Slitherine

Im working on several armylist at once and have to little gametime to try them out so i hope to get some answeres from you with more experience.

Last game i played hungarians at 800pts and had 10 BG:s. It went well this time but is 10 a to low number? (I do realize that an even number of BG:s is "bad").

I do know that it mostly a "player-style" issue, but is there a general number that is percieved as better, or the other way around: is there a number that is the lowest "possible" for a competetive tournament army? (Having the "Dom Rom"-tirade in fresh memory)

Considerations must of course be taken to the score table that (IMHO) somewhat favours armies with poor "cheerleaders" hanging at the back, bolstering BG numbers but taking no risks (a la DBM).

Best regards,
John

Fulgrim wrote:Im working on several armylist at once and have to little gametime to try them out so i hope to get some answeres from you with more experience.

Last game i played hungarians at 800pts and had 10 BG:s. It went well this time but is 10 a to low number? (I do realize that an even number of BG:s is "bad").

I do know that it mostly a "player-style" issue, but is there a general number that is percieved as better, or the other way around: is there a number that is the lowest "possible" for a competetive tournament army? (Having the "Dom Rom"-tirade in fresh memory)

Considerations must of course be taken to the score table that (IMHO) somewhat favours armies with poor "cheerleaders" hanging at the back, bolstering BG numbers but taking no risks (a la DBM).

FWIW at Britcon the number of BGs ranged from 10 to 19. There were only 2 armies with more than 15 BGs and they both did well.

The average number of BGs for armies placing in the bottom 1/4 was 12.56, the average number of BGs for armies placing in the 3rd 1/4 was 12.53, the average of the 2nd 1/4 was 12.56 and the average of the top 1/4 was 13.13. As both the armies with lots of BGs placed in the top 1/4 they distort the average and if these armies had been of the average number of BGs (12.69) then the average size of armies in the top 1.4 would have been 12.35.

Make of this what you will but IMO 10 BG is small but not stupidly so.

There was only one 10 BG army and it finished 19th ot of 62
The average placing of 11 BG armies was 28.2
12 BG armies places 34.63
13 BG 30.58
14 BG 30.33

There were only 4 armies with more than 14 BGs and they finished 1st, 4th, 30th and 61st (but this player ahd to drop out after 1 game so it says nothing)

I would say that a solid army design is more imporant than an extra BG.

hammy wrote:
I would say that a solid army design is more imporant than an extra BG.

Quite - I've used 12 at 1000 points and felt no ill effects on having many BGs less than all my opponents. I've not seen any issues with having an even number of BGs as well so wouldn't worry about that.

Thanks Hammy!!

One issue with low numbers of BGs is the baggage. The fewer the BGs, the harder it is to keep the opponent from getting his hands on it and the more critical it is not to lose those two attrition points. With small armies, it often pays to make them a little smaller and fortify the baggage. What you cannot do is detail units to defend it. Most armies with 10 or fewer BGs need to have them all up front.

Other than that, I've played with armies ranging from 9 to 16 BGs and found size to be neither handicap or advantage. Smaller armies are significantly nastier per element of frontage than larger armies but the latter are often make up for lack of punch by being harder to pin down and destroy. Swings and roundabouts.

Julian