Slitherine

It's for shooting, representing massed use of atlatl dart throwers. With MF you get one die per two bases and a range of just 2MU. So it's not hugely powerful but it is free. We found when testing that it had little effect on solid lines of enemy foot but was reasonable against skirmishers or small BGs.

Spanish accounts made significant play of the missile showers that the Aztecs used.

Regards

Graham

Sounds like an imbalance between how other lists have reflected this effect. I an thinking of the roman Pila and dart throwing. This was justification for their impact foot classification. By the above definition shouldnt the romans have the same free attribute?

I think its a missed opportunity in FoG to ensure prevention of freebies by increasing the granularity of the points cost.

expendablecinc wrote:Sounds like an imbalance between how other lists have reflected this effect. I an thinking of the roman Pila and dart throwing. This was justification for their impact foot classification.

The Romans are not impact foot because they have Pila and darts. Unless perhaps Byzantines should be impact foot as they had darts.

expendablecinc wrote:By the above definition shouldnt the romans have the same free attribute?

I think its a missed opportunity in FoG to ensure prevention of freebies by increasing the granularity of the points cost.

Yes I can't wait to see the benefit to the game of working out a 15,000 point list for my 12 BG army because some Amazonian in a codpiece might throw a javelin at my cataphracts.

Well of course we were waiting for someone to bring up Roman darts. I am just surprised it took so long.

Check out the modern test data - the atlatl gave significantly greater range and penetration than Roman martiobarbuli.

As for the freebie issue - we do not regard it in a negative light. The American armies are significantly disadvantaged by their poor balance - i.e. no cavalry. The freebie merely goes some way towards compensating for that.

You may of course disagree, as is your right. However, the design team is entirely happy with the overall result.

grahambriggs wrote:
I am aware of evidence that the cauciqueh were used as ambushers, taunters of the enemy and so on. They sometimes were dispersed to stiffen the other troops. They no doubt were not shy in a battle. But why would you think they were undrilled when they were promoted through the ranks of the other units until they achieved Cauchic status? That would be the equivalent of saying if you made a unit out of all the Roman centurions they would be undrilled...

G

Fair enough. I went through my collection of books on the Aztecs. I should have known that would be a much larger task before I started.

So, I cannot find any quotes to support my claim. Either I was sloppy with my assessment of the Cuacheq, or I read it from somewhere and now I cannot find it. I wouldn't be surprised if the real truth is more the former than the latter.

However, it is very clear that the Cuacheq did fight in the front ranks as a way to encourage the more novice warriors. I seem to recall reading that their bravery was almost epic in noteriety (which is where I could have developed an incorrect asumption). Also, if you believe Jennings', Aztec, the Cuacheq were also a drill seargent (of sorts); teaching boys the art of ambushes and use of their many, different weapons.

However, it is very clear that the Cuacheq did fight in the front ranks as a way to encourage the more novice warriors. I seem to recall reading that their bravery was almost epic in noteriety

Surely this would apply to pretty much every army in history - disciplined troops would have veterans at the front, irregulars would have the most aggressive types... and I am talking here about a single formation, before anyone gets 'elite unit X held back in this battle'.

azrael86[code] wrote: Surely this would apply to pretty much every army in history - disciplined troops would have veterans at the front, irregulars would have the most aggressive types... and I am talking here about a single formation, before anyone gets 'elite unit X held back in this battle'.

Not at all!

King Edward would often send in infantry to get stuck in and THEN send in his knights, for example.

Also when I say that the elites would stand in the front ranks, I mean THE front rank. That is partly (I presume), why the original DBM Aztecs were hordes. These units were waves of quality and not really broken up into true battle groups like we see in FoG.

Oh and BTW, I found the references to my previous claims too. If you read the Osprey books "Men at Arms 101: The Conquistadores", "Men at Arms 239: Aztec, Mixtec and Zapotec Armies", and finally "Warrior 32: Aztec Warrior". These books all say essentially the same thing; that the Cuachic were "berserkers" who were used to break an opening in the battle line for novices to mop up behind. Also, these novices would hang behind the elites in a close team.

I hope this clears up some of the doubt on my claims.

Well, eldiablito, some could say who would ever rely upon and quote from Ospreys as a historical source, it might damage the credibility of one's writing? Not me though. :)

Hi everybody,

I am deciding on an Aztec list for the Aussie Nationals in January 2010 & would appreciate feedback on the use & effectiveness of FF. I must admit that my lists seem heaps smaller than others I've seen posted. eg

IC, 1 x FC, 2 x TC
12 LF Bow average
12 LF Sling Average
3x6 MF IF, Sw, Javs, Drilled Protected Average
3x6 MF IF, Sw, Javs, Drilled Protected Superior
2x6 IF, Sw, Javs, Drilled Protected Elite
8xFF

Alternate lists swap FF for another 6 LF sling, and perhaps then downgrade FC to TC and add 5 FF

Comments?

Cheers

Jason

tupiboy wrote: IC, 1 x FC, 2 x TC
12 LF Bow average
12 LF Sling Average
3x6 MF IF, Sw, Javs, Drilled Protected Average
3x6 MF IF, Sw, Javs, Drilled Protected Superior
2x6 IF, Sw, Javs, Drilled Protected Elite
8xFF

Hi Jason,

Not sure what value the FFs are going to have. A fortified camp might be a better bet but I would tend to go for more troops.

IC, FC, TC, TC is overkill on commanders. You really don't need an IC and an FC unless you want to flank march and even then it is rather extravagant.

I would drop the FC to a TC or possibly even ditch him all together as you only have 12 BGs and with an IC and 2 TCs you can easily manage an army of that size.

Ditching the FC and FF would give you 84 points to play with which is another BG of decent foot.

Don't worry if you can't spend exactly 800 points. Getting a ballanced army is much more important than using the last few points.

Jason - The only real benefit of having a FC as a sub general is to help flank marches, so if that's not part of your plan then a TC is probably more cost effective. Personally I'd have the Average warriors as 2 x 8s as they're a lot more resilient. After that it's down to the competition and your plan. Presumably it's an open comp so you're planning on using the FF to protect your flanks?

An option with this structure would be to flank march as part of the plan and use the FF to help the on table part of the army hold on longer. But even with that as a plan I'd drop the second TC - you'll need more fighting troops I suspect.

Hi,

Thanks for the replies. I did want to keep the FM option & I reasoned that without a FC it would be unlikely to show if it contained MF. I plan on using the Ave guys only 2 wide so thought that might make them resilient enough. Comments please. The reason for the FF was to be able to either protect flanks and hopefully thereby Bg - I would definitely replace with fortified camp if it was an option, or possiby to allow some decent MF to depoly at 15MU behind the FF to allow a bit of a jump. I have played a few comps but only a couple of games outside of that and am still learning things every time I check out the rules. I have used Huns, Neo Babs, Anc Brits and Parthians in the 4 comps I've played. Neo Babs & Anc Brits got smashed in open comps, the others were good in restricted comps.

I also toyed with another list with an internal FC ally which meant a potential FM of 1 x 4 Elite MF, 1 x 6 Sup MF & 1 x 8 Ave MF. I thought that a FM with MF might surprise - at least they're drilled so -less- chance of straggling

Cheers

Jason

I think with the average guys you're on a knife edge. If they do well at impact then life is good. If you're in terrain 3 deep might win a war of attrition perhaps - especially if the IC floats around cheering people up. In the open (with the extra -1 on morale tests) 3 deep might only mean you break on morale before you break on base losses. Difficult call.

My thought on tactics was to hit hard with the best troops through crappy terrain while sacrificing the minimum necessary to hold the enemy up elsewhere.
Elite impact foot led by generals should make a hole in most things that fight in terrain.

Regards

Graham

eldiablito wrote:

azrael86[code] wrote: Surely this would apply to pretty much every army in history - disciplined troops would have veterans at the front, irregulars would have the most aggressive types... and I am talking here about a single formation, before anyone gets 'elite unit X held back in this battle'.

Not at all!

King Edward would often send in infantry to get stuck in and THEN send in his knights, for example.

Also when I say that the elites would stand in the front ranks, I mean THE front rank. That is partly (I presume), why the original DBM Aztecs were hordes. These units were waves of quality and not really broken up into true battle groups like we see in FoG.

You're missing the point - though it might help if you clarified which Edward you are referring to. To explain what I meant, I am referring to within any battle group, NOT to different BG's.

5 x 6 MF Dr Prot Sup, Jav, IF, Sw



I must say I'm suprised (pleasantly mind you) at the number of superior stands you can field here. I'm asuming these are the Jaguar/Eagle/Chicken/whatever suit wearers, right?
Is there a distinct priest unit or are they gone like the Viking Beserkir?

TR

Hi,

I must say I laughed out loud at this - a common comment re the army I take to a comp is "no matter what he's brought, something willl be in a chicken suit"! - it's not quite true but I do love using Meso armies. I am coming close to a final decision re my Axtec list for the Oz nationals but will post agian 4/01/2010 (the same date te list is due) for final comments. I have agreed that the FM is not a good option - it is more whether I take 3 or 4 gens as I do like to fight with them.

Cheers

Jason

5 x 6 MF Dr Prot Sup, Jav, IF, Sw



I must say I'm suprised (pleasantly mind you) at the number of superior stands you can field here. I'm asuming these are the Jaguar/Eagle/Chicken/whatever suit wearers, right?
Is there a distinct priest unit or are they gone like the Viking Beserkir?

TR

Hi,

I must say I laughed out loud at this - a common comment re the army I take to a comp is "no matter what he's brought, something willl be in a chicken suit"! - it's not quite true but I do love using Meso armies. I am coming close to a final decision re my Axtec list for the Oz nationals but will post agian 4/01/2010 (the same date te list is due) for final comments. I have agreed that the FM is not a good option - it is more whether I take 3 or 4 gens as I do like to fight with them.

Cheers

Jason

hammy wrote:

tupiboy wrote: IC, 1 x FC, 2 x TC
12 LF Bow average
12 LF Sling Average
3x6 MF IF, Sw, Javs, Drilled Protected Average
3x6 MF IF, Sw, Javs, Drilled Protected Superior
2x6 IF, Sw, Javs, Drilled Protected Elite
8xFF

Hi Jason,

Not sure what value the FFs are going to have. A fortified camp might be a better bet but I would tend to go for more troops.

IC, FC, TC, TC is overkill on commanders. You really don't need an IC and an FC unless you want to flank march and even then it is rather extravagant.

I would drop the FC to a TC or possibly even ditch him all together as you only have 12 BGs and with an IC and 2 TCs you can easily manage an army of that size.

Ditching the FC and FF would give you 84 points to play with which is another BG of decent foot.

Don't worry if you can't spend exactly 800 points. Getting a ballanced army is much more important than using the last few points.

I am using this at the club on Monday
4x6 LF Sling
6x6 Suit Wearers
4x6 Average warriors
IC, 2xTC
IC gives a chance of PBI, but more importantly protects against shooters. Protected sixes can be badly shot up.

The other version drops a BG of slingers and upgrades 2 BG of suit wearers to elite. Haven't painted the elite yet though. Maybe by Monday?

Some of my guys already have the combat advantage of fighting in an unwieldy cayman suit so I've given them all large butterfly back banners to make them invincible on the battlefield.

grahambriggs wrote:Some of my guys already have the combat advantage of fighting in an unwieldy cayman suit so I've given them all large butterfly back banners to make them invincible on the battlefield.

Still need to stick them on. But I'm a minimalist (lazy), so I think officers only could afford so many feathers, and it would only encourage the subject states to rebel if I were showing off all the feathers thay have had to pay in tribute.

Did the aztecs have any money or were things just paid for in feathers and jaguar skins?

philqw78 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:Some of my guys already have the combat advantage of fighting in an unwieldy cayman suit so I've given them all large butterfly back banners to make them invincible on the battlefield.

Still need to stick them on. But I'm a minimalist (lazy), so I think officers only could afford so many feathers, and it would only encourage the subject states to rebel if I were showing off all the feathers thay have had to pay in tribute.

Did the aztecs have any money or were things just paid for in feathers and jaguar skins?

The feathers and skins/costumes were mostly supplied by subject cities as tribute, they would have been issued by the state to the soldiers. There was a strict set of rules that governed who was allowed to wear which things, though it's not always clear what the detail of the rules were. For example, it seems that if you had captured three enemy warriors you were entitled to the papalotl butterfly back banner. Three captives was not enough for a commoner to enter the Ocelot or Eagle societies, so these banners will mostly appear in the calpolli battle groups.

I've taken the same approach that I do with bases of knights - the figures on the base will be the ones in daft costumes in the main even if there were also blokes wearing simple uniforms at the back. This perhaps explains why I still haven't finished the army....