Generals

[ravenflight]

Hi All,

With the new rules regarding generals, what are people taking.

Let's assume you're always going to want to take an IC because you like them. Let's also assume you have a force of about 12 BG's.

Would you be totally hamstrung by only having 2 other TC's? Would you think 3 TC's would be mandatory? Would a third TC and a downgrade of the IC be better or a IC and forgo the third TC?

[PyrrhicVictory]

I am thinking you will see more FCs on the table. Cheaper than two TCs, with the ability to control 4 BGs in a battle line by himself. 8" CD. +1 PBI. I have been playing with the Idea of a FC and three TCs all for 155 pts. I think it is a good middle ground. But I have not put it to the test yet, so grain of salt included.

an IC with two TCs is 150 pts.

Four TCs is 140.

IC and 3 TCs is 185.

ICs are really good, but it seems to me that people are extremely hesitant to place an IC into combat; partly because of the expense, partly because of the loss of an ICs qualities (CD, 6 BG Battle line, additional +1 to CTs and CMTs). Seen as too valuable.

[grahambriggs]

Hi All,

With the new rules regarding generals, what are people taking.

Let's assume you're always going to want to take an IC because you like them. Let's also assume you have a force of about 12 BG's.

Would you be totally hamstrung by only having 2 other TC's? Would you think 3 TC's would be mandatory? Would a third TC and a downgrade of the IC be better or a IC and forgo the third TC?

The v2 changes keep generals at the same price but less effective. And yet you want an IC and 3 TCs? Might be better to have less points spent on generals and more on fighting troops. I agree that FCs are likely to be more common, though I used them quite a bit in v1

[PaulByzan]

I've been using two FCs and two TCs. This seems to work really well for maneuver purposes.

Paul G.

Hi All,

With the new rules regarding generals, what are people taking.

Let's assume you're always going to want to take an IC because you like them. Let's also assume you have a force of about 12 BG's.

Would you be totally hamstrung by only having 2 other TC's? Would you think 3 TC's would be mandatory? Would a third TC and a downgrade of the IC be better or a IC and forgo the third TC?

[gozerius]

I've been looking at ally options to cheapen the cost of generals. Swiss allies are a real good example. An FC in charge of 2 pike BGs and 2 HW BGs, all superior, is a pretty tough brigade. Doesn't leave a lot of points for the base army.

[philqw78]

I played with 3 generals last night. IC, FC, TC. Think I'll go back to 2 FC

[Vespasian28]

I have been taking more FC's than under V1 but it does depend on the army and your intentions.
So, in a recent game with Galatians where I wanted to aggressively exploit their cavalry wing I took an FC and three TC. Vikings it was 4 TC due to the smaller number of BG. Spartans at the weekend was an IC, which helped immensely with the shooting and getting the Peers forward quickly, and two TC.

I tend therefore to take an FC where I think I am likely to be aggressive or mobile and TC defensive but wanting to throw generals into combats. Despite the example above I rarely take IC's.

[mungocallow]

4 TC's

i love to throw them into combat and if you get your deployment correct having some groups without a general close is no bad thing.

The extra reroll capability from throwing them into the fight is well worth the risk, sure you will lose one or two from time to time but this is war we are talking about

[Fluffy]

I usually field use 1 FC and three TC's. Mostly because it's hard change much from 4 TC's in most of my adapted V1 lists.

TC's are nice to trow in, but I find a FC is good because my attack forces are usually 3 BG's.