Slitherine

Advance notice so you can start painting and dusting the Derby round of the BHGS Doubles in December will be using this book plus Oath of Fealty albeit the date will be limited to before 1140AD
David

Seeing as how we still have not had any access to the latest list over here, can someone tell me what the Middle Anglo-Saxon lists looklike ?

Cheers

Scrumpy wrote:Seeing as how we still have not had any access to the latest list over here, can someone tell me what the Middle Anglo-Saxon lists looklike ?

Cheers

More interesting than I would have thought, but then again, I like infantry

Lots of HF protected offensive spear, in various grades, with cavalry as an option. A good friend of mine was thinking about building the army of Alfred the Great--I think he'll be pleased.

Dale

I am liking later Vikings in France, with an ally of Early Medieval French. They will be lacking in rough terrain troops though. But lots of solid OffSpear and a solid BL of Sup Lancer Cav does look interesting.

daleivan wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Seeing as how we still have not had any access to the latest list over here, can someone tell me what the Middle Anglo-Saxon lists looklike ?

Cheers

More interesting than I would have thought, but then again, I like infantry

Lots of HF protected offensive spear, in various grades, with cavalry as an option.
Dale

Not just cavalry, but good cavalry. Depending on the date you select they can have up to 18 Armoured Superior or up to 22 Protected Superior.

EDIT Rising to 24 Armoured Superior or 22 Protected Superior and 4 Armoured Superior with allies. All spear chuckers naturally.

PyrrhicVictory wrote:I am liking later Vikings in France, with an ally of Early Medieval French. They will be lacking in rough terrain troops though. But lots of solid OffSpear and a solid BL of Sup Lancer Cav does look interesting.

Can 'Freemen' be Heavy Weapon? I know huscarls can be. I think if you can have Freemen as Heavy Weapon then there is your rough terrain troops.

Ian

DaiSho wrote:

PyrrhicVictory wrote:I am liking later Vikings in France, with an ally of Early Medieval French. They will be lacking in rough terrain troops though. But lots of solid OffSpear and a solid BL of Sup Lancer Cav does look interesting.

Can 'Freemen' be Heavy Weapon? I know huscarls can be. I think if you can have Freemen as Heavy Weapon then there is your rough terrain troops.

Ian

Only the Huscarls. The Viking Freemen have to be Off Spear and the French foot is Def Spear and unprotected archers, none of which are going to be beating up Dailami in orchards.

LambertSimnel wrote: Only the Huscarls. The Viking Freemen have to be Off Spear and the French foot is Def Spear and unprotected archers, none of which are going to be beating up Dailami in orchards.

Dailami CAN roll 3's.

Defensive Spear CAN roll 6's.

You're a pessimist Lambert

Ian

DaiSho wrote:

LambertSimnel wrote: Only the Huscarls. The Viking Freemen have to be Off Spear and the French foot is Def Spear and unprotected archers, none of which are going to be beating up Dailami in orchards.

Dailami CAN roll 3's.

Defensive Spear CAN roll 6's.

You're a pessimist Lambert

Ian

did I need a 'regularly' in my post?

Come to think of it since we're talking about FoG, not DBM, maybe it 'drilledly' would be better than 'regularly'

DaiSho wrote:

LambertSimnel wrote: Only the Huscarls. The Viking Freemen have to be Off Spear and the French foot is Def Spear and unprotected archers, none of which are going to be beating up Dailami in orchards.

Dailami CAN roll 3's.

Defensive Spear CAN roll 6's.

You're a pessimist Lambert

Ian

And even Dailami do have flanks...

Though if you really want to be competitive in terrain as a viiking have the Irish allies with HW - even with dailami in melee (Sword/spear +, armour +) against HW(+ and cancels armour)...

Got to look at a copy of the book yesterday, I am very impressed with the Anglo-Danes.

THe Norman knights charged my Fyrd 10 times, and was bounced 9 times, managing to break one luckless spear. And none of my Fyrd needed a hill to defeat the invaders !

10/10 for the list.

Scrumpy wrote:Got to look at a copy of the book yesterday, I am very impressed with the Anglo-Danes.

THe Norman knights charged my Fyrd 10 times, and was bounced 9 times, managing to break one luckless spear. And none of my Fyrd needed a hill to defeat the invaders !

10/10 for the list.

Doesn't exactly sound right though, does it? 1066 and all that....

At Hastings the Saxons would have been on ++ at impact, and ++ in melee against the knights.

Therefore William the Tanner obviously used loaded dice.

Scrumpy wrote:At Hastings the Saxons would have been on ++ at impact, and ++ in melee against the knights.

Therefore William the Tanner obviously used loaded dice.

However, we are working on the assumption that much of the fyrd at Hastings would be rated as Protected, Poor.

Even so, they would have been ++ against the knights at impact, and + at melee.

The basic odds would be at impact Spear 63.6 % chance of hitting Knights 36.4 % chance ( 37.5 with a general)

So the Spear should get about 4 hits to 2, and survive to melee.

Where the odds should be 45.5 % hits to the Spear and the same 36-37 % chance for the Knights.

The Knights should in theory then bounce off at the end of the bound.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:At Hastings the Saxons would have been on ++ at impact, and ++ in melee against the knights.

Therefore William the Tanner obviously used loaded dice.

However, we are working on the assumption that much of the fyrd at Hastings would be rated as Protected, Poor.

WHy then do you allow so many armoured Fyrd ? WHich battle(s) does this refer too ?

Scrumpy wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:At Hastings the Saxons would have been on ++ at impact, and ++ in melee against the knights.

Therefore William the Tanner obviously used loaded dice.

However, we are working on the assumption that much of the fyrd at Hastings would be rated as Protected, Poor.

WHy then do you allow so many armoured Fyrd ? WHich battle(s) does this refer too ?

Because the bulk of the better fyrd weren't there. They had served their time earlier in the year and fought at Stamford bridge.

Scrumpy wrote:Even so, they would have been ++ against the knights at impact, and + at melee.

The basic odds would be at impact Spear 63.6 % chance of hitting Knights 36.4 % chance ( 37.5 with a general)

So the Spear should get about 4 hits to 2, and survive to melee.

Where the odds should be 45.5 % hits to the Spear and the same 36-37 % chance for the Knights.

The Knights should in theory then bounce off at the end of the bound.

Which is exactly what happened in the battle (of Hastings), until some of the fyrd pursued routing (or feigned routing, depending on the interpretation you believe) Normans and came off the hill. As the fyrd, despite being Poor, are shock troops, they must CMT not to pursue routed mounted, and, being Undrilled Poor, are likely to fail. The rules also make it quite likely that William will be able to rally any routed Normans.

Whether or not the historical result is the most likely result of a refight under FOG, it is certainly a possible and not unlikely result.

Note that the rules are not based entirely on one (not fully understood) battle. The historical result of any one historical battle is not necessarily the most probable result of that battle if it had been fought historically under exactly the same conditions several times. "Fortunes of War" played a major part in many historical battle results.

Of course, I still believe in rolling better than an opponent, never fails to win a game !

rbodleyscott wrote: Whether or not the historical result is the most likely result of a refight under FOG, it is certainly a possible and not unlikely result.

Note that the rules are not based entirely on one (not fully understood) battle. The historical result of any one historical battle is not necessarily the most probable result of that battle if it had been fought historically under exactly the same conditions several times. "Fortunes of War" played a major part in many historical battle results.

Personally I think William was a lucky bastard (ahem ) at Hastings and the battle would normally have been won by the English - mind you he had to chance his arm as the longer term strategic position wasn't good.