Depiction and basing of Gallic foot?

[Empgamer]

Before I embark on any major re-basing exercise could anyone shed any light on the types of Gallic foot that will appear in FOG (tried to post on the Beta forum but access not approved yet). In particular, will there be different bases of sword and spear?

Essentially, I have a number of bases for DBM with them all based as Irr Wb (F) (e.g. 3 to a stand 40mm x 20mm). Obviously for DBM the weapon (in terms of WYSIWYG) mattered little so all of these are a mix of spear/javelin and sword. All carry shields.

From the Beta lists containing Gallic they mostly seem to be Sword but are also Impact Foot. Does this indicate that it is acceptable for a number to carry spears or is it just on the basis of their aggression and, as such, anyone described as Sword should only carry swords? If there is a differentiation between spear/sword are the base depths different?

I notice that the Gallic in the beta lists are described as Heavy or Medium with no point difference? Is that just a concession to different basing regimes or should the 4 figure heavy based stands perform different to the 3-4 figure medium bases?

Much of this may be explained later in the rules but we have a trial game tomorrow and I'm trying to see if I need to re base (even ultimately).

[nikgaukroger]

Gauls based as DBM Wb(F) can be used as Medium Foot, Impact Foot, Swordsmen type Gauls whilst those based as DBM Wb(O)/(S) are suitable for the Heavy Foot, Impact Foot, Swordsmen verirty. Both are allowed by the Gallic list to cover different interpretations - in game the main differences are that MF suffer less from terrain effects but are more vulnerable to mounted (especially) and HF in the open.

Historically Gauls were armed with spears and swords and so should your figures

[Empgamer]

Thanks Nik. Yep, aware of the historical armament, I just wanted to check that in FOG, bases of figures containing both spear and sword can be Impact Foot/Sword or whether, for WYSIWYG (if that is an issue), they ALL have to be just sword armed. That'll save me re-basing around 40 stands. I only use them as allies/options for other armies so hence the relatively low numbers. As they are ALL based as Wb (F) I may look to re-base some as Wb (O) just to get the bases covered.

Given the greater survivability (in some cases) of the HF over MF I would have thought there would have been some difference in the cost? Is that something that is in fact present in the final lists or is it the case that it's 'swings and roundabouts' where, for the same cost, you get the option of different troops of different abilities and it's up to you to choose which you take. Nice touch if so. I keep forgetting about Wb (O/S) (never having played much DBM) and keep imagining the 8 to a base (which is of course Horde).

[sagji]

It is swings and roundabouts.
The MF are slightly more vunerable in the open fighting Mtd/HF (-1 to CT for loosing close combat)
in exchange the MF
* Move faster (4MU rather than 3 MU)
* are less penalised in non-open (move at full in "minor" terrain rather than move at 2 MU and disordered)

MF can catch skirmishing LH, and are more likely to catch skirmishing Cavalry / LF - and are likely to beat any of these they catch.

[Empgamer]

Thanks for that.

[nikgaukroger]

The MF are slightly more vunerable in the open fighting Mtd/HF (-1 to CT for loosing close combat)

Don't forget that mounted, other than elephants or scythed chariots, get a + PoA against MF in the open in the Impact Phase.

[hazelbark]

figures containing both spear and sword can be Impact Foot/Sword or whether, for WYSIWYG (if that is an issue),

There is no WYSIWYG type combat effects in FoG like some older rules where it paid to glue swords, bows, axes and the kitchen sink onto figures.