Slitherine

Well my first new build for this book is the Early Mykenaians as I got most of the lead for free

Doesn't look samey to me

Footslogger

If we stick to 'Now.

Let's not start talking about these armies until everyone has their copy of the list book, OK?',

our Italian friends might hold us back for a while to say nothing of those of us who ordered through Amazon. It also limits the scope for wild uninformed mudslinging and complaints of unfairness against one's favourite list if you have to have actually read and understood the lists...

The first copy I saw in the flesh as you might say was bought by one of my clubmates at the Tripples a fortnight ago.

OTOH.

here's a rough sumerian list
1x CiC IC
1x TC
2x TC Ally
2x 6 HF unprot Sup Drill Def.Sp
1x 6 HF unprot Sup Drill HW
12x 6 HF unprot Av Drill Def.Sp
1x 6 LF unprot Av Drill Jav/LS
1x 6 LF unprot Poor Drill Sling
1x 6 LF unprot Poor Drill Bow
1x 6 LF unprot Poor Drill Jav/LS

19BG. And gives "wall of cr@p" a whole new meaning.

but i think i'd actually field it?

My first stab at Sumerians is rather different:

Everything is drilled
4 TC (I may well tweak this to get an IC and only 2 TC)
2 * 4 Avg HCh LtSp
1 * 8 Sup Unp HF HW
2 * 6 Sup Unp MF OSp
1 * 6 Sup Unp MF Bw
4 * 8 Avg Unp HF DSp
2 * 8 Avg Unp LF Bw
2 * 8 Avg Unp LF Sl

I think that in period this might actually be quite good.

Well, given that some folks actually have the book in hand and have read, and maybe even played, the lists, any learned suggestions on good 800 point armies I can build from 2 toolbox drawers of late/neo-Assyrians? Would be nice to ponder a list and tactics while I wait for the Eagles to trudge in by mule train.

Mike

MikeK wrote:Well, given that some folks actually have the book in hand and have read, and maybe even played, the lists, any learned suggestions on good 800 point armies I can build from 2 toolbox drawers of late/neo-Assyrians? Would be nice to ponder a list and tactics while I wait for the Eagles to trudge in by mule train.

Mike

hmmm... how about middle assyrian?

4x TC
4x 4 LCh Sup, Drilled Bow
1x 4 HCh Sup, Drilled Bow
5x 6 MF Av Prot Drilled, 1/2 LS/Sw 1/2 Bow
2x 6 LF Poor UnDr Bow
1x 6 LF Poor Undr Sling
1x 6 LF Poor Undr Jav/LS
1x 8 Mob

15 BG. Place enough rough to hide the foot...

OldenTired wrote:hmmm... how about middle assyrian?

4x TC
4x 4 LCh Sup, Drilled Bow
1x 4 HCh Sup, Drilled Bow
5x 6 MF Av Prot Drilled, 1/2 LS/Sw 1/2 Bow
2x 6 LF Poor UnDr Bow
1x 6 LF Poor Undr Sling
1x 6 LF Poor Undr Jav/LS
1x 8 Mob

15 BG. Place enough rough to hide the foot...

Interesting mix of skirmishing shooty chariots that want to avoid even uneven terrain and a lot of MF that like to shoot from the rough highlights the terrain doctrine problem I'm having, though I like the all-shooty approach. I hope to see the lists in a few days time, and will start by noting the errata.

MikeK wrote:

OldenTired wrote:hmmm... how about middle assyrian?

4x TC
4x 4 LCh Sup, Drilled Bow
1x 4 HCh Sup, Drilled Bow
5x 6 MF Av Prot Drilled, 1/2 LS/Sw 1/2 Bow
2x 6 LF Poor UnDr Bow
1x 6 LF Poor Undr Sling
1x 6 LF Poor Undr Jav/LS
1x 8 Mob

15 BG. Place enough rough to hide the foot...

Interesting mix of skirmishing shooty chariots that want to avoid even uneven terrain and a lot of MF that like to shoot from the rough highlights the terrain doctrine problem I'm having, though I like the all-shooty approach. I hope to see the lists in a few days time, and will start by noting the errata.

i'd be inclined to attack with the MF. highly mobile, with swords. shoots before it heads in. awesome.

4 BGs of Poor LF is crazy, I'd never field that drivel in one of my armies. Out of interest OldenTired - what results in NZ tourneys have you had with your preferred BG size armies?

Lycanthropic wrote:4 BGs of Poor LF is crazy, I'd never field that drivel in one of my armies.

They have more value in this armies than some other types. Consider that everything else shoots so they are not needed for screening from archery. They deploy forward to slow a few second movers and then fall back safely to the rear or into sheltering cover as cheerleaders and a possilbe nuisance to the enemy. Since everything else shoots, 2-3 Poor dice added to another BG's shoot can be useful.

MikeK wrote:

Lycanthropic wrote:4 BGs of Poor LF is crazy, I'd never field that drivel in one of my armies.

They have more value in this armies than some other types. Consider that everything else shoots so they are not needed for screening from archery. They deploy forward to slow a few second movers and then fall back safely to the rear or into sheltering cover as cheerleaders and a possilbe nuisance to the enemy. Since everything else shoots, 2-3 Poor dice added to another BG's shoot can be useful.

like mike says, poor LF is a really useful filler. it's mostly used to harass stuff.

and i'm told that in open competitions the minimum sized competitive army seems to be 17BG. i missed the national comp, so i'm working off 2nd hand info.

also, almost ALL comps here are open, not themed.

and i'm told that in open competitions the minimum sized competitive army seems to be 17BG. i missed the national comp, so i'm working off 2nd hand info.

I n UK average army size would probably be 12-14 BG. Ascot went from 9, Khazar I think, to 19, Roman.

philqw78 wrote:

and i'm told that in open competitions the minimum sized competitive army seems to be 17BG. i missed the national comp, so i'm working off 2nd hand info.

I n UK average army size would probably be 12-14 BG. Ascot went from 9, Khazar I think, to 19, Roman.

8 - Roger's Hussites - were the smallest and spent most of the comp playing on the top 3 or 4 tables. Open comp of course.

The Kiwis do seem to like their massed BGs - most of the armies at their Natcon were 16+ BGs and all the place getters were that size. I suspect it is a phase, but you never know.

nikgaukroger wrote:The Kiwis do seem to like their massed BGs - most of the armies at their Natcon were 16+ BGs and all the place getters were that size. I suspect it is a phase, but you never know.

I suspect that some people have mistaken the success of certain types of armies with large numbers of BGs for a generally applicable rule.

"Soft armies" that rely on dispersal and skirmishing to defeat the enemy, and "swarm armies" that rely on dispersal and flank attacks, will clearly benefit from having large numbers of BGs. Not because it makes them harder to break (although it does) but because it facilitates their tactics.

"Hard armies" on the other hand, that rely on a solid front of quality close combat troops (a) cost more per BG so will inevitably have less BGs and (b) might be well advised not to spend too many points on filler solely to raise the BG count.

As has been stated above, the good players are not obsessed with getting the number of BGs high when that is inappropriate to the army they are fielding. Nor are they avoiding armies that cannot field large numbers of BGs. Nor are they suicidal masochists or quixotic optimists. (Apart from Roger, of course).

Ok, we all have our copies now. Discussion can recommence The Urartians look to be The Bomb, eh?

rbodleyscott wrote: As has been stated above, the good players are not obsessed with getting the number of BGs high when that is inappropriate to the army they are fielding. Nor are they avoiding armies that cannot field large numbers of BGs. Nor are they suicidal masochists or quixotic optimists. (Apart from Roger, of course).

Fielding the 9 BG's at Challeng(I'm sure I'm a masochist) I did'nt do to bad I fought two swarm armies with 16 or it might have been 18 BG. I played a 650 points army(5 by 3 table) at the club this Monday against a Roman army with 16 BG I managed to field a Dailami army of 9 BG.
Before I had played against armies with large BG above 16 at first I was nervious due to the large BG numbers but to get that many they had to be mostly protected and average, also the majority being in fours(the armies I faced were) they only had to lose a base to be in trouble. I know they can get around the flanks but you have to have a good deployment plan and move quick.(with 650 points thats easier) I like solid troops even if its less BG the class and armour makes a big difference in a slog.
Dave

footslogger wrote:Ok, we all have our copies now. Discussion can recommence The Urartians look to be The Bomb, eh?

Got mine as well - patronize your local game shop that provides tables and amenities!

Looks like there are a lot of lists worth study with different approaches, and lots of allies to sort through. I'm looking forward to a first game with Neo-Assyrian since that is what I have and it looks promising although it's a different style from the HCh+LCh combo focus I'd also like to try. 13 BGs by the way, just because that's what it all adds up to.

how worthwhile is drilled for light chariots? Been looking at mitanni and trying to decide if drilled is needed with only 20 chariots?
Ben

benos wrote:how worthwhile is drilled for light chariots? Been looking at mitanni and trying to decide if drilled is needed with only 20 chariots?
Ben

It isn't quite as vital as for cavalry but it is not far off. Remember that if you want to move and expand you can only do it if drilled and that just simple expansion without movement needs a CMT for undrilled. Also you pass CMTs on a 7 rather than an 8.

If you think you will be able to keep your chariots in optimal formation for the whole game anyway then undrilled for the points, otherwise drilled.