Are foot nutters viable in open comp?

bryan · Post by **bryan** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:39 pm

You know Early Germans, Gauls etc..
Are they viable as masses of foot or will they require something more like a few bg's of sturdier allies or mounted?
Which lists would be more suited and why?
Without access to the lists I have no way of determining this for myself.

Thanks

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:16 am

I took a Visigoth army to the Usk tournament back in January and they did pretty well. The core of the army was 5 BG's of 8 impact foot with a Dacian ally providing another couple of BG's of medium foot. I had a lot of BG's of light foot and three of mounted, one Dacian LH, one Hunnic cavalry and one Visigoth noble lancers.

Since this comp changes to the rules have meant that impact foot have improved a little against mounted so if anything the army would be even more viable now.

While this army didn't win the comp or even place it did beat the Ghaznavid army that was in first place after three rounds.

bahdahbum · Post by **bahdahbum** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:04 pm

I guess we will have to see latter with experience .

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:43 pm

I'm playing them tomorrow with Principate Roman. Will let you know how it goes.

Lionelc62 · Post by **Lionelc62** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:39 am

Hi,

I took Ancient Spanish at the last french FOG tournament (Aniche).
I had (ifI remenber well), 2 BG of legionnaries (4 stands)
1 BG of HF Celtiberian Impact foot Sw Average
5 BG of MF Impact foot Sw Average
5 BG of Light troops
1 BG of Cavalry (4 stands)

I had more than 50 stands of impact foot ...

I finished 5/12. This type of army has a chance in every game.
I managed to win 75 % of my games with this army (Training + competition).

The secret is to use some BG with 10+ stands.

Regards
Lionel

shall · Post by **shall** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:11 pm

I have sued barbarian armies a lot now. Visigoths most recently.

They are very solid if you make a few big strong BGs and put a general with them in the front rank - surely how it was!! They are a lot of fun and the numbers at times allow you to grit things out even against very good troops. Its a nice feeling to lose 2 bases and still be picking them off the third rank while your opponent is dropping melee dice

Si

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:36 pm

shall wrote:I have sued barbarian armies a lot now.

Did they settle out of court?

Tirithon · Post by **Tirithon** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:24 am

Having just played (& lost to) an Ancient British army with Medieval Portuguese I would say "yes" nutters are viable in FoG! Particularly an Elite HF Battle Group with a General fighting in the front rank - talk about re-rolls (eh Rich?!)!

It was a close & exciting game though!

davem · Post by **davem** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:52 pm

I'll let you know tomorrow. The Rapa Nui are having a run-out tonight.
100 elements of nutters.......;-p

ars_belli · Post by **ars_belli** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:25 pm

Are there any bonuses for Gallic, German, etc. foot warriors fighting in depth (i.e. greater than two ranks of bases)?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:08 pm

Yes in that they can absorb base losses without losing melee phase dice (and also taking longer to get to autobreak) and that it is harder to inflict 1HP2/3B as all the bases in the first 3 ranks count for that calculation. Otherwise no PoAs, etc.

ars_belli · Post by **ars_belli** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:27 pm

Great... many thanks, Nik!

Scott

davem · Post by **davem** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:31 am

davem wrote:I'll let you know tomorrow. The Rapa Nui are having a run-out tonight.
100 elements of nutters.......;-p

OK, well the answer is......still don't know:-)
What didn't help was I rolled rubbish all game and all the terrain fell on my base edge. I could have stayed in the crud, but that's not my style, so I advanced into the open and was ridden down by 2 Kn Bg's, a Cv Bg and Hi.

I extropalated a possible Rapa Nui list from existing sources.
I had 2 x 8 Lf sling
6 x 10 Mf, Impact, Sw
5 x 8 Mf, Impact, Sw
4 x TC

My opponent had Kommenan Byzantine with 3 Bg of Kn, one of which was S, 1 Bg of Cv, Bw, Sw, 2 Bg of Lh, 1 Bg of Hi, Defensive Sp and one Elite Heavy Weapon as well as a Bw Bg and some Lf which stayed on the baseline.

I deployed in depth with most of my big BG's supported by the smaller ones behind.

In most combats I was able to put a General in (as I had 4 it seemed the right thing to do). In every case I went disrupted on Impact and broke in the melee phase. I only lasted into a 2nd bound in 2 combats. My one success was killing the Kn(S) General (needing a 12!!), apart from that a succession of poor combat dice meant nothing stood long enough to allow the BG's I had manouvered onto the Kn flanks, to charge!

The game ended with 4 Bg's in rout and little damage to the Byzantine's.

Probably not an unlikely result, but I felt with a little more luck and staying power the RN might have ground a few KB units down.
That +2 for mounted winning combats vs foot really kills infantry.
After the game, my opponent and I discussed beefing some BG's up to 12 strong and having some 6 strong as manouver units.
I may give that a try, but I doubt any of that would have made a difference to last nights game considering my rubbish dice.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:09 pm

davem wrote:After the game, my opponent and I discussed beefing some BG's up to 12 strong and having some 6 strong as manouver units.

I am coming down on the side that large units are better for receviving bow fire. But foot rout in combat usually due to cohesion tests not casualties. Meaning the 25% loss for the foot isn't what is making them fail. So I tend to not favor the larger stand foot BGs--depending on army of course.

I am thinking big BGs might be needed versus PK, but again I don't think I am losing due to losses.

I do think the manuver needs require a few groups of 4-6 stand BG for foot. They are more likley needed to swing something on to a flank which is important.

Probably try and sacrifice a unit(s) to get the KN to start pursuing so you cn suck them in and swamp them from the flanks.

davem · Post by **davem** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:40 pm

hazelbark wrote:
davem wrote:After the game, my opponent and I discussed beefing some BG's up to 12 strong and having some 6 strong as manouver units.
I am coming down on the side that large units are better for receviving bow fire. But foot rout in combat usually due to cohesion tests not casualties. Meaning the 25% loss for the foot isn't what is making them fail. So I tend to not favor the larger stand foot BGs--depending on army of course.

I am thinking big BGs might be needed versus PK, but again I don't think I am losing due to losses.

I do think the manuver needs require a few groups of 4-6 stand BG for foot. They are more likley needed to swing something on to a flank which is important.

Probably try and sacrifice a unit(s) to get the KN to start pursuing so you cn suck them in and swamp them from the flanks.

That was my plan, but they wouldn't stand long enough for the flanking units to get their charge in!

davem · Post by **davem** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:18 pm

davem wrote:
hazelbark wrote:
davem wrote:After the game, my opponent and I discussed beefing some BG's up to 12 strong and having some 6 strong as manouver units.
I am coming down on the side that large units are better for receviving bow fire. But foot rout in combat usually due to cohesion tests not casualties. Meaning the 25% loss for the foot isn't what is making them fail. So I tend to not favor the larger stand foot BGs--depending on army of course.

I am thinking big BGs might be needed versus PK, but again I don't think I am losing due to losses.

I do think the manuver needs require a few groups of 4-6 stand BG for foot. They are more likley needed to swing something on to a flank which is important.

Probably try and sacrifice a unit(s) to get the KN to start pursuing so you cn suck them in and swamp them from the flanks.
That was my plan, but they wouldn't stand long enough for the flanking units to get their charge in!

In more detail...
I had one BG in combat with the Kn. I had another (with a General) on it's flank and able to charge next bound. However some distance in front of the flanking BG another BG had just been charged by Cv, went disrupted on impact and broke in melee. It then had the nerve to flee full distance almost reaching the flank of my flanking BG. My opponents Cv stayed in contact and thus in the JAP when it tried to flee again, it was removed from play and the victorious Cv gleefully charged the flanking BG in it's by now disrupted flank:-( Summed up my night really!

Hmmm, I'm starting to sound like Hammy....;-p

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:57 pm

davem wrote:Hmmm, I'm starting to sound like Hammy....;-p

Speaking of Hammy and a nod toward Madaxeman's pip plot graphs.

Anyone have a good idea of what to record for bad dice in FoG?

Total the number of 2s or 3s on Cohesion tests?

richnz · Post by **richnz** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:15 pm

I've now played about 4 games using my Ancient British. The list I used had 3 BGs of warband (medium impact foot) and 1 BG of elites. These BGs are very brittle and need to have generals fighting in the front rank to be effective - the elites are particularly useful when used this way. But this obviously makes it very high risk, and the warband tend to lose more often than they win.

Against decent cavalry they get thrashed.