Slitherine

Opinions please on the following list.

Western Hun 408 AD

C-in-C 1 80 80 80 IC
Sub-Gen 2 35 70 150 TC
Ally-Gen 1 25 25 175 TC
Nobles 8 18 144 319 Cv Sup Arm Und B - Sw
Archers 8 14 112 431 Cv Sup Pro Und B - Sw
Archers 24 12 288 719 LH Sup Unp Und B - Sw
Sciri Cv 4 12 48 767 Cv Sup Pro Und - La Sw
Sciri Bow 6 5 30 797 LF Ave Unp Und B - Sw

Int. +4 BG 12.

Theory is try and get as much Steppe as possible to fight on, and shoot up the enemy. Sciri Lancers to ride with thier general to death or glory. OK most likely death...


Cheers

It looks pretty Hunnic to me

Overall I think this is not bad but it may come unstuck if it doesn't get steppes. I expect that when I get round to Huns under FoG they will look very much like this.

Ditch the Light Foot - they (and the Lancers) are targets in this army. Keep the Sciri Cav though, despite being targets they give a good punch when supported by shooty Cav.

FWIW here's my list which I've honed in playtest
I presume it's still legal (no LT book yet)

CinC & Sub FC
Subs TC x2
4 Nobles Cav, Arm, Sup, Bw/Sw
6 Huns, LH, UnPr, Sup, Bw/Sw
6 Huns, LH, UnPr, Sup, Bw/Sw
6 Huns, LH, UnPr, Sup, Bw/Sw
6 Huns, LH, UnPr, Sup, Bw/Sw
6 Huns, LH, UnPr, Sup, Bw/Sw
6 Huns, LH, UnPr, Sup, Bw/Sw
4 Huns, LH, UnPr, Sup, Bw/Sw
6 Sciri, Cav, Prot, Sup, Lnc/Sw

Init +3
BG 9

I found LH were better in 6s than 4s but kept the one 4 in as a pursuit group.
I've thought about painting up some more cav and converting 2 LH groups into 3 Cav groups, but had found that the LH was enough to do the job so far. Superior Archers are fairly dangerous after all....

A "spare" FC is usefull too BTW - Flank Marches, even of LH, can be devastating.

Steppes is good, but remember Mounted, even disadvantaged, can knock LF about so don't worry too much if the terrain goes against you and the opposition thinks his LF are safe lurking in dodgy going.

Also remember to pursue, the bane of a Hunnic Army is that whilst you should be able to break his units with few BGs it's sometimes hard to stop them rallying. A small block of LH does the job nicely.

Have Fun
Huw

Finally settled on the following.

IC x 1
FC x 1
TC x 2

1 x 6 Sciri Cv Pro Sup Und La Sw
3 x 4 Cavalry Cv Unp Sup Und B Sw
8x4 Lights LH Unp Sup Und B Sw

Had 2 games so far, one v Sassanids ( narrow loss ) and a comprehensive win over a Medieval Russian list.

Although my Russian opponent had no terrain to speak of to anchor on, and I got some lovely die rolls shooting his Bw armed cavalry up.

All in all I think the Huns are a good list, y theory being that as any other Cv I face will most likely be armoured, why waste the points on being protected ? As long as I am in 1 rank to shoot / evade I am not going to gift my opponent a ++ shooting bonus.

huwpy wrote:Ditch the Light Foot - they (and the Lancers) are targets in this army. Keep the Sciri Cav though, despite being targets they give a good punch when supported by shooty Cav.

FWIW here's my list which I've honed in playtest
I presume it's still legal (no LT book yet)

CinC & Sub FC
Subs TC x2
4 Nobles Cav, Arm, Sup, Bw/Sw
6 Huns, LH, UnPr, Sup, Bw/Sw
6 Huns, LH, UnPr, Sup, Bw/Sw
6 Huns, LH, UnPr, Sup, Bw/Sw
6 Huns, LH, UnPr, Sup, Bw/Sw
6 Huns, LH, UnPr, Sup, Bw/Sw
6 Huns, LH, UnPr, Sup, Bw/Sw
4 Huns, LH, UnPr, Sup, Bw/Sw
6 Sciri, Cav, Prot, Sup, Lnc/Sw

Init +3
BG 9

I found LH were better in 6s than 4s but kept the one 4 in as a pursuit group.
I've thought about painting up some more cav and converting 2 LH groups into 3 Cav groups, but had found that the LH was enough to do the job so far. Superior Archers are fairly dangerous after all....

A "spare" FC is usefull too BTW - Flank Marches, even of LH, can be devastating.

Steppes is good, but remember Mounted, even disadvantaged, can knock LF about so don't worry too much if the terrain goes against you and the opposition thinks his LF are safe lurking in dodgy going.

Also remember to pursue, the bane of a Hunnic Army is that whilst you should be able to break his units with few BGs it's sometimes hard to stop them rallying. A small block of LH does the job nicely.

Have Fun
Huw

Would it not be better to get BG's of 4 LH to increase the army break point?

Scrumpy wrote:All in all I think the Huns are a good list, y theory being that as any other Cv I face will most likely be armoured, why waste the points on being protected ? As long as I am in 1 rank to shoot / evade I am not going to gift my opponent a ++ shooting bonus.

Your pure shooty doctrine does save a lot of points compared with dual-role Ghilman types, though I'd find it hard not to resist having one BG armoured up and brigaded with the Sciri.

In what ways are you finding a 2 6-base LH BGs more useful than 3 4s when working in concert?

Mike

It was not I who suggested the 6s for the LH. I find superior 4s work quite well, they have the survivability & the re-rolls are a killer at times.

I like 4-base BGs of LH because it's easier to concentrate fire, and you're more likely to get a group free onto the enemy's flank.

Scrumpy wrote:Finally settled on the following.

IC x 1
FC x 1
TC x 2

1 x 6 Sciri Cv Pro Sup Und La Sw
3 x 4 Cavalry Cv Unp Sup Und B Sw
8x4 Lights LH Unp Sup Und B Sw

Had 2 games so far

Well game 3 was a bit rougher on old attila. 2 of his BGs of cavalry got themselves into a sticky wicket. 2 more LH got herded into a corner. My Average Principate legions did well. He almost shot to broken a column of my MF w an IC. That was annoying.

So now he's looking for some tougher CV

The choice of not fielding Light Foot or mobs is, of course up to player, but based on terrain possibilities which is influenced by factors outside the Hun player's control such as the die roll. So if you are honing for a tournament, in my opinion, it would be more effective to prepare two or three army lists.

While you, as the Hun, may fight most often without the need of foot troops, there may be situations where Huns would be more effective with them. In that case you need to have played with them in order to use them effectively.

There is no such things as "Invader" and "Defender" in FoG - it is about who has initiative and the player with initiative can choose a terrain type from either his or his oponents list. Huns, whom I would assume to have PBI of +4, have a good chance of being able to select that terrain type that best suits.

Nik, I took out defender which I had edited it into the statement to imply actions by the the 'other player'. So I used the wrong wording.

Nik, so you are saying that there is no need for Huns to have foot troops? Ever?

IMO the theory is that if you can't do a job properly then it probably isn't worth doing at all.

In DBM my standard Hunnic list had 17 Ps(O) in the allied command because there are definitely occasions where 17 Ps(O) can do the job properly in DBM. In FoG the infantry available to a Hunnic list (unless you are using Attilan Hunnic) are just not good enough to bully anyone.

I have a game at the club tonight and after initially thinking of taking Seljuk I have decided to go for Hunnic. If Matt doesn't do a Nobby style report I will see about doing one myself although I think I will be up against Kushan rather than Portugese.

Rudy_Nelson wrote:
Nik, so you are saying that there is no need for Huns to have foot troops? Ever?

I doubt I'd bother with a Western Hun army, however, Hepthalites taken as the in India army are another matter (partly because they are compulsory ).

My list from last night was:

IC,FC,TC,TC
3 * 4 LH
3 * 4 LH
2 * 4 Nobles + 1 * 6 LH
1 * 4 Unprot Cav, 1 * 4 Superior Sciri

I faced a Kushan with 2 BGs of Cats, 1 of elephants, 2 of MF bow, 1 of LF and a bunch of LH

If anything I felt that even with only 3 BGs of shooty bow cavalry that was enough for the Huns. I think part of the problem is that the cavalry are undrilled and that makes a big difference when it comes to changing roles and the other is that superior LH are actually rather nasty when it comes to shooting.

Overall I was happy with the list and feel it can definitley manage with no foot.

I will be giving the Huns a go at the Segovia tournament next weekend. I'll be taking two units of LF, more than anything to take up space in the center and cover a reserve of lancers. The idea is that this combination will prevent the enemy line from opening up in the center to concentrate on the Huns on the wings. Any gap in the center will be exploited by the lancers and if all else fails they can always go charging to death or glory.

The only doubt I have is whether the Huns will be able to rout the enemy army. I'm fairly confident that they can win with a fair margin but I have my suspicions that they may not be as decisive as the shock troop armies I have used up to now. This was my expierence with the Bosphoran army I took to Zaragoza. It never managed to win until the last round. I'm just hoping that being superior my Huns will inflict more damage and quicker.

Regards,

Julian

The ability to smash the enemy to gain max points, is a valid concern for tournaments. In the USA the difference between the top players in the final round and mid-ranked players is often the severity of victory to get the most points for wins.

At the New Orleans show last month, one of the comments from the organizers as to why the FoG was so popular among them was that few landslide victories had occurred which meant that for the final round (#4) they had more players in the hunt to win or place (to get one of my wonderful gift certificates! LOL!) than they had made in most DBM tournaments.

This feeling of having competitive armies into the last round was a big boost for the support of FoG in the Southern region.

Rudy, similar comments have been made at GB competitions as well - IMO this is a very good thing