Slitherine

Hi everyone

Well, I'm new to FoG, and I was going to decide about my army, and well, after looking through most companion books, I found that I really like two of them (actually 3, but one of them can be turned into the other with ease, i think).

1) Ayyubid Egyptian

I really like them, I like the Mamluks, I like the idea of having Saladin as an IC. I also like the idea of a majority of cavalry in the army, but when you need you can dismount the mamluks.

Is this army tactically versatile?
Is this army fun? Will I get bored of it quickly?
Is this army difficult to use?
And finally, is this army competitive?

2) Nikephorian / Komnenan Byzantine

I love the Varangian Guard, even if you say it's not so worth it, I'd still have them in my army , I also like the Cataphracts (that's why maybe I'm a little more in favour of the Nikephorians), and the mixed units (another one in favour of the nikes), but I'd really like to have LH too, so the Komnenan would be good too. Although if I pick Byzantines, maybe I'd like a mixed force of infantry and Cavalry, so maybe the Nikes is the best options.

Which one would you pick?
Are these armies versatile? (I really think so, but I'd like first hand or second hand info, mine is just looking at the books)
Is the Varangian Guard good enough?
Are these armies fun to play with?
Are these armies difficult to use?
Are these armies competitive?

The main thing I'm looking for is an army that's fun. I really like if they're also difficult to play or play well / master, because it takes more skill, time, and therefore, more fun

Thanks a lot in advance

Both armies are IMO decent enough.

The Byzantines are a bit harder to use but when used well they are a very good army.

The Varangians are as hard as nails. Last time I used Nikephorians we have a BG of 6 superior heavily armoured spear Varangians and they kicked butt. The Lombard lancers that had the missfortune to charge them declined the 'opportunity' to intercept the Varnagians as they charged some militia spearmen as the initial encounter between the Lombards and Varangians saw half the lombards die and the BG disrupt in one impact and melee phase.

There are some really nice Byzantine figures in the Khurassan range as well.

Thanks for the reply, Hammy.

I'm glad to hear that the Varangians are actually tough. Sometimes it happens that, in this games, some units (specially elite ones), although being good, are a little overpriced. But well, I'll use them anyway, so

So which one do you prefer? Komnenans or Nikephorians?

Any more thoughts, of anybody, would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again

I prefer the later Nikephorian with the good Varangians and some Frankish knights. You can have a few BGs of light horse in that period as well and the Skutatoi while poor against foot are a good anti mounted force.

The Lombards vs the Varangians went like this:

4 Lombard superior armoured cavalry lancers vs 6 Varangian superior heavily armoured spearmen and accompanying TC

Lombards fail test not to charge
Impact phase: Lombards 4 dice with a - POA rerolling 1s, Varangians 4 dice with a + POA rerolling 1s and 2s.
Lombards lose and lose a base
Melee phase: Lombards 3 dice at -- (worse armour and sword negated) rerolling 1s , Varangians 6 dice at ++ rerolling 1s and 2s
Lombards take 6 hits (no real suprise), lose a base and disrupt.

After that they were how you might say less than keen to repeat the process even with the Varangians not negating their lance POA as they were charging the militia.

I know there were some Byzantine armies at historicon - and if my memory serves correctly - Shark Boy had one - of some flavor
Nice looking troops
They seem to me like they "HIT HARD"

The ability to 'morph' the Ayyubid Egyptian into other lists is easier in some respects than the Byzantine.

The Varangian guard are probably the hardest BG in the game. Unfortunatley at normal fighting size it is also one of the most expensive if elite. Super drilled Kn being only 104 points.

Next time I would probably take it as elite, put it down last and let it take the enemy army on by itself.

Legionbuilder wrote:I know there were some Byzantine armies at historicon - and if my memory serves correctly - Shark Boy had one - of some flavor
Nice looking troops
They seem to me like they "HIT HARD"

He ran Early Byzantines, but he hits like a little girl.

hazelbark wrote:

Legionbuilder wrote:I know there were some Byzantine armies at historicon - and if my memory serves correctly - Shark Boy had one - of some flavor
Nice looking troops
They seem to me like they "HIT HARD"

He ran Early Byzantines, but he hits like a little girl.

Dignity and good manners prevent me from responding to Dan in the manner he deserves.



Marc

Well, hahaha, I never expected so much comments

Thanks to everyone, really. I'm not decided yet, although I've solved my question about the Varangians, poor Lombards

I like the idea of morphing into another army later, and as Sadista said, I think (maybe I'm wrong) that the Ayyubids are more "morphable", but, what would I the Mamluk miniatures for? I mean, they're not like Cataphracts, that are in a lot of armies. The only troops that are like them are maybe the Ghilman of the Turks and other eastern armies of the period... but of all that armies, I prefer the Ayyubid.

Anyone has any more thoughts?

Thanks again

I think that there are lots of lists with Ghilman in them. FWIW, all the IWF FoG World Champions won with Turks...

timmy1 wrote:I think that there are lots of lists with Ghilman in them. FWIW, all the IWF FoG World Champions won with Turks...

Ottomans with Timariots not Ghilman. Similar but not identical. Could be morphed within acceptable license.

timmy1 wrote:I think that there are lots of lists with Ghilman in them. FWIW, all the IWF FoG World Champions won with Turks...

There were 6 Ottoman armies at the IWF, some were better led than others. I tend to find it is not so much great armies, as great players that continually end up at the top of the leaderboard.