Slitherine

I was looking through the rule book last night, and I still cannot find any disadvantages for Medium Foot. They have far superior movement than Heavy Foot. In the blurb in the back it mentions that MF are not as good against Cav and don't hold out as long in a loosing fight. How does this translate into rule terms?

Do they have negative PoAs against Cav or something? i didn't notice any.

How does the lessstaying power work. Auto break tests look to be based on the quality of the unit rather than the type.

Thanks

Mounted have a POA against them in the open in impact and MF also have a -1 to the CT for losing to mounted and/or HF in close combat.

Steve P

Thanks!

Still, with all the movement advantages, it almost looks like MF give more bang for the buck, just beware of Cav!

vamrat wrote:Thanks!

Still, with all the movement advantages, it almost looks like MF give more bang for the buck, just beware of Cav!

I've taken my Vikings (Heavy Foot) up against Keith's Scots (Medium Foot) several times now. It's rarely an issue, but that -ve can be a big one when it happens.

Depending on the Impact and Melee weapon type even Cavalry can be dismissed. Offensive Spear Medium Infantry is pretty solid no matter what, where I feel 'Impact Foot' may suffer more against Cavalry. Disadvantaged in Impact AND (generally) Disadvantaged in Melee AND taking a -ve on both Impact and Melee tests... ouch. But then again, you only test if you lose... so...

I'd agree with you about getting good bang for buck. The fact that you can pretty much 'setup' without regard for terrain is (IMHO) a very valuable asset.

You're going to lose combats because you're Medium Infantry, but not very often.

Ian

Hmm.. MF OS vs HF imp. foot are at -- POA in the open, -1 CT if they lose and if they do the lose the possibility to negate swordsman in melee - i do not see MF as more "bang for the Buck", regardles type. HF can stick around, i had sup legionaries beat knights several times in 3 games in a row in a recent tournament - would not have happened with MF auxilia.

That said I agree the MF kan be really good at their thing.

Fulgrim wrote:Hmm.. MF OS vs HF imp. foot are at -- POA in the open, -1 CT if they lose and if they do the lose the possibility to negate swordsman in melee

Yes, this is ONE troop type, and trust me the same is true of Heavy Foot. I've had Legions go through my HF Offensive Spear Hoplites like they're not there. If you look at the cost factor, how much are your legionaries? 14 AP's? How much are MF Protected Offensive Spear? Something like 7!

I certainly wouldn't like the match up, but I woudlnt' like the matchup with Heavies either.

Ian

vamrat wrote:Thanks!

Still, with all the movement advantages, it almost looks like MF give more bang for the buck, just beware of Cav!

Yes. There is a disadvantage for MF losing versus HF too. The other issue is a lot of MF are not as well equipped as HF.

hazelbark wrote:

vamrat wrote:Thanks!

Still, with all the movement advantages, it almost looks like MF give more bang for the buck, just beware of Cav!

Yes. There is a disadvantage for MF losing versus HF too. The other issue is a lot of MF are not as well equipped as HF.

That was the biggest problem I was seeing. There are no Armoured MF to my knowellge (which is VERY limited, I must add). Ultimately I took my Spartan list over an Hellenistic Greek list because the HF Sup Arm Drilled Off Sp. looked too sexy to pass up. In the Hellenistic list I like the idea of massed MF Thurephoroi Off Sp., but the Lakedaimonoi won out.

There are almost certainly others, but armoured MF appear at least in the Dominate Roman, Thracian and Dailami (and all those lists with a Dailami BG or two) lists.

Paul

Quite a few armies have armoured MF, indeed you can field armies of them - just often not available to the army you want.

Mike

There are lots of armoured MF about if you look for them. They still suffer in the open against mounted (the extra - POA for mounted vs medium foot hurts) and whenever they lose a combat against HF or mounted they take that extra -1 on the CT.

That said they are 33% faster than HF which can be very nice.

hammy wrote:There are lots of armoured MF about if you look for them. They still suffer in the open against mounted (the extra - POA for mounted vs medium foot hurts) and whenever they lose a combat against HF or mounted they take that extra -1 on the CT.

That said they are 33% faster than HF which can be very nice.

I think Armoured MF Offensive Spear would be very effective at pushing enemy cavalry opponents off the table.

Ian

DaiSho wrote:

hammy wrote:There are lots of armoured MF about if you look for them. They still suffer in the open against mounted (the extra - POA for mounted vs medium foot hurts) and whenever they lose a combat against HF or mounted they take that extra -1 on the CT.

That said they are 33% faster than HF which can be very nice.

I think Armoured MF Offensive Spear would be very effective at pushing enemy cavalry opponents off the table.

Ian

Well they are a POA down at impact against light spear armed cavalry and because they are MF they take the same CT penalty that HF would against lancers. In fact MF spear are as vulnerable to light spear cavalry as HF with no impact POA are against lancers.

MF spear that end up charging lancers are at -- in the impact phase.

Of course the real problem is that I can't think of any army that can have more than one or two BGs of armoured MF offensive spear. Now protected and unprotected MF offensive spear, there are lots of them....

hammy wrote:Of course the real problem is that I can't think of any army that can have more than one or two BGs of armoured MF offensive spear. Now protected and unprotected MF offensive spear, there are lots of them....

Sure, I was just saying 'it would be good' and if one becomes avail - then it would be something to consider I'd imagine.

Ian

DaiSho wrote:

hammy wrote:Of course the real problem is that I can't think of any army that can have more than one or two BGs of armoured MF offensive spear. Now protected and unprotected MF offensive spear, there are lots of them....

Sure, I was just saying 'it would be good' and if one becomes avail - then it would be something to consider I'd imagine.

Ian

I think you may have to continue hoping for quite a long time

hammy wrote:

DaiSho wrote:

hammy wrote:Of course the real problem is that I can't think of any army that can have more than one or two BGs of armoured MF offensive spear. Now protected and unprotected MF offensive spear, there are lots of them....

Sure, I was just saying 'it would be good' and if one becomes avail - then it would be something to consider I'd imagine.

Ian

I think you may have to continue hoping for quite a long time

There are ALWAYS player designed lists

Ian

DaiSho wrote:
There are ALWAYS player designed lists

Ian

There's always FoG-fantasy.

pbrandon wrote:There are almost certainly others, but armoured MF appear at least in the Dominate Roman, Thracian and Dailami (and all those lists with a Dailami BG or two) lists.

Paul

My armoured MF Thorakitai in my Seleucids were very tough at Shieldwall... apart from the time I charge some LF and hit the knights behind them. That wasn't pretty nor clever

Steve P

Hmm.. MF OS vs HF imp. foot are at -- POA in the open,

This may've been a typo but MF OS vs HF Imp Foot are only at a single minus at impact in the open.

Pete

MF can seem to be better than HF for the same points and in some ways they are (better move, better in terrain). However, they are vulnerable to cavalry in the open and against otherwise equal HF they will lose in the long run. That -1 on CT can make quite a difference when you go from needing a 7 to pass to an 8.
It's good to have some MF in most armies to occupy terrain but if you have a lot and leave them in the open they will be a nice target for enemy mounted and HF.