Slitherine

Recently in a topic in the "Fantasy" section i posted a list where i classified some troops (chaos beast men from Warhmyouknowwhat) as MOB. Somebody said there that I should clasified them as MF but i argue that if a herd of beastmen is not by its nature the very definition of MOB i do not think what else would be, but it draw to my attention that there is no particular rule about MOBs (just extra deep base).

By any mean i say that there is something wrong with that, but what about giving "mob" some flavor, i have some ideas about it. But just keeping the cathegory there, for nobody to use it and not having any particular rule just make me uncomfortable.

Ranimiro wrote:Recently in a topic in the "Fantasy" section i posted a list where i classified some troops (chaos beast men from Warhmyouknowwhat) as MOB. Somebody said there that I should clasified them as MF but i argue that if a herd of beastmen is not by its nature the very definition of MOB i do not think what else would be, but it draw to my attention that there is no particular rule about MOBs (just extra deep base).

By any mean i say that there is something wrong with that, but what about giving "mob" some flavor, i have some ideas about it. But just keeping the cathegory there, for nobody to use it and not having any particular rule just make me uncomfortable.

It is there for compatibility with basing from DBM. However, it also provides a visual way to represent troops that attended the battle in large numbers, assembled in deep crowds.

Ranimiro

Mob are actually a cheap way of getting a BG of MF. I was playing Principate Romans against S*ss*n*d Persians. I had a BG of 6 LF, Average, Javelins, Light Spear that I was pushing through a wooded hill towards my opponents baggage when a 10 base BG of Mob interposed themselves between me and it. I could not shoot them to any effect as I could not get 1 per three and charging them was not going to be much fun as they overlapped me both ends. The Mob proceeded to prevent me coming off the hill and into the side of a BG of El.

Seemed good value to me.

timmy1 wrote:Ranimiro

Mob are actually a cheap way of getting a BG of MF.

But they are no cheaper than MF. I think the point was that they are just MF on deeper bases. The OP would like them to be treated differently.

But they are cheaper because you don't have to pay for a weapon capability. I can't see any other MF in the books that have zero capabilities. They look like cheap filler to me.

light spear are free and MANY rubbish MF have only this weapon in many list

Olivier, you are correct.

The base price is the same, the quality and grade of protections are the same, same with the options to weapons, so, besides the aesthetical factor there are no other difference.

I was thinking that maybe MOBs could be treated as being permanently disordered with a cost reduction or keeping the cost unchanged some bonus to their CT (reflecting their fanatical nature).

Ranimiro wrote:The base price is the same, the quality and grade of protections are the same, same with the options to weapons, so, besides the aesthetical factor there are no other difference.

I was thinking that maybe MOBs could be treated as being permanently disordered with a cost reduction or keeping the cost unchanged some bonus to their CT (reflecting their fanatical nature).

In the early beta versions of the rules Mob only got the same impact and melee dice as light foot but that made them really really rubbish and they would need to be even cheaper in terms of points than they are already.

As for mob being fanatical not all mob were. Many were just masses of ill equipped people.

Poor quality undrilled medium foot do indeed have the same effect as mob in the game and they are almost impossible to maneuver and rubbish at anything other than being a punchbag. To me this seems OK for the mass of ill equiped people.
Armies with fantical mob types tend to actually have average mob who can at a push fight.
The basing is as has been previously said just for compatibility with DBM. I would find the prospect of rebasing all 90 bases of horde from my DBM slave revolt army rather daunting.

i am not proposing a base change. Making them fight like LF is maybe too much, but making them fight as permanently disordered maybe be in the middle. If you think that mobs are not necesarely fanatical then maybe they could have a price reduction or get quality improvement for free. (poor mobs then should be free and do not count attrition points)

Mobs were there if they go your troops see friends running away and don't necessarily say oh look there goes the mob who cares? They are disconcerted to see any friends going and get worried about being left alone surrounded by enemy regardless of troops class or quality. So you see they should and do count towards army break point.
Perhaps your concern is that in a fantasy setting the term does not fit with what you think it should. They are a mass of poorly armed, undrilled slobs who probably don't have much of a nice formation but if they can get you alone they suddenly look a lot more frightening.
Mobs, good for something besides just taking up space

I think my point is not clear.

Historically they were ineffective but " volunteer" troops (maybe fanatical). So we can represent that by making them constituvely disordered (have a -1 to CT and fight with less dice), but to compensate and given their "voluteer" status they should have a price reduction. This could be as simple as buying average mob, a poor prices and superior as average. In this case poor mobs should be free (but limited by army list) to represented for example a group of peasant that join your army. We can make them generate just 1 attrition point if destroyed.

I am not sure peasant levies are volunteers...

Ranimiro wrote:Recently in a topic in the "Fantasy" section i posted a list where i classified some troops (chaos beast men from Warhmyouknowwhat) as MOB. Somebody said there that I should clasified them as MF but i argue that if a herd of beastmen is not by its nature the very definition of MOB i do not think what else would be, but it draw to my attention that there is no particular rule about MOBs (just extra deep base).

By any mean i say that there is something wrong with that, but what about giving "mob" some flavor, i have some ideas about it. But just keeping the cathegory there, for nobody to use it and not having any particular rule just make me uncomfortable.

In order to get some flavour added to mobs I think you might need to give some historical evidence as to why the current rules don't work. i.e. Why should undrilled poor mob behave differently to undrilled poor MF? As another poster said, the reason we have them is that people have figures based from other systems, not that the authors thought there were differences between the two types.

I´m just saying that there is this troop types that nobody uses becuse it has no particular rule plus a handicap.

Ranimiro wrote:I´m just saying that there is this troop types that nobody uses becuse it has no particular rule plus a handicap.

Ah. People do use mobs quite a lot where they are available for the army. But perhaps not in your gaming circle?

They are very weak troops but are very cheap. If used carefully they can be effective. They have a similar function to the rubbishy medium foot: make the army bigger, defend the camp, fight as a last resort. Provide rear support to poor battle line troops.

The extra base depth is really no problem.

Ranimiro wrote:I´m just saying that there is this troop types that nobody uses becuse it has no particular rule plus a handicap.

Well to say nobody uses mob is incorrect although they are uncommon. As for having a handicap the only handicap is that they have deeped bases which is not a major issue and can on occasions be an advantage. A 3 deep BG of Mob turns 90 into a 3 wide line which can be handy.

I have used mob on a number of occasions although only once in anything other than my Slave Revolt army.

As for troop type there is just one small section in the rules that says mob are effectively medium foot.

grahambriggs wrote:....some historical evidence as to why the current rules don't work. i.e. Why should undrilled poor mob behave differently to undrilled poor MF?

They were chained to the ground. That doesn't seem MF'ish. More like artillery for movement and melee, and lancers for shooting ability.

philqw78 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:....some historical evidence as to why the current rules don't work. i.e. Why should undrilled poor mob behave differently to undrilled poor MF?

They were chained to the ground. That doesn't seem MF'ish. More like artillery for movement and melee, and lancers for shooting ability.

That rather depends on what history books you believe.

I suppose poor MF are actually very maneuverable compared to someone who is nailed to the floor.

philqw78 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:....some historical evidence as to why the current rules don't work. i.e. Why should undrilled poor mob behave differently to undrilled poor MF?

They were chained to the ground. That doesn't seem MF'ish. More like artillery for movement and melee, and lancers for shooting ability.

The one example that I know of for 'chained levy' is for Sassanid Persian infantry. I understand that this is hotly contested in some quarters.

I do agree that it would be more difficult to move large masses of poorly trained or untrained troops than 'regulars'. Of course the CMT does that for anythong fancy but there might be a case for making their top speed slower.