Slitherine

I currently have 16 elements of gallic warband 15mm based 3 to a 40mm X 20mm base plus a further 4 elements of naked warband based 4 to a 40mm X 20mm base

I have also just purchased and am painting a further 16 gallic warbandsmen to be used as appropriate.

My question is for a Hannibal type carthaginian army what should i do with my existing gauls, leave as currently based?

And which basing would be most useful for the 16 new ones??

Ta

Andy

As long as you have "8's" (bases, not figures) of each (3 to a base or 4) you are OK.

Logical approach then would be to leave my 16 elements of 3 to a base, and beef up my naked warriors at 4 to a base as I think i have 4 bases of them and I have 16 new figures which will give me 4 more bases.

I kind of caught threads about having to have all your gauls in a battle at either 3 OR 4 to a base not both. But then read some more and it did not sound as simple as that....

I kind of caught threads about having to have all your gauls in a battle at either 3 OR 4 to a base not both. But then read some more and it did not sound as simple as that....

It can get a bit complicated, which is why we don't demonize players for having their HF on 20mm deep bases, or having 3 or 4 figures to a base.

Generally speaking the bases and figures were chosen to be compatible with other popular rules sets, so that players can get into the game quickly without spending an inordinate amount of time rebasing their figures.
I suspect that, in time, most player will rebase their figures to match the troops types that they most use.
i.e.
HF: 4 figures on a 15mm base
Drilled MF: 4 figures on a 20mm deep base
Undrilled MF: 3 figures on a 20mm base

As far as the Gauls in the Carthaginian army go - they should be all MF or all HF, and it would be preferable if all bases were identical.

Terry,

I think i shall leave the new figures unbased and leave the old ones alone until I get the rules and army lists.

The all or nothing aspect of the decision, means I need to get it right, so need to see the rules and army lists before I make a decision.

I think a major factor is how terrain works in practice in this game. Most rules sets make a big deal about terrain and then 99% of all games are played with the main part of the battlefield totally clear of terrain. In these situations troops that benefit in rougher terrain (MF?) are pointless. As such my natural tendency would be towards the HF option.

Do FoG games tend to REALLY have large amounts of terrain in the parts of the battlefield where it matters??

Andy

Personal view only............

I would tend most of my gauls to HF personally.

There is a good mix of terrain but to get decisive wins you will want to fight and taking a oad of terrain may feel good but if the enemy stays in the open you will struggle. At least with HF Gauls you can deal a deadly charge in the open and sruvive against mounted armies.

What is nice is to have a couple fo BGs of MF as a rough terrain team.

Si

shall wrote:Personal view only............

I would tend most of my gauls to HF personally.

There is a good mix of terrain but to get decisive wins you will want to fight and taking a oad of terrain may feel good but if the enemy stays in the open you will struggle. At least with HF Gauls you can deal a deadly charge in the open and sruvive against mounted armies.

What is nice is to have a couple fo BGs of MF as a rough terrain team.

Si

Si,
Unless I have misunderstood your last comment, you are referring to a couple of battle groups of something OTHER than gauls, as all your gallic warband types need to be the same type either MF or HF?

Andy

miffedofreading wrote:

shall wrote:Personal view only............

I would tend most of my gauls to HF personally.

There is a good mix of terrain but to get decisive wins you will want to fight and taking a oad of terrain may feel good but if the enemy stays in the open you will struggle. At least with HF Gauls you can deal a deadly charge in the open and sruvive against mounted armies.

What is nice is to have a couple fo BGs of MF as a rough terrain team.

Si

Si,
Unless I have misunderstood your last comment, you are referring to a couple of battle groups of something OTHER than gauls, as all your gallic warband types need to be the same type either MF or HF?

Andy

A lowland Gallic army can have an allied contingent from a Gallic hill tribe. So the main army would be HF but the allied tribe would be MF.

Exactly

Si

Si, Richard, etc,

My gauls are part of a carthaginian army. Would I then have to have them all HF? or can i have some of each??

It really doesn't matter, I suspect make the gauls HF and I have my spanish scutarii for MF.

Just wondered

Andy

Gauls in a Later Carthaginian army must be all HF or all MF.

"A lowland Gallic army can have an allied contingent from a Gallic hill tribe. So the main army would be HF but the allied tribe would be MF.'

As my father would say "Wice Wersa"?
Danny Weitz

Yup.

Si, Richard, etc,

My gauls are part of a carthaginian army. Would I then have to have them all HF? or can i have some of each??

It really doesn't matter, I suspect make the gauls HF and I have my spanish scutarii for MF.

Just wondered

Andy

That's a more flexible one. I have tried it both ways. If you take a large number of good spearmen you may find it better to have the Gauls as MF and create a powerhouse attack through rough terrain at speed.

If you want some elephants in decent numbers I foud you coudln't really get enough spearmen so then the 7pt Gauls as HF are really useful.

So I guess I am saying ...

If Cannae army - HF
If Lake Tresimine - MF

Si

Forgot to ask, are my carthaginian MF Scutarii suppossed to be 3 or 4 to a base. i.e. are they drilled??

Ta

Andy

They can be either.

Ah,

If the scutarii are allowed to be drilled or undrilled....

and I don't have the rules yet.....

What are the pros/cons of drilled V undrilled?

I presume undrilled are cheaper and drilled can do something that undrilled can't??

Andy

miffedofreading wrote :

I presume undrilled are cheaper and drilled can do something that undrilled can't??

You are correct andy they are cheaper but drilled can manoeuvre better and will pass CMT tests easier.

Andy E.

Drilled have much higher odds of passing Complex Move tests when close to enemy - therefore more flexible and adaptable in a crisis.

Si

shall wrote:Drilled have much higher odds of passing Complex Move tests when close to enemy - therefore more flexible and adaptable in a crisis.

Si

The differences between undrilled and drilled medium foot are highly significant. Not only do the drilled have a better chance of passing a CMT but there are a significant number of maneuvers that are simply not possible to undrilled.

An example, turning 90 degrees:

Undrilled have to pass a CMT needing an 8 on two dice.
Drilled can automatically turn 90 and if they pass a CMT needing a 7 on two dice then they can turn AND move.