Slitherine

BlackPrince wrote:In an open comp what armies do people concider to be tourney Tigers?
Keith

So far there are no Tiger armies in FoG, only Tiger players. IMHO, of course. And that is how I like it.

Marc

Marc I agree 100% with you. In a good set of rules it should be all about the skill of the players with a small variation for the luck of the dice.

Keith

In a themed tournament it is possible to pick an army that seems perfectly fine on paper and yet that struggles badly in reality. I also think that in some themes there are 'killer' armies as well, it is just finding them. The Byzantium and Islam theme at Usk saw a lot of different armies at the top of the pile and all of them had their merits which was IMO fantastic. I am just quite glad our Byzantines didn't have to play the massed superior bow of the Christian Nubians.

hammy wrote:I am just quite glad our Byzantines didn't have to play the massed superior bow of the Christian Nubians.

I'm keen to know why the Byzantines armoured cavalry would fear troops that shoot at them on 4+ and that they are 2 PoAs up in both impact and melee. Massed or not, unprotected archers are cannon fodder in open terrain to cavalry (and most of everything else). Every single time I fielded the Nubians I've done it using as much cavalry as possible with most if not all of the bow as LF.

why the Byzantines armoured cavalry would fear troops that shoot at them on 4+ and that they are 2 PoAs up in both impact and melee.

50% more superior dice at impact. 4 dice needing 3 (average) v's 6 dice needing 5 (super), 2 and a bit hits v's 2 hits with re-rolls. If the Average lancers got shot up, it gets worse.

D'oh, lancers need 4 not 3, as so kindly pointed out by Hammy

Even with Dailami hitting the MF bowmen in the game we played against them they took some killing.

philqw78 wrote:

why the Byzantines armoured cavalry would fear troops that shoot at them on 4+ and that they are 2 PoAs up in both impact and melee.

50% more superior dice at impact. 4 dice needing 3 (average) v's 6 dice needing 5 (super), 2 and a bit hits v's 2 hits with re-rolls. If the Average lancers got shot up, it gets worse.

The lancers would take 2 dice of shooting when they move to 5MU for the charge and 3 more dice when the bow move to 4MU. Assuming that the lancers pass the tests the impact would be 4 dice on 4 vs 6 superior dice on 5. That actually favours the bow slightly.

Assuming both sides survive the impact then there is a good chance that the bow could have an overlap, see above. If the bow refuse to go disrupted and remember they are superior then the cavalry bounce off and we start again. It really isn't as clean cut as you might think. Try it on the table and you may be surprised by the result.

FWIW by my calculations at impact the lancers will disrupt or worse 29.3% of the time, the bow 20.3% of the time and neither side 50.6%

philqw78 wrote:

why the Byzantines armoured cavalry would fear troops that shoot at them on 4+ and that they are 2 PoAs up in both impact and melee.

50% more superior dice at impact. 4 dice needing 3 (average) v's 6 dice needing 5 (super), 2 and a bit hits v's 2 hits with re-rolls. If the Average lancers got shot up, it gets worse.

D'oh, lancers need 4 not 3, as so kindly pointed out by Hammy

Why do they need 4?

Isn't it + for lance and +for Mtd vs MF in the open giving a total ++ ?

Why do they need 4?

They don't. I feel even more foolish now than when I thought I was foolish the first time.

philqw78 wrote:

Why do they need 4?

They don't. I feel even more foolish now than when I thought I was foolish the first time.

Oops

OK, if the lancers are steady at impact as they do indeed only need 3s to hit they have a significant but not massive advantage. There is a 32.5% chance of the bow disrupting vs an 18.25% chance of the cavalry dropping.

Even so there is not much better than a 50/50 of steady lancers managing to disrupt the bow in an impact & melee situation (assuming one overlap for the bow).

FWIW there is only about a 65% chance of average cavalry with a general nearby making it in to the bow without being disrupted and there is a 5% chance the cavalry will be fragmented before a chance of charging. It is not clear cult by any means although my initial calculation was way out as I forgot about hitting on a 3.

hammy wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

Why do they need 4?

They don't. I feel even more foolish now than when I thought I was foolish the first time.

Oops

OK, if the lancers are steady at impact as they do indeed only need 3s to hit they have a significant but not massive advantage. There is a 32.5% chance of the bow disrupting vs an 18.25% chance of the cavalry dropping.

Even so there is not much better than a 50/50 of steady lancers managing to disrupt the bow in an impact & melee situation (assuming one overlap for the bow).

FWIW there is only about a 65% chance of average cavalry with a general nearby making it in to the bow without being disrupted and there is a 5% chance the cavalry will be fragmented before a chance of charging. It is not clear cult by any means although my initial calculation was way out as I forgot about hitting on a 3.

I found with Immortals vs superior heavily armoured knights (which is slightly more favourable as the Immortals have light Spear on impact) the knight player expected to break through immediately and moaned about luck when they didn't. But supported and with generals the Immortals were hard enough to see off the knights. The problem was that took a long time and a lot of points.

Quantity has a quality all its own I think is the point. The tricky thing in FoG is a) actually believing this is true and b) arranging a situation in which your superior weight of numbers actually matters.

ethan wrote:Quantity has a quality all its own I think is the point. The tricky thing in FoG is a) actually believing this is true and b) arranging a situation in which your superior weight of numbers actually matters.

Indeed - I think not managing (a) may be Carlos' problem, (b) is nearly everyones problem

I do use 2 x 8 MF sup in my Nubians to be honest. I find them useful as bait since they get the opponent salivating about the archetypal glorious charge. They can, as mentioned, hold up some types of mounted for a bit while better troops go for flanks. Also, they can shoot LF off the table and clear terrain of them. Since I use a lot of LF in that army the MF provide the main shooting and the LF do the support dice. Not an army I'd take to a comp I wanted to win to be honest. 8 MF is still 48 points...

I played against a Christian Nubian that had 6 x 8BGs of MF Sup Bow - and it hurt - that's why I tipped the Godendag entry for great things!

With rear support and a general these guys are prety resilient.

Combine it with a Mamluk ally and I think it could be a real handful for many armies.

Pete

petedalby wrote:I played against a Christian Nubian that had 6 x 8BGs of MF Sup Bow - and it hurt - that's why I tipped the Godendag entry for great things!

With rear support and a general these guys are prety resilient.

Combine it with a Mamluk ally and I think it could be a real handful for many armies.

Pete

And what were you playing, Pete? And what was the final result? Did it really REALLY hurt? Or was it just an uncomfortable speedbump?

petedalby wrote:I played against a Christian Nubian that had 6 x 8BGs of MF Sup Bow - and it hurt - that's why I tipped the Godendag entry for great things!

With rear support and a general these guys are prety resilient.

Combine it with a Mamluk ally and I think it could be a real handful for many armies.

Pete

Christian Nubian would be dangerous in a largely cavalry tournament, as last weekend's Byzantium event seems to have been. Does anyone know if they fought against the Arab Conquest army at Godendag?

I would think that if someone had brought a Buyawid Dailami army from Decline and Fall, thinks might have been tough for the Nubians.

Dale

And what were you playing, Pete? And what was the final result? Did it really REALLY hurt? Or was it just an uncomfortable speedbump?

On this occasion I was using my English - so a good match up for me! I wouldn't have fancied it with my Ottomans though! I'm just trying to give fair warning to those who may not have seen it before. Not too much of a worry for the Rom Doms either I guess.

Pete

daleivan wrote:
I would think that if someone had brought a Buyawid Dailami army from Decline and Fall, thinks might have been tough for the Nubians.

They didn't fancy the 18 Dailami and 8 Ghazi foot in our Hamdanid - but these didn't exactly carve a path through the Nubians even then