if they are Superior but average ones can be a bit brittle.

As for the pilum, that is why legionaries are impact foot. They get a big bonus when charging other foot.

DavidT · Post by **DavidT** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:42 pm

LF work well in 8s, if you can afford the points. In 8s, they only have to take a test if they receive 3 hits from shooting (so an annoying BG of 4 LH cannot shoot them to pieces). They also get the opportunity to concentrate more fire on the enemy (e.g. against said annoying BG of 4 LH, on average they should force a test every time they shoot and have an increased chance of causing a death roll).
I rarely use MF, so I don't know the optimum sized BG. It really depends what you want to do with them and their quality. They are probably very similar to HF; the tougher they are, the smaler the size of BG you should take them in.

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:10 pm

Some LF is fine, especially if cheap. It increases the Army size and can serve various useful purposes. MF ... in general there is nothing wrong with MF, but Legionaries don't suffer that much from light (aka uneven) to medium (aka rough) terrain, so don't really need support troops for terrain (unlike say armies that rely on spear or pike armed troops). Also as mentioned a clever opponent will try to kill your non-legionaries first (followed by the average legionaries), so I like to limit their numbers.

As for BG size, for Cv it has already been explained, for other troops it depends; in general, the better they are, the smaller you can and should go (and superior, armoured, drilled, impact foot, s.sw. is about as good as they come). I admit I like the thought of 6 strong legionary BGs. Unfortunately having lots of superior legionaries in your army means you end up with a comparatively small army. In order to get enough close combat manoeuvre units and say around 12 BGs I'm forced to use them in 4's. 4's also have the advantage of being easier to (rear) support. Their disadvantage is mainly that after the first base loss you already suffer the -1 on CT for having lost 25% or more of the BG and that a single general can only influence a small part of the front if he joins the BG in combat.

As for Commanders, go for 4 TCs. FC have few advantages (and an inspired commander is simply to expensive for this army). IMO FCs are only worth it if you want to flank march (in which case you want a FC sub, not C-in-C). The army is comparatively small so command range isn't the problem and you probably want your generals in the front rank often, so numbers are more important then command range anyway.

msuspartan · Post by **msuspartan** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:13 pm

This definetley gives me much to chew on. This is one of the reasons I prefer historical gaming to fantasy/future, is the level of tactics and strategy involved AND the age of the players. This is an interesting venture and just as I learned the in's and out's of FoW so shall I do here.

Innocent ones.....MUWAAAHHHHaahhaahahahahaa.....I like that......when they think they have you right were they want you the 'innocent' ones are the ones to watch out for

.

Ghaz,
Where in Germany are you? Was stationed in Nellingen for 2.5 glorius years!! I have missed it terribly

. The Women

, the touring, THE BEER (and beer fests)

, Fausching, the people. Was the best years of my single days!!

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:38 pm

Hi Don - welcome to FOG.

I've never used this army but I reckon the 'Separately deployed legionary lanciarii' look pretty rock hard MF if deployed as Armoured, Superior, Lt Sp, S/S.

I think they'd scare most other rough terrain troops - and they'd certainly be on my shopping list.