Hawkshold Armies

[Hannibal]

To drive up a little traffic and hopefully provoke some thoughtful discussion, I thought I'd post the various army ideas I am (currently) working on.  See Chad, this is the flaw in your business model:  I don't even begin to feel comfortable with each list until I've played them at least 3 times each.  Witht he various armies I have, that's like 30 games before I expand beyond my decks.  (That being said, I did go out and buy the Hawkshold set) 

So here's the Hawkshold armies:

Army 1:  Hedgehog
Bowmen x 2
Swordsmen x 2
Pikemen x 4
Light Cavalry x 2

Okay, so this army got it's tail handed to it recently, but that was more to some bad luck and bad decisions than anything else.  I think done right, with cavalry on each flank, this army makes a great horde army.  The usualy frontage in a 2,000 pt game is 6-7 units.  This will allow me to outnumber most folks, except for certain types of orcs or the Undead.  And against the Undead, my pikemen actually can win that straight up fight.


Army 2:  Testudo
Bowmen x 2
Swordsmen x 2
Heavy Infantry x 4
Scouts

The idea behind Testudo is real simple:  how cool would it be to have guys with 3s for defensive stats.  The swordsmen become the weak link at this point, which is unique.  The scouts exist because I had the spare points.  However, I think they could be great to race around the enemy's line and charge his archers. 


Army 3:  Thunder
Bowmen x 2
Swordsmen x 2
Spearmen x 2
Knights
Light Cavalry
Scouts

One of every type of cavalry!  Frankly, I'm worried about the durability of this army.  Only having 4 units on the line means I either have to put my cavalry on the line or risk my line being flanked.  And with the different speeds of all the units, I just don't know if I could support units properly.  I think this army would be much more effective on a table with terrain.  On the open tables that we've tended to use, this wouldn't be all that strong. 

Thoughts on tweaking this one is to drop the knights for another light cavalry and another scouts.  This would also free up the points to upgrade the swordsmen to spearmen.

Another thought is go the other way:  drop the light cavalry & scouts (and downgrade the spearmen to swordsmen) and take a second unit of knights.  This turns my knights into line units, but there's a decent shot I can bust through the enemy.

Army 4:  Lightning

Bowmen x 2
Swordsmen x 2
Spearmen x 2
Light Cavalry x 3
3 Cards

Really just a variation on Thunder, this army would have the cavalry on the line, but I would probably be able to flank one side of the enemy line.  The idea is to simply ride down the enemy and attempt to punch a massive hole in his flank.  This army would require the most in manuevering, as I think simply lining up and charging would have my cavalry a turn or two from being supported by the infantry, so I'd need to send them off on a Close: Objective.  The question becomes:  overload a single flank or spread the cavalry out on my two flanks?


Coming Next:  Dwarves

[blkdymnd]

Thoughtful discussion... bah!   

I loved the battle report (anyone I know as the opponent?) and wish I was closer as I never could get Trent to play (he's wierded out by the whole top down thing) 

I love Testudo (although it made me start singing Sesudio by Phil Collins).  I like the idea of a strong front supported by an archer able to catch each flank.  I also like Lightning as I'm a big fan of buying cards off the get go (good to have tactical advantage on the opponent early in the game if possible). 

I'll have to add my Elf lists as they are the ones I've really focused on when I've been able to play and I'm looking forward to your dwarf lists as they are next on my list to focus on.

BTW, the business theory of Chads is genius as at that price for more than you'll ever need of an army, theres no excuse not to buy each one 

[Hannibal]

I loved the battle report (anyone I know as the opponent?)

Yeah, my wife.  Thought I'd mentioned that...   

I love Testudo (although it made me start singing Sesudio by Phil Collins).  I like the idea of a strong front supported by an archer able to catch each flank.

I think it's the strongest of the four, honestly.  Definately the most straight forward.

BTW, the business theory of Chads is genius as at that price for more than you'll ever need of an army, theres no excuse not to buy each one 

Well, on Thursday I owned 2 factions.  Today I own 3.  So can't say I'm playing each army out before moving on to the next. 

[andrewgr]

The main objection I have to these proposed armies is that they can't seem to decide if they're "stand and shoot" or "close and melee" armies.  Hybrids don't work very well, so you need to decide which you're going to be, and stick to it.

All of these proposed armies have 2 units of bows.  These are going to be just about worthless.  They don't represent enough fire power to force just about any other army to come to you, so you're going to be the one advancing.  That means that they're paying a -1 skill penalty for moving and shooting, which is significant.  Against a strong melee army, the total amount of damage they can expect to do is not really that significant.  Against a stand and shoot army, they are almost completely wasted points: the very poor defensive stats of a bow unit makes them a magnet for opposing missile units, which will wipe them off the board in a turn or two of concentrated fire.

The archtypal Hawkshold army, to my mind, is a couple of longbow units, a couple of bow units, and then a bunch of spearmen or pikemen.  Enough firepower to force the enemy to advance, making the spear or pike units even better, and meaning the missile units don't need to fire while moving. 

In theory, an army of knights and light cavalry would be interesting, given the cavalry upgrades in the 2.2 rules.  Unfortunately, none of the Core units in the Hawkshold army move faster than 3.5".  I really think light cavalry should be Core units, just to make a wider variety of armies possible for the Men of Hawkshold.  As it is, I guess you could take a bunch of cavalry along with 4 units of bowmen to satisfy the Core requirement; they would be within range by the time the cavalry engaged.

[Hannibal]

The main objection I have to these proposed armies is that they can't seem to decide if they're "stand and shoot" or "close and melee" armies.  Hybrids don't work very well, so you need to decide which you're going to be, and stick to it.

If I had to say, I'd state that my armies are mainly 'close with the enemy' armies.  The archers are there to pour firepower into enemies in the later turns.  It's been my experience that if you use objectives, you can concentrate the firepower of two archer units into one or two enemy units and when combined with your melee troops, they can punch holes in the enemy line.

[ZiNOS]

This is the army i am going to play on my next game with the Men of Hawkshold:

2x Knights
2x Light Cavalry
4x Bowmen

The idea is to deploy in one corner only and try to charge on the non spearmen/pikemen units of his.

The cavalry will be deployed so as to not allow him to fire on me on the first turn with his normal archers/crossbowmen

I have 24 points spare so the odds are that i will be the player with the less points and i will choose to go second.

Once i manage to play the game, i will tell you the results. (it may be long though since the nights are full now! Champions' League is starting!).

[ZiNOS]

Although i had 24 points free, my opponent had 34! And a goblin chukka with some good rolls...

I lost the game but it was a really fun game with my cavalry racing behind his lines (half of it) and the rest trying to do some damage and getting killed in the process.

He finished the game with a unit of spearmen and a unit of crossbowmen, both in the yellow.

If i had opted for some militia or something like this instead of four bowmen, mayne the result would have been favourable for me...... untill next time then!

[Wildman]

Here is an army idea I recently came up with:

2 Knights- 826pts
2 Light Calvary- 490pts
1 Peasant Mob- 70
5 Militia- 575pts
1 command card-25pts

total- 1986pts

The main idea is to use the infantry to hopefully tie up the enemy line (if needed some of the calvary may help) while the calvary either pinch or go after any ranged units.

[ZiNOS]

Be sure to deploy your militia longer than your opponent's archers range. That way, he misses one round of shooting.

[andrewgr]

Be sure to deploy your militia longer than your opponent's archers range. That way, he misses one round of shooting.

I'm pretty sure this isn't true.  He's just getting the shooting on different turns.

The minimum distance between the archer and the militia is 15", if they're both set up as far forward as possible.  So obviously it doesn't matter if the archers only have 14" range, you're automatically starting out of range.

Let's say they've got 17.5" range.  If you make sure to set up 17.6" away, assuming the archers stay still, you're going to take one shot at extreme range at 14.1"; two shots at long range at 10.6" and 7.1"; and two shots at short range at 3.6" and .1". 

Instead, let's say you somehow manage to start the minimum 15" away, already within range.  You take one shot at extreme range at 15"; two shots at long range at 11.5" and 8"; and two shots at close range at 4.5" and 1".

So for 17.5" range archers, it's the same either way.  Let's try 21" range archers:

If you start 21.1" away, you take 2 shots at extreme range at 17.6" and 14.1"; two shots at long range at 10.6" and 7.1"; and two shots at close range at 3.6" and .1".

Instead, if you manage to start the minimum 15" away, it's the same math we did for 15" before: you actually only take 5 shots instead of 6, saving yourself one shot at extreme range.

So, for units like militia that move 3.5", if facing archers that shoot 14" or 17.5", I don't think it matters how far forward you set up; and if facing archers that shoot 21", you're best off getting as close as possible to start with, instead of far away.

Unless my math is faulty somewhere?

[ZiNOS]

You are right (as always in BGFW  ).

What i was thinking is that you can opt for your opponent to play first without having your units taking range attacks.

You get the advantage of moving and getting two cards.

Actually i am not sure what i am saying now but i hope that you get my thinking, faulty or not.

[andrewgr]

Actually i am not sure what i am saying now but i hope that you get my thinking, faulty or not.

Note that the math changes based on the movement rate of the closing units and the range of the archers.  For example, units that move 2.5" want to start forward against archers that have 17.5" range, for the same reason that units that move 3.5" want to start forward against units that have 21" range.

For units that are very fast, your suggestion works much better.  For example, a unit that moves 7" might very well want to start out of range of an archer unit that shoots 17.5".  If it sets up at the minimum 15", it takes 3 shots, at 15", 8", and 1".  But if it sets up at 18", it only takes 2 shots, at 11" and 4".

I guess the lesson is: if you're facing a "stand and shoot" army that you don't think will be closing with you, work out the actual move increments before you deploy.  It only takes a few seconds to do in your head, and under some circumstances it will mean a difference of one turn of missile fire.  But unless I'm missing something, there's no absolute rule that can be applied for all combinations.

[ApokalypseTest]

Bravo,

as far as I can tell this a quite profound analysis of the situation and matches what I play since a while (well, makes me happy to see I see it your way )
You should include it in your next strategy guide.

Apoc