Slitherine

Hello All,

Well, after all the discussions on Egyptians and Kuruc Rebellion (on the FoG:R site) I've actually come to this conclusion:

I have loads of unpainted stuff... I really should paint that BEFORE I invest more money into buying new unpainted lead. I actually have a desire to reduce my unpainted lead to less than my body weight. I know I run the risk of spontaneously exploding, but I'm willing to take that risk.

So, I have unpainted (partially painted) Yorkist Pretender WotR by Perry in 28mm plastics. I made this list up for FoG:AM(V1). Can anyone tell me what the weaknesses are in this list for V2?



Incidentally this list won a comp in V1 and also did very well in a modified version for 800AP (until it came up against Sean Drummond and his Swiss).

Its a solid list.

I generally prefer only 1 pike and more armoured superior heavy weapon types.

In v2, I am of mixed view on that qty of Longbow. But it may be the minimum?

Longbow are generally better, but they will also have more opponents. And if you face a big foot foe army they are chancing a lot about winning the impact.

hazelbark wrote:Its a solid list.

I generally prefer only 1 pike and more armoured superior heavy weapon types.

Fair enough. Taken on board. I actually did think about this as well, as I think 8's are a bit fragile. I'd prefer 1 block of 10 -or- 1 block of 12. Will have a think about it.

hazelbark wrote:In v2, I am of mixed view on that qty of Longbow. But it may be the minimum?

It's certainly not the minimum. I can go a lot less than that. I don't have the list handy, but I THINK the minimum is something like 12.

hazelbark wrote:Longbow are generally better, but they will also have more opponents. And if you face a big foot foe army they are chancing a lot about winning the impact.

Interesting. They have a sword. I would have thought the V2 'feared foot opponents' would be more like the Achaemenid persian types, or other foot archers, where I'd be outshot purely because of numbers. Who do you see as being an impact/melee threat to them? Impact foot will be up at impact but less dice, and then we're both likely to be even at melee. I can't see anyone who'd be an incredible "OMG, I didn't win the impact phase, all is lost" with these guys. Who were you thinking about? Interested in your POV.

Armored spear would give them some trouble.

gozerius wrote:Armored spear would give them some trouble.

Yes and no.

They can't get a double advantage against protected sword, so will be exactly the same as protected spear (even down to the shooting on the way in) and there would be less of them.

Also, I think the number of armoured troops will be less under V2 - just an opinion.

ravenflight wrote:

gozerius wrote:Armored spear would give them some trouble.

Yes and no.

They can't get a double advantage against protected sword, so will be exactly the same as protected spear (even down to the shooting on the way in) and there would be less of them.

Also, I think the number of armoured troops will be less under V2 - just an opinion.

Anyone who can get a POA melee advantage against the longbow are a threat. Average troops down a POA in melee have grave survivability issues. if you are down a POA you should expect to lose and the question is can you hold up long enough to win elsewhere.

I think it will be an interesting evolution to see how people purchase armor. If Longbow are becoming popular you will see more protected impact types. Sure its even in melee but impact Catalans (superior) or run-of-the-mill gallic barbarians (average) have an advantage at impact.
(2 dice ++) = 1.33 hits vs 1.16 (2 dice -- and 1 dice 0). The Catalans are more like 1.5 hits on average.

Also I don't think mounted will be protected in large Qty. And a concentrated rush on longbows I find successful.

ravenflight wrote:I actually have a desire to reduce my unpainted lead to less than my body weight.

...

So, I have unpainted (partially painted) Yorkist Pretender WotR by Perry in 28mm plastics.

The main weakness of this plan is that painting the plastics won't do much to reduce the weight of your unpainted figures. You should certainly paint something made from metal.

Marc

ravenflight wrote:

gozerius wrote:Armored spear would give them some trouble.

Yes and no.

They can't get a double advantage against protected sword, so will be exactly the same as protected spear (even down to the shooting on the way in) and there would be less of them.

Also, I think the number of armoured troops will be less under V2 - just an opinion.

...and also, if you get threatened by armoured spear there's nothing to stop you turning 180 and walking away from them - not much of a threat IMO!

FWIW I think longbows have got stronger in v2 - the support shooting change and the removal of the second POA for armour both help them.

hannibal wrote:...and also, if you get threatened by armoured spear there's nothing to stop you turning 180 and walking away from them - not much of a threat IMO!

FWIW I think longbows have got stronger in v2 - the support shooting change and the removal of the second POA for armour both help them.

The question is, are they as advantaged as normal bows are... or to put it another way, if Longbows are improved but normal bows have better bang for buck, are something like the Yorkist Pretender going to suffer against a field of armies with self bows?

You see, in V1 I think WOTR/100YW armies had their advantages because the armies that they were good against would clean up the bow armed armies. So, you wouldn't see wall to wall bow armies. If you had to fight them then you could manage a losing draw, but in the scheme of things you weren't going to play 4 losing draws in a comp because there weren't that many 'only bow' armies.

I'm sure there will be a lot more bow armies out there, and maybe the Yorkist Pretender will suffer against them.

Not sure.

Maybe, but I can't see a big move to bow armies. Even then there's not much better against bow armies than HA/A men-at-arms, who are still likely to be ++ in melee against a lot of bowmen & will chop them up in short order, so I don't think it's a bad matchup. I don't tend to play much out of period TBH and I still reckon the army has improved relative to its peers

ravenflight wrote: I made this list up for FoG:AM(V1). Can anyone tell me what the weaknesses are in this list for V2?

Focusses on weaknesses specifically:

A significant change is that turn 90/expand and move is now only 2MU. Thus the longbow are not as slippery as v1 which means they need to bug out a little earlier if they don't fancy what's coming at them.

Mounted knights will be + vs HW and ++ vs LB in the open (though LB get more dice). If the Kn win you'll be on at least -2 (lost impact and lost v lancers). So I imagine they'll try to hit your HW full in the face but just clip the Longbow. Just clip because they wont take full shooting on the way in and even if they are disrupted they still get 2 dice. Superior Kn with a general are likely to hit with both dice. So then it comes down to whether you can hit twice with three dice needing 5,5,4. A 2-1 loss seems quite likely and then you are dead.

So I think the above two points will encourage you to have a long line of LB as you're less able to soak knights with arrows due to the limited manouvre.

Final weakness is that TC is limited to two BGs in a Battle Line. So you can't double move with all eight of your power units. An FC might be work thinking about? Or change the 3 TCs to 2FCs?