Slitherine

In FoG:R the mob are even more useful as they can support Average BGs. Now that IS useful.

Anyone want to make this one of their 2 picks in Phil's Choose 2 for 2.o thread?

If eventually lower quality troops provider rear support then the existence of MOB will be welcome, but with the current rules they are just some ignored troop type. Maybe we should wait for the lesson taken from FoG-R and then decide what should get into FoG 2

Ranimiro wrote:If eventually lower quality troops provider rear support then the existence of MOB will be welcome, but with the current rules they are just some ignored troop type. Maybe we should wait for the lesson taken from FoG-R and then decide what should get into FoG 2

I take them occasionally and used carefully they are handy. The best use is with a 10 stand BG of mob they can just take up a lot of space, against LH they are handy as you can use them to hold them in place while your LH goes around the sides, lone BGs of LH can't really take on 10 stands of formed troops, no matter how bad...

a 12 base BG of Mob can support 3 or 4 BGs of poor foot. I'd say that's a pretty big deal. The biggest reason you don't see a lot of Mob on the table is that people tend to spend all their points on the good troops and you can get the figures for a whole legion for the same real money as a BG of Mob. Or another way of looking at it, which is faster to paint a base of poor LF J/LSp (2 army pts), or a base of Mob (2 army points)?

Ranimiro wrote:If eventually lower quality troops provider rear support then the existence of MOB will be welcome, but with the current rules they are just some ignored troop type. Maybe we should wait for the lesson taken from FoG-R and then decide what should get into FoG 2

Well, I use them quite a bit as it is. In my Akkadians they are good rear supports for poor defensive spearmen and have protected the baggage. In Late Persians they've provided the army bulk that allows you to use the fancy cavalry and skythed chariots. My only regret is you don't see more of them available in army lists. I'm not sure why you persist in thinking they are an ignored troop type. They are good value for the points.

I think that there are more problems with other troop types that are underused than with Mob. Average Cavalry and Knights are generally regarded as being so inferior to their Superior versions that they are taken only with great reluctance. Mob on the other hand are of limited value other than for increasing your BG count, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the way that they work in the game.

I would virtually always take any mobs (and poor LF) that are available, to get the BG count up. As has been mentioned they do sometimes have other uses as well, but you have to take care of them. The best place for a mob is on a steep hill, protecting a flank or the baggage.

kevinj wrote:I think that there are more problems with other troop types that are underused than with Mob. Average Cavalry and Knights are generally regarded as being so inferior to their Superior versions that they are taken only with great reluctance. Mob on the other hand are of limited value other than for increasing your BG count, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the way that they work in the game.

Oh, I don't know. I use both average knights and cav. Sometimes that's the best you can get. Average knights are about as durable as a BG of Mob though. At least the cav is cheap enough that losing it isn't going to be critical to the game plan.

gozerius wrote:

kevinj wrote:I think that there are more problems with other troop types that are underused than with Mob. Average Cavalry and Knights are generally regarded as being so inferior to their Superior versions that they are taken only with great reluctance. Mob on the other hand are of limited value other than for increasing your BG count, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the way that they work in the game.

Oh, I don't know. I use both average knights and cav. Sometimes that's the best you can get. Average knights are about as durable as a BG of Mob though. At least the cav is cheap enough that losing it isn't going to be critical to the game plan.

I used two BGs of average knights in a game last night. I even went for BGs of 6 so my commanders would have more effect.

In the whole game I think that I passed a total of two cohesion test with the two BGs combined and that is with then always having a commander and nearly always having rear support. The first three CTs I had to roll as a result of enemy action were all 3s One of the two rolls I actually passed was for the second BG of knights when the first BG was shot disrupted by the first round of shooting it took (3 dice, 3 hits, 3 on the CT) then was hit by an emeny BG of knights that rolled a maximum VMD when charging skirmishers and just contacted my knights I lost the combat 3 hits to 1 and rolled another 3 for my CT

The thing is that average knights are still very expensive and the difference between average and superior is so small that you may as well be superior if you can. Does anyone take average knights when they can instead be superior? If not then there is a points issue IMO.

Hammy is right.

timmy1 wrote:Hammy is right.

No Tim, the correct words are Hammy is to blame.

As Hammy has started to waver in regard to a set of army lists for another rules set, I can afford to be nice to him now...

It will complete the bet.

Then we can return to the standard formula of "It's Hammy's fault!".

timmy1 wrote:As Hammy has started to waver in regard to a set of army lists for another rules set, I can afford to be nice to him now...

It will complete the bet.

Then we can return to the standard formula of "It's Hammy's fault!".

This is pleasantly incorrect too. It doesn't matter who was actually at FAULT, the key thing is that Hammy is to BLAME.

So, I think that makes the full sentence:

"Dave is wrong, but it's Hammy's fault"

kevinj wrote:So, I think that makes the full sentence:

"Dave is wrong, but it's Hammy's fault"

"Dave is wrong, but Hammy is to blame" may be slightly more accurate, but as "It's all Hammy's fault" trips off the tongue better I think we can stick with your version