Slitherine

In the Free Company list it states commanders should be based as Men at Arms. I take that to mean as Dismounted Men at Arms but under the optional troops there are mounted French and Spanish Men at Arms listed. Is it possible to have commanders based as either the mounted French or Spanish Men at Arms?

The last time I played DBM was about five years ago and then not with a Free Company army does any have any useful tips for the Free Company user who is also new the FoG?

Should an English long bowmen never leave home without their stakes?

Base the commanders as either, or both at the same time. They are still MAA.

As for stakes I think they make the longbowmen too hard to beat, so as soon as they go down, (fnar fnar), enemy mounted will head in a different direction. The longbow still have a good chance of winning without them providing you get maximum shots in before melee and have rear support. Players who do put them down can tend to get tied to them, not wanting to move their bowmen once they are down, losing the excellent manouverability of the drilled longbow.

BlackPrince wrote:In the Free Company list it states commanders should be based as Men at Arms. I take that to mean as Dismounted Men at Arms but under the optional troops there are mounted French and Spanish Men at Arms listed. Is it possible to have commanders based as either the mounted French or Spanish Men at Arms?

The last time I played DBM was about five years ago and then not with a Free Company army does any have any useful tips for the Free Company user who is also new the FoG?

Should an English long bowmen never leave home without their stakes?

dude, base your generals however the heck you want.

here in new zealand we put them on 40mm circles and create little dioramas!

it's only a token after all.

dude, base your generals however the heck you want.

Wouldn't it matter for command range - a larger commander base will have a slightly bigger command radius?

I am putting together an EAP army and was going to use chariots for all my generals - but wondered if that would be a problem in a comp. Presumably I should follow the army lists and use a chariot base for the CinC, and cavalry bases for the sub gens.

Anyone been pedantic enough to complain about someone's commanders not being on the correct size base?

Cam

If it was particularly over large they would, as to what is displayed on the base I very much doubt it.

You mount your generals on a 40x40mm base for 15 mm. The models you use are either foot or mounted.

You mount your generals on a 40x40mm base for 15 mm. The models you use are either foot or mounted.

I see the basing rules say a commander has a base depth of "40mm [60mm] or less" with the number of figures "as required*". The * says how they are depicted is "specified in the companion army list books. It is acceptable to use a slightly different number of figures ..."

I guess in practice that means you would always use a 40mmx40mm [60mm x 60mm] base for commanders to maximise command range, then use the army list to tell you what figures should be on the base.

Cam

Cam_Millar wrote:I guess in practice that means you would always use a 40mmx40mm [60mm x 60mm] base for commanders to maximise command range, then use the army list to tell you what figures should be on the base.

Exactly! Some gamers prefer to field their foot commanders on bases that match those of their infantry troops, so that they will better fit into the BG when commanding from the front line. But its really up to you - there's enough flexibility in the FoG rules to allow for anything up to the maximums allowed.

Cheers,
Scott

I generally ignore the army list instructions on generals, and all of mine tend to be little diorama type things mixing foot and mounted - as long as its clearly a general, who cares?

Some of mine are even using 28mm figures http://www.madaxeman.com/general/28mm_g ... or_fog.htm !!

I really cant see what specifying how generals should be represented adds to the rules or lists, and would happily walk away from anyone who tried to insist on this in a competition.

yours, feistily,
tim
www.madaxeman.com

I like your use of larger models for the characters. It's a Middle Ages sort of painting, using minies instead of a canvas.

CrazyHarborc wrote:I like your use of larger models for the characters. It's a Middle Ages sort of painting, using minies instead of a canvas.

Art historians refer to it as "hierarchy of scale" - the higher the status, the larger the figure in relation to everyone else. It could also be used in representing commanders of ancient Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and other armies:

http://picasaweb.google.com/operalala/A ... 4344031618
http://www.brekka.net/images/268_Egypt_PaintedChest.jpg

Cheers,
Scott

While I am painting my Free Company army and reading the the FoG rules I have thinking about my army make up. Below is one of my first drafts with out the benefit of battle experience, so I am interested in any comments to avoid learning the hard way. As I can be a bit of a slow learned adjustments can be a long a painful time.

3 x TC @ 105
1 BG 8 Longbow; 9pys @ 72
1 BG 8 Longbow; 9pts @72
1 BG 8 Longbow; 9pts @72
1 BG 6 Men at Arms HF, Heavily Armoured, Sup Drilled; 16pts @96
1 BG 4 Knights Heavily Armoured Sup Undrilled; 23pts @92
1 BG 4 Knights Heavily Armoured Sup Undrilled; 23pts @92
1 BG 6 Bidets LF unprotected, average undrilled; 4pts @24
1 BG 4 Less well equipped companions Cav, Protect average drilled; 10 pts @ 40
1 BG 8 Men at Arms HF, Armoured, Sup Drilled; 13pts @104
1 BG 4 Crossbow men, MF Protected, average drilled; 7 pts @28.

total 797, Personally I am not sure about the Cav and Crossbows but I was thinking about break points while being small and drilled they maybe useful for keeping LC away from my rear?

BlackPrince wrote:While I am painting my Free Company army and reading the the FoG rules I have thinking about my army make up.

I think you should be fairly restrained; a little bit goes a long way on a man. A light foundation, a touch of mascara, and a very light touch with an eyeliner pencil, perhaps a hint of blush at most.

You don't want your army looking like a cast party from The Rocky Horror Picture Show!

Hi Possum,

Nice reply but you missed the point I do not want to know how much Rouge my army should wear but how many of my troops should wear Rouge.

Cheers
Keith

BlackPrince wrote:While I am painting my Free Company army and reading the the FoG rules I have thinking about my army make up. Below is one of my first drafts with out the benefit of battle experience, so I am interested in any comments to avoid learning the hard way. As I can be a bit of a slow learned adjustments can be a long a painful time.

3 x TC @ 105
1 BG 8 Longbow; 9pys @ 72
1 BG 8 Longbow; 9pts @72
1 BG 8 Longbow; 9pts @72
1 BG 6 Men at Arms HF, Heavily Armoured, Sup Drilled; 16pts @96
1 BG 4 Knights Heavily Armoured Sup Undrilled; 23pts @92
1 BG 4 Knights Heavily Armoured Sup Undrilled; 23pts @92
1 BG 6 Bidets LF unprotected, average undrilled; 4pts @24
1 BG 4 Less well equipped companions Cav, Protect average drilled; 10 pts @ 40
1 BG 8 Men at Arms HF, Armoured, Sup Drilled; 13pts @104
1 BG 4 Crossbow men, MF Protected, average drilled; 7 pts @28.

total 797, Personally I am not sure about the Cav and Crossbows but I was thinking about break points while being small and drilled they maybe useful for keeping LC away from my rear?

I've played LB in 6's and 8's and I go for 6's everytime now (this will help your army break point as well). I also do my Men at Arms in 4's which makes them very mobile and again adds to that army break point.

I'm running this at 800:

TC TC - - - - - - - 4
Longbowmen MF Protected Average Drilled Longbow - Swordmen Port Def. 6
Longbowmen MF Protected Average Drilled Longbow - Swordmen Port Def. 6
Longbowmen MF Protected Average Drilled Longbow - Swordmen Port Def. 6
Longbowmen MF Protected Average Drilled Longbow - Swordmen Port Def. 6
Men At Arms HF Armoured Superior Drilled - Heavy weapon Heavy weapon - 4
Men At Arms HF Armoured Superior Drilled - Heavy weapon Heavy weapon - 4
Men At Arms HF Armoured Superior Drilled - Heavy weapon Heavy weapon - 4
Men At Arms HF Armoured Superior Drilled - Heavy weapon Heavy weapon - 4
Knights Kn Heavily armoured Superior Undrilled - Lancers Swordmen - 4
Knights Kn Heavily armoured Superior Undrilled - Lancers Swordmen - 4
Bidets LF Unprotected Average Undrilled Javelins Light spear - - 4

Hi Lance,

Thanks for the info, I have reading a bit a pros and cons of using archers in 6 or 8s, I will try 6s first but never leave home without your full amount of 24 LB stands.
Is armoured all you need for the dismounted men at arms I though heavily armoured might be better?

Cheers
Keith

Heavy weapon negates other peoples armour class, so being heavily armoured will give you the edge against mere armoured opponents, but it does you no good against other heavily armoured troops

The infantry are not that mobile, so will probably be a target for opponents knights (assuming you are in period, and especially if you add stakes to the bowmen) so on that basis the may well end up fighting heavily armoured troops - so Armoured may be better.

However, the figures are probably the same either way

madaxeman wrote:Heavy weapon negates other peoples armour class, so being heavily armoured will give you the edge against mere armoured opponents, but it does you no good against other heavily armoured troops

The infantry are not that mobile, so will probably be a target for opponents knights (assuming you are in period, and especially if you add stakes to the bowmen) so on that basis the may well end up fighting heavily armoured troops - so Armoured may be better.

However, the figures are probably the same either way

There is one fundamentally good reason for taking the HF as heavily armoured. All the girls out there playing with shooty cavalry (instead of proper, manly shock troops) will need a 6 to get a hit. It basically means you can anchor each end of your line with a HF unit and laugh off skirmishers and other similarly armed effiminate people.

I tend to go for 3 BGs of 4 superior knights and the minimum HF (6 und. H.Arm, 4 dri. Arm.), max longbowmen, Bidets and a BG of 6 drilled xbowmen for rear support and a reserve. The 12 bases of knights are to make sure I have parity with most other western medieval armies and have enough punch to take out big infantry armies.

I wouldn't bother with the cavalry. They are expensive for what they are, vulnerable and the only weak point in the army.

By the way, the crossbowmen BG has a minimum of 6 bases so you´ll have to fork out another 14 points to make the list legal. I wouldn't worry too much about enemy skirmishers. With something like 30 drilled, shooty MF and the rest being almost invulnerable to shooting, most of your opponents will struggle to find a use for the skirmishers other than trying to raid your camp (put it in difficult terrain if one falls on your baseline) and staying out of trouble.

Julian

jlopez wrote:

madaxeman wrote:Heavy weapon negates other peoples armour class, so being heavily armoured will give you the edge against mere armoured opponents, but it does you no good against other heavily armoured troops

The infantry are not that mobile, so will probably be a target for opponents knights (assuming you are in period, and especially if you add stakes to the bowmen) so on that basis the may well end up fighting heavily armoured troops - so Armoured may be better.

However, the figures are probably the same either way

There is one fundamentally good reason for taking the HF as heavily armoured. All the girls out there playing with shooty cavalry (instead of proper, manly shock troops) will need a 6 to get a hit. It basically means you can anchor each end of your line with a HF unit and laugh off skirmishers and other similarly armed effiminate people.

I tend to go for 3 BGs of 4 superior knights and the minimum HF (6 und. H.Arm, 4 dri. Arm.), max longbowmen, Bidets and a BG of 6 drilled xbowmen for rear support and a reserve. The 12 bases of knights are to make sure I have parity with most other western medieval armies and have enough punch to take out big infantry armies.

I wouldn't bother with the cavalry. They are expensive for what they are, vulnerable and the only weak point in the army.

By the way, the crossbowmen BG has a minimum of 6 bases so you´ll have to fork out another 14 points to make the list legal. I wouldn't worry too much about enemy skirmishers. With something like 30 drilled, shooty MF and the rest being almost invulnerable to shooting, most of your opponents will struggle to find a use for the skirmishers other than trying to raid your camp (put it in difficult terrain if one falls on your baseline) and staying out of trouble.

Julian

I never had problems with people shooting up my armoured Men at Arms, the problem I have with the list is breaking people and NOT being able to keep them broke. As you say there are tons of mobile shooty armies floating around, and while I can break things I just can't get deep enough to keep them broke. It's been a consistent problem I've had.

The only time I wish I was heavily armoured is against skilled swordsmen as they seem to eat up armoured men at arms. I'm not sure the justification for skilled swordsmen negating heavy weapons, but it certainly hurts.

Unless you field your HF in 8s, your opponent will need two hits to make you test as a result of shooting. If the HF are armoured, he´ll need 6 dice to achieve it every turn but if they are heavily armoured he will need 12! You are right that being armoured is often enough but with an army of 10 BGs I prefer not to take risks.

As for the pursuit problem, I'm afraid there is no solution but to keep advancing as quickly as possible to pin him against a table edge.

Julian