Slitherine

Hi,
a friend of mine said the worst army in the Rise of Rome book is the Numidian army. What do you think about this sentence ?
Do you think it's not possible to use this army in tournament with some chance to win ?
Thank you

There is not bad armies, there is bad Players.


David

nicofig wrote:Hi,
a friend af mine said the worst army in the Rise of Rome book is the Numidian army. What do you think about this sentence ?
Think you it's not possible to use this army in tournament with some chance to win ?
Thank you

Well I have used it and it is a fun army. Hardly top-notch but it really isn't bad.

Simon and I played one game with it at Godendag at Usk in 2007, which we won. Not sure what conclusion you can draw from that.

The Numidians were skirmishing, "hit-and-run" warriors. One of the (many) things I like about FoG is that it allows the Numidians to actually be used that way, in contrast to some other popular rule sets. If that is kept in mind, there is no reason that a Numidian army should be any "worse" on the tabletop than those of the Parthians or other skirmish-based peoples.

Cheers,
Scott

I confirm my review ! And I don't think I'm a particulary bad player
It's a real dog not totally hopeless but for sure not a winner one!

olivier wrote:I confirm my review ! And I don't think I'm a particulary bad player
It's a real dog not totally hopeless but for sure not a winner one!

But this means it is extra enjoyable to win with it.

It is not an obvious choice as a match winner, but it actually is if you adapt your play to its strengths. Of course given free it wouldn;t be in my top list of armies. I might give it a go at the weekend though.

The elephants can provide a single heavy crunch force and with all those LH you shoudl get them in where you want to. You can swarm everywhere with jav armed troops and if you put your LH in 6s then you can engage in melee with other light horse very effectviely. The army is huge so you can fill the table and still flank march.

I will see if I can dig out the design I used in a test game and put it up for everyone. It ain't so bad.

I think I would galdly paly anything in Rise of Rome with it and feel I had a decent chance overall. You need to be patient and put lots of skimishing in for the first 2 hours. Keep the Elephants central with TC so they can move to hit a weak spot. Have an IC as you can afford him and put him with Roman Foot troops and he will tunr them into soemthing chunky. Its nemesis is a better LH army that can run it off table and ahs bowfire.

As Richard said we rolled over Pike army with it at Usk. But also as he says who knows what to make of that. I recall I pulled a muscle lat inthe game - it was that tense!! Richard a doctor kindly took care of me with words of support like - "get on with it" and "don't die before we finish the game for goodness sake".

Si

Thanks for yours advices.
Olivier, I try this army in a next tournament

I would only pick the Numidians if I really wanted to challenge myself. The style of the army does not suit my rather pedestrian predilictions as a general. I like heavy infantry.

I did decide to challenge myself with a Later Carthigian army, as they are about half skirmishers, but that is as far as I can go.

Why would any army be more suitable to get a win then another.
I would say that it depends more on how you use any given army and are able to see its weaknesses and strenghts.

If you are a player that wants to get stuck in with hard hitting infantry then it would be a rather dubious choice to pick a Numidian army If however you want to allow for some considerable skirmishing and make sure you hit the weak point (or better yet flank(march)) your opponent I am sure this is a very pleasant army to play with.

You need patience and nerves of steel however to sustain your opponents scaffolding when he tries desperately to catch all those pony's with his roman legionairs and fails to do so for 2 or more hours. So I doubt it will make you friends in your tournament circle !

Hope to see some pictures of this Army, it must be a very large one.

René

See the AAR Numidians in Oxfrod for how they did even without a Roman ally - not so bad.

Si

>>I would only pick the Numidians if I really wanted to challenge myself. The style of the army does not suit my rather pedestrian predilictions as a general. I like heavy infantry. <<

The key is to find an army you like, plays with a style that matches your own, looks pretty, and you will enjoy your games win or lose.

A friend of mine just played two games of Numidians vs Gauls and really cleaned their clocks. The Gauls are quite deficient in jav skirmishers unless they take Spanish Allies. My friend took 2 blocks of 8 HF Swordsmen, backed by two blocks of 4 HF Swordsmen for rear support. One flank had 2 BG of 2 EL each and a LH unit, the other flank had some LF and LH to work around the enemy flank. He really enjoyed the game and will try them next against some Romans, he expects the Roman foot to crush his swordsmen, but he may mix the Pachys into the line with the swordsmen rather than on one or both flanks.

The following comments are generalizations about players and armies. There are always exceptions and I acknowledge that. Many comments below are drawn from a limited experience of 9 years on the tabletop. And based on my of my own experiences over that time.

I think armies such as this one are great. While it can be a bit more difficult to use effectively against an opponent of one of the more "mainstream", "hardcore", "competetive" armies, it in itself can turn the tables on those armies becuase often in a tournament people take "tournament" armies. These armies most often form highly competetive players reflect similar design strategies for a given book/period. Often what an "non-mainstream" army offers is an army they did not necessarily plan on defeating.

Another point is that an army that requires a player to develop many more strategies than just a head on slam match. These strategies are forced upon you when you play an army like this. If you master indirect strategies with an army such as this, then you certainly can take what you have learned to harder hitting armies and very often present a much stronger game.

I personally, like playing armies such as this. I have the figures for it and do plan on fielding it soon. I have been toying with the list, and running some paper tactical scenarios at the house. Currently as I master the rules with my friends, I field a more direct army. Once I am very, very comfortable with the rules (IE consult the rule book once per game, not once/twice per turn) I will most likely be fielding this list.

And finally, in regards to your friends comments about it being the worst army in the book. I doubt it. Going through the book I recall one or two others being armies that I would put below this one in regards to my expectations on how hard it would be to win with. At the moment I can cite the exact two as I am at work (and working hard mind you).

One thing to remember: "Trading a Queen for a Pawn in chess is stupid" This statement is correct. This statement is wrong. Depends on the situation doesnt it.

(EDIT Note: I most likely would not recommend a new player to Tabletop wargamming to try this list or someone with little patience. But I certainly can see an experienced player using it or seeing it as a new players second army).

One final point on armies in general - what you meant was this is supposed to be a turkey IN A TOURNAMENT SETTING - where you are limited as to time. In a friendly game, with no time limits it is a very different story. As one who is most interested in "fire and maneuver" armies I have often heard the saying that these armies are too slow, they don't earn attrition points fast enough for a tourney setting - which may be true, but as I have never played in such I don't miss it.

Edit: Never mind - on re-reading the original post that is exactly where he was asking to use this - d'oh!

Probert wrote:I would only pick the Numidians if I really wanted to challenge myself. The style of the army does not suit my rather pedestrian predilictions as a general. I like heavy infantry.

I did decide to challenge myself with a Later Carthigian army, as they are about half skirmishers, but that is as far as I can go.

Missile weapons are for women! CHARGE!

Shall, any chance of posting that Numidian list up that you mentioned...

Just for interest sake.

Have just been to CANCON in Aussie, my first tourney ever.

I took a Numidian army and came 7th out of 47. (this is a national tourneyment so competition was tough)

I would say the army is just fine. Any failings to reach a higher ranking, I beleive, were my own fault as the player not the army's.

Go the Numidians

nicofig wrote:Hi,
a friend of mine said the worst army in the Rise of Rome book is the Numidian army. What do you think about this sentence ?
Do you think it's not possible to use this army in tournament with some chance to win ?
Thank you

I would not agree with this. I used a large contingent Numidian Ally in my army. I admit that as an ally it is different to as a whole army, but Javelin armed Lighthorse is very tough. You don't really fear anything except maybe 'swordsmen' light horse, and then it's a maybe. The only real swordsmen light horse are going to be something like Bow Swordsmen so you're likely to outnumber him.

Elephants help, and the light troops should make sure you hold terrain, or at least contest it while you win else where.

I think it's a good army. Certainly not a 'killer army' but I don't think there are any 'killer armies' in FoG.

Ian

Another problem common for all armies in tournament: historical armies had troops usually efficient against neighbour troops. In tournament your army can confront with an army they never saw. So the match can be hard because your opponent choose a terrain, or have troops with which your army tactic cannot fit.

Mario.

marioslaz wrote:Another problem common for all armies in tournament: historical armies had troops usually efficient against neighbour troops. In tournament your army can confront with an army they never saw. So the match can be hard because your opponent choose a terrain, or have troops with which your army tactic cannot fit.

Very true.

Personally I prefer themed tournaments to open ones for that very reason. In open tournaments there is a very high chance that one or more of the armies you end up facing will be one your army can't cope well with. As a result some armies are better in open tournament than others.

I don't see Numidian as a bad army, if it placed 7th at Cancon that is hardly a sign of a basket case army.