Help with WAB Early Saxon army.

[cram]

Hi,
I'm working on building a 2000 pt army of Early Saxons for wab's AoAth.
I could do with a little advice on the following questions:
Are Gedriht more effective on foot or horseback? I'm looking at having mine mounted, lead by a Cyning.

My foot units are made up of 2x30 Geogurth and a large unit of around 45 Dugurth. Not sure if the Dugurth unit is too large though? it would be lead by an Atheling.

Thanks Marc.

[TWD]

I've got Early Saxons, but I am rubbish at WAB, so any advice should be taken with a hefty dose of salt.
I think your Gedrith are better on foot. They are your main combat unit with real punch and with ranks and throwing spears and buckler re-rolls can cause serious damage to other units in the book. Mounted they give up a lot of those advantages and become a (very effective) support unit instead.
If you take the Sea Raiders list you can of course just about squeeze in both (I did at Hot Lead recently) but if making a choice I'd always take them on foot.
I generally play at 1600 points so all your units look large to me. Remember with open order you can only get +2 for ranks and the like, so bigger units don't add much beyond more warm bodies. I generally field mine at 24 (8x3) or fewer, on the basis that more units is better than 1 big one. Some (lots) of them will run away, but then you've still got more to bash into the enemy.
Athelings are good. Get lots of them and stick them in all your units. A Pagan Priest is a fun addition to your Geoguth, giving them hatred and as they're Fierce anyway they don't get any extra disadvantage.
Get some skirmishers too, to screen your units and maybe do a few casualties of their own. The Saxons are vulnerable to shooting, so getting them into combat fast without getting shot up too much is the big challenge in AoA games.

My adventures with my AoA armies are over on My Blog if that's any help

What will you be playing against, and what are their armies like?

Hope that helps,
Tom

[cram]

Thanks for the advice. I'm more of a skirmish gamer, so I was feeling rather out of my depth trying to build such a large army. I've now down sized it to 1,500 pt's, which is still going to be larger than anything I've done before.

I'll be going up against Welsh more often than not.

Marc.

[redzed]

What about the WAB forum, they have some very keen WAB players people on there

[cram]

Should have thought of the WAB forum! 

The WAB search engine brought up some Early Saxon army lists for 1,500 pt's. I'm going to either copy one direct or use as a close guide.

Many thanks Marc. 

[Mitch K]

Cram,

I play later (Shieldwall), but I'd second the idea of more, smaller units. If your 45 Dugurth decide to run for the hills en masse, you haven't got enough army left to do anything! Again, bulk up your characters and get into contact quick. Trundling slowly into battle won't do you any favours.

Have fun!

[H.M.Stanley]

Hi. I haven't played WAB for yonks but used to run AoA and SW Saxon armies.

As Tom said, Gedriht are your best troops and really need to be on foot to get the best from them. Bucklers are nice (rerolls) but they don't get any save that way from missile fire (unless you've opted for light armour) and die in droves. I preferred to pay the extra pip and give them a shield

In 2000pt games you could probably run a mounted Gedriht too although they're very vulnerable i found

I tended to run my Gedriht/Dugurth in 24/30s depending. The Youths can be quite handy too but unpredictable of course.

You do need Characters in units to give them bite.

Best tactic - get stuck in!

Also, the use of the Traits/Abilities is interesting. I'll try to dig out my Northumberland (Christian (sic)) army list for you.

AoA is a great book to game but struggles if you play out of period

Have fun

James

[Mitch K]

AoA is a great book to game but struggles if you play out of period

Have fun

James

Do you mean that it's a bit inaccessible for a newcomer or that it unravels if you don't stick strictly to what's in that book and start pulling things in from elsewhere? Much as I love the whole Age of Arthur (in general, not anyone's specific rules), my feeling is that it is a bit insular (pardon that pun!) and specific.

[guitarheroandy]

Ok, I'm biased, as WAB and the Arthurian period are my 'go to' rulesets and period of choice, but you can't go wrong with Age of Arthur as long as you play in book. It's the best WAB supplement by a mile, as the armies are well-balanced against each other and each has its own unique traits and style of play. No army is cheesy or over-powered and the secnarios are pretty much all really good.

If you want an effective 1500pt Saxon army (and it plays best at 1500 pts, although I have played some great 1750 pt games as well) you need to put your Gedriht on foot and use units of up to 24 in 3 ranks, using characters to lead the units of formed troops. Get stuck in and kick ass!! That's how Saxons play best - If I were to play Saxons (and I don't - I'm a 100% Romano-British and Welsh player) I'd always use the early kingdoms list with bucklers...great fun!!! That army has beaten my Brits more times than I care to admit (although I have also beaten a fair few of them too...)

In terms of being 'insular', it's because the armies are designed for 'in-period' play. Personally I have no issue with that. I have played dozens of in-period games with the Age of Arthur supplement since it was released and have never had a bad game (by that I mean I have always had fun, been challenged tactically, etc, not that I have always won!!!) The only times I have ever had issues with the lists is when playing out of period (e.g. against Vikings, Normans, Beyond the Golden Gate period armies (esp late Byzantines, Russ, etc).

If you enjoy WAB and like the Arthurian period, my guess is you'll enjoy Age of Arthur. It's certainly a million times better than the generic Dark Age Britain lists in the new Armies of Antiquity, which are dull, uninspiring and a waste of time (in my humble opinion, as always, of course... 

Andy

PS see my blog archive for loads of posts about my Arthurian gaming exploits with Age of Arthur...

[janner]

AoA is a great book to game but struggles if you play out of period

Have fun

James

I'm not so sure James, my British Kingdoms army has, on ocassion, caused all sorts of problems for armies from Shieldwall and El Cid, including milites. Maybe that's just that list though and I've not faced Byzantines etc. yet.

I'd second going with the dismounted option though - but just because Saxon horsemen feel wrong to me (but we've all endured that debate enough  )

[aecurtis]

i think Steve and James should of let gedrith and geogurth and dugurth take Bezerkers...

 

[Mitch K]

Ok, I'm biased, as WAB and the Arthurian period are my 'go to' rulesets and period of choice, but you can't go wrong with Age of Arthur as long as you play in book. It's the best WAB supplement by a mile, as the armies are well-balanced against each other and each has its own unique traits and style of play. No army is cheesy or over-powered and the secnarios are pretty much all really good.

I agree it's great if you play "in book", and I don't think it's a problem to have to play "in book", as long as you know that's what you've got to do. Plus, there's enough play within the book that you'll be a good long time running out of options.

I've got a lot of time for Shieldwall, but I agree that AoA is a great little book.

In terms of being 'insular', it's because the armies are designed for 'in-period' play. Personally I have no issue with that. I have played dozens of in-period games with the Age of Arthur supplement since it was released and have never had a bad game (by that I mean I have always had fun, been challenged tactically, etc, not that I have always won!!!) The only times I have ever had issues with the lists is when playing out of period (e.g. against Vikings, Normans, Beyond the Golden Gate period armies (esp late Byzantines, Russ, etc).

IMO, the "insularity" is  feature, not a bug.

If you enjoy WAB and like the Arthurian period, my guess is you'll enjoy Age of Arthur. It's certainly a million times better than the generic Dark Age Britain lists in the new Armies of Antiquity, which are dull, uninspiring and a waste of time (in my humble opinion, as always, of course... 

Andy

PS see my blog archive for loads of posts about my Arthurian gaming exploits with Age of Arthur...

My only quibble (and it's a small one, and shared with most Dark Ages rules / supplements I've read / played) is the slightly artificial time cutoffs between armies / books. Other than a few very specific events, the armies will have evolved gradually over the periods covered by multiple books (e.g. AoA to Shieldwall). Still, that's what I get for pretending to be a historian and not sticking to what I know I suppose!

Cheers,

M

[cram]

Thanks for all the help everyone. I had given my Gedriht horses, but seeing as everyone is in favour of having them on foot, I'm going to have to have a re-think.

[James Morris]

i think Steve and James should of let gedrith and geogurth and dugurth take Bezerkers...

 

we shuold of thought of that but bernard cromwell thought of it first...

[James Morris]

Thanks for all the help everyone. I had given my Gedriht horses, but seeing as everyone is in favour of having them on foot, I'm going to have to have a re-think.

To give you a more serious reply, you will generally get the best use out of your Gedriht on foot in a unit of around 18-24 models, as has been suggested.  If you like playing them,  get the mounted unit as an extra add-on later. 

Most WAB armies of 1500pts (for Age of Arthur) work well with around 7 units - usually 4-5 formed units and 2-3 skirmisher units.  Unusually large units generally do not work and are difficult to play some of the scenarios with (e.g. Battle on the River Glein, trying to split your force between two river crossings.)  The lists in the A of Arthur book are well-playtested and a good starting point.

Good luck and have fun!