Slitherine

I agree that army lists should require careful decision making- unfortunately, especially with a lot of the dark ages armies, there is really not too much information to go on, smallish army sizes, and variety of individual warrior types.

I am sure that everything will turn out great. I might even rebuild a viking army (I had one in 25s and one in 15s and sold them both )!

nikgaukroger wrote: A bigger one if any such differences were spurious ...

Absolutely right. One of the things that has impressed me with the FoG army lists so far is the lack of "gameism" and the obviously careful thought that's gone into making them as historical as possible within the terms of the rules.

I'd much rather have the Vikings and Saxons be similar (if that indeed turns out to be the historical case) than something phony added just to make them different.

You mean like human buzz-saws or Reindeer Cavalry?

I think in Alfred the Great's time, any group of armed men of 35 persons or greater was classed as an army in Britain

Fenton wrote:I think in Alfred the Great's time, any group of armed men of 35 persons or greater was classed as an army in Britain

Only from a public order point of view.

Well certainly the could amass rather large armies (at least what the chroniclers say..) and pretty good strategically.

so, is that an unequivocable "no loose order foot" in viking armies or as allies in other armies then?

tim
where its snowing now so today might be a rebasing day...)

madaxeman wrote:so, is that an unequivocable "no loose order foot" in viking armies or as allies in other armies then?

tim
where its snowing now so today might be a rebasing day...)

If you mean MF, the only MF in the Viking list (apart from allies) are Irish in Ireland.

I'm very eager to see how the Vikings/Saxons/Normans turn out, since I've got so many figures for them already. It sounds like they'll be very interesting, and much different from previous rules, which IMO is a good thing.

Having read through this, does anyone have some suggestions of an effective army list? I have Vikings and Normans, One of my favorite time periods, and I want to create as close to historically accurate for both of these as possible.

<BRIAN>

Ninthplain wrote:Having read through this, does anyone have some suggestions of an effective army list? I have Vikings and Normans, One of my favorite time periods, and I want to create as close to historically accurate for both of these as possible.

<BRIAN>

The lists are being worked on by Richard and Nik, as you ask the question. Vikings will be a different experience to what they were under DBM, I'll say no more and leave this as a surprise (It's covered by the NDA sorry). You can probably guess some of the composition of the other 2 lists.

Spike

Quintus wrote:

hammy wrote:There are no BGs of berserkers simply because on the scale of a FoG battle they didn't opperate as a BG.

Hooray!

The old idea of units of beserkers used to annoy me quite a lot.

You got that right. Interestingly, the rules writer who originated the concept of units of Berserkers also made them totally unusable in the latest version of the rules! 1 small unit that can't even get rear support!!!

Personally, I think it's a good thing, but if you're going to make a totally useless troop type (one that nobody will take) why put it in the list?

I personally like the idea (and will go with it I think) of the berserkers being in the diorama I make for the generals stand. That way they:
1 - stand out; and,
2 - are appropriate - add punch where they are supposed to.

In reality, is there any difference between a berserker and any other 'picked troop' type that any army would have?

Ian

vsolfronk wrote:Actually I am sort of sad to see the Beserkers go...

I realize that there were never enough to be a BG historically, but they were a fun sideshow, especially as the shieldless LMI with 2SA. Perhaps there should be some mechanism to give one Viking BG an extra POA (impact foot, skilled swordsmen, Crazy Drugged Fanatics charging at you) for having Beserkers in their midst. Just an opinion....

There already is a rule to do this. It's called committing a general to the front rank.

Ian