PDA

View Full Version : Army wide rules



larabic
23-10-2008, 18:10
It seems every army is getting an across the board rule change / update / addition. So what does this mean for the armies to come that don't have one already? Or the ones that already have one?

Army wide rules now:
Daemons: instability / immune fear... / ward saves
VC / TK: Undead
High Elves: Always strike first
Dark Elves: Hatred
Orcs: Waaagh! / Animosity (choppas?)
Empire: Detatchments
Warriors of chaos: Marks? Haven't read the book yet...

Yet to be released:
Beastmen: Skirmishers
Wood Elves: Move thru woods / no penalty for move and shoot
Lizard Men: Cold Blooded - soon to be spawnings?
Bretts: Lance formation / Cavalry / Blessing
Dwarfs: -1 persuit / flee
Skaven: Mob rules LD bonus
Ogres: Bull charges

So what additions will come to these armies yet to come?

Lizards will have spawnings (in theory) to make the saurus units customizable, i don't see the cold blooded changing any either.

Beastmen will keep skirmishing and gain marks maybe? Or have new troops of some type to bolster their unusual fighting style.

Wood Elves: No idea what they would give wood elves...

Bretts: Lance will probably go 4 wide but still be the same otherwise. Blessing will be the same, although i would like to see the blessing tie in with theirs mages. 6+ ward save all around , 5+ with her in the unit or in 6"?

Dwarfs: The only thing i can think that would be appropriate for the dwarfs is stubborn, but if they gave an entire army stubborn i think i might throw up. I could def see all the elite units gaining it though.

Skaven: Mob LD would be the same, but they need something else tricky....

Ogres: They already got fear and bull charge? Just need some reworking nothing to do with army wide rules... maybe more non ogre units to choose, samurai or something but that neither here nor their for an army wide rule.

What do you think? Is the whole slapping a speacial rule from the book on an army going to be a continuing theme? Are they done with that and are just going to tweek what they got going for the rest? These are just some thoughts that i had since they have put out enough books this edition to really nail down a trend.

FigureFour
23-10-2008, 18:22
It seems every army is getting an across the board rule change / update / addition. So what does this mean for the armies to come that don't have one already? Or the ones that already have one?

Your premise is flawed. Having army specific rules is pretty much standard fare for Warhammer armies and rules are always rewritten with the new edition. That's the point of a new edition.


So what additions will come to these armies yet to come?
Anyway, here's my prediction.


Lizards will have spawnings (in theory) to make the saurus units customizable, i don't see the cold blooded changing any either.
Revised spawnings and cold blooded.


Beastmen will keep skirmishing and gain marks maybe? Or have new troops of some type to bolster their unusual fighting style.
Revised raiders and ambush.


Wood Elves: No idea what they would give wood elves...
They'll probably keep the rules they already have.


Bretts: Lance will probably go 4 wide but still be the same otherwise. Blessing will be the same, although i would like to see the blessing tie in with theirs mages. 6+ ward save all around , 5+ with her in the unit or in 6"?
Lance will probably be revised. (But I'm not sure about 4 wide. Seems like a crap solution.) The Blessing may see some minor tweaks.


Dwarfs: The only thing i can think that would be appropriate for the dwarfs is stubborn, but if they gave an entire army stubborn i think i might throw up. I could def see all the elite units gaining it though.
Sweet jesus I hope that never happens. I'd bet they keep their existing rules, considering I believe they already have a 7th edition book. Who knows what'll happen for an 8th ed release.


Skaven: Mob LD would be the same, but they need something else tricky....
No they don't . . .


Ogres: They already got fear and bull charge? Just need some reworking nothing to do with army wide rules... maybe more non ogre units to choose, samurai or something but that neither here nor their for an army wide rule.
I agree that their army wide rules will stay mostly the same. However, you're getting off topic and you've only just started the thread.


What do you think? Is the whole slapping a speacial rule from the book on an army going to be a continuing theme? Are they done with that and are just going to tweek what they got going for the rest? These are just some thoughts that i had since they have put out enough books this edition to really nail down a trend.

Well, obviously I don't think it's a trend. They did it twice, but after each of those releases they released a book that didn't really follow the trend. (Unless you count giving Vampires "Undead" slapping on a special rule . . .)

Phoenix Blaze
23-10-2008, 18:32
The problem with Wood Elves and their shooting rules, is that some Asrai units don't have a bow! Eternal Guard, Wardancers, Wild Riders, and they tend to be the better units! An army wide WE rule should be that *every* asrai has a bow and that it's 24", can move and shoot with no penalties and is armour piercing. Compared to Asur and Druchii, Asrai are falling far behind in the army wide rules. Always strike first and Hatred + far outstrip the WE ones. But then we see that nearly ever WE unit has a plethora of special rules for themselves.

FigureFour
23-10-2008, 18:38
The problem with Wood Elves and their shooting rules, is that some Asrai units don't have a bow! Eternal Guard, Wardancers, Wild Riders, and they tend to be the better units! An army wide WE rule should be that *every* asrai has a bow and that it's 24", can move and shoot with no penalties and is armour piercing. Compared to Asur and Druchii, Asrai are falling far behind in the army wide rules. Always strike first and Hatred + far outstrip the WE ones. But then we see that nearly ever WE unit has a plethora of special rules for themselves.

Army wide rules aren't the army though. While the army wide rules might not be as good as ASF, the army is still fine.

The only reasons to try to make all the army wide rules equivilent is onupsmanship and power gaming.

Army wide rules should be there to give the army character and a unique fighting style, not to make your army "teh roxXorz."

Emeraldw
23-10-2008, 18:38
The problem with Wood Elves and their shooting rules, is that some Asrai units don't have a bow! Eternal Guard, Wardancers, Wild Riders, and they tend to be the better units! An army wide WE rule should be that *every* asrai has a bow and that it's 24", can move and shoot with no penalties and is armour piercing. Compared to Asur and Druchii, Asrai are falling far behind in the army wide rules. Always strike first and Hatred + far outstrip the WE ones. But then we see that nearly ever WE unit has a plethora of special rules for themselves.

I agree that Wood Elves are falling behind their kin but they are still a pretty good list overall. (ASF hurts though :cries: )

However I can't see them adding bows to every unit, Wood Elves are tricky, not shooty after all :p

The only extra army wide rule I can see is all Wood Elf long bows are Str 4 at short range ala Glade Guard. Maybe make more units scouting but other than that Wood Elves are pretty solid on army wide rules. But as you pointed out just about every unit has Special Rules but thats not unusual for an army that doesn't play like everyone else and has horrible Defenses.

Avian
23-10-2008, 18:45
Just what is the Ballistic Skill of Tree-Kin anyway? ;)

larabic
23-10-2008, 18:51
considering I believe they already have a 7th edition book. Who knows what'll happen for an 8th ed release.



The dwarf book was the last of the 6th ed books, it was angled towards 7th edition but it def does not measure up to reccent books. Apparently hammerers don't deserve 2 attack like HE / DE / Chaos warriors. I think dwarfs need something to keep them in the close combat game witht the rest of these heavy hitters...



(Unless you count giving Vampires "Undead" slapping on a special rule . . .)

I consider "Undead" a amalgimation of specail rules...immune to psche, cause fear... just like daemons. And yes it is an army wide rule because there used to be units that didn't have it, ghouls, vampires and bats. Yes back in the old days you could panic a vampire.

larabic
23-10-2008, 18:53
Just what is the Ballistic Skill of Tree-Kin anyway? ;)

You think my apples ain't what they ought to be?




At least a 4!

The Red Scourge
23-10-2008, 19:20
I agree that Wood Elves are falling behind their kin but they are still a pretty good list overall. (ASF hurts though :cries: )

Falling behind??? I'd rather say that the other elves has been brought up to par.

Our forest spirits has suffered a lot vs. demons though. They gained a true ward save, while ours is still negated by magic – which does make it an unfair fight.

A few other things could be tweaked too. Like the kindred upgrades and the eternal guard.

But when it comes to army wide rules, I think we're in the clear with Asrai Archery, Forest Walk and Forest Spirits

Rolo Ramone
23-10-2008, 19:21
Why so much complains about the bretonnian lance formation? Bretonnia is one of the most balance armies in Warhammer. Well, maybe the word is not balanced (with that level of magic and infantry...) but itīs a pretty "fair" army.

exsulis
23-10-2008, 19:31
Beastmen will keep skirmishing and gain marks maybe? Or have new troops of some type to bolster their unusual fighting style.


I think they'll do something more long the lines of the daemon, and motals army books in addition to "fixing" the rank up rule.




Wood Elves: No idea what they would give wood elves...

i'm gonna guess that GW will push the shooty/forest aspects, and buff up the forest amy list, maybe a full on ward save instead of the watered down version. i'd like to see more forest beasts(panthers, jags) in the army instead of just elves, and spirits. And fix Orion for crying out loud, the man is supposed to get a retinue but can't with 7th. :(




Bretts: Lance will probably go 4 wide but still be the same otherwise. Blessing will be the same, although i would like to see the blessing tie in with theirs mages. 6+ ward save all around , 5+ with her in the unit or in 6"?

I can't really see GW nerfing the lance formation because it is a simplifaction of the 5th edition rule which made them a pain to rank up but looked awesome :) Oh yeah, and it was more broken in 5th. I can see them tweaking the blessing but as it currently stands they don't really stand too much of a chance against these ubre dexes. Lets face it they are good at charging, you can't take that away from them.




Dwarfs: The only thing i can think that would be appropriate for the dwarfs is stubborn, but if they gave an entire army stubborn i think i might throw up. I could def see all the elite units gaining it though.

I wouldn't give them stubborn as that is a little overkill with an average ld of 10. They do have some nice army wide rules but these are not keeping up with today's lists. The dwarfy thing is their stats, and the proliferation of heavy armor. Maybe updating some of the runes, and adding in more attacks to one unit to make it a killy unit. Slayers can kill they just kinda die, and bringing back the doom seeker from SoC would rock!!




Skaven: Mob LD would be the same, but they need something else tricky....


I like them being cheap, and expendable. And the random weapon expolsions need to happen more!!




Ogres: They already got fear and bull charge? Just need some reworking nothing to do with army wide rules... maybe more non ogre units to choose, samurai or something but that neither here nor their for an army wide rule.

the problem ogres have is being more of an elite army without the extra ooph to kill things quickly but they can sit, and take it. The problem becomes how to fix the problem without making them broken.

devolutionary
23-10-2008, 19:35
I fail to see why the lance needs to be 4 wide. Yes it's powerful, but it's not broken. Brets are easy to power up but given the trends of recent years, that won't matter because we'll either have no shot of getting through the ward save, die to the ASF, get ground to a halt by stubborn/unbreakable, or get flank charged by every mutha with a pair of boots/hooves.

larabic
23-10-2008, 19:35
Now that infantry units have to be 5 wide to get ranks they can now get hit full on by 2 lance formation units without losing any attacks. 3 wide 3 deep (9 knights) times 2 with champions equals 16 attacks with lances, its a bit over the top IMHO.

Weemo
23-10-2008, 19:38
The dwarf book was the last of the 6th ed books, it was angled towards 7th edition but it def does not measure up to reccent books. Apparently hammerers don't deserve 2 attack like HE / DE / Chaos warriors. I think dwarfs need something to keep them in the close combat game witht the rest of these heavy hitters..

oh god no, hammerers with two attacks would be OTT

1) High elves have stuff with 2+ attacks because they are expensive and die quicklu

2) Dark elves have stuff with 2+ attacks because they are orientated around a shedload of low str attacks to smash stuff like black guard, witch elves, corsairs and assassins. (xb's to an extent)

3) Warriors have little to no shooting and are combat orientated, given their high points cost and therefore small armies they need 2+ attacks

dwarfs however have shedloads of dirty shooting, they tend to stay put once in combat and have the ability to almost shut down enemy magic phases.

add a dirty stubborn 2 s6 attack each unit (with a lord) then you've got one horrid unit that people wont wanna touch i mean dwarf lords and hammerers are ignored a lot already lot alone with 2 attaks.

combine small units of these guys with thorek or big units with a lord and you looking at something far far too dirty.

edit = soz about the off topic btw

FigureFour
23-10-2008, 20:16
Why so much complains about the bretonnian lance formation? Bretonnia is one of the most balance armies in Warhammer. Well, maybe the word is not balanced (with that level of magic and infantry...) but itīs a pretty "fair" army.


Now that infantry units have to be 5 wide to get ranks they can now get hit full on by 2 lance formation units without losing any attacks. 3 wide 3 deep (9 knights) times 2 with champions equals 16 attacks with lances, its a bit over the top IMHO.

That's why. Otherwise the rule is perfectly balanced.
Really, it's a tough fix, since the rule works totally fine and is exactly how it should be as long as no one exploits the cheesy frontage trick.


The dwarf book was the last of the 6th ed books, it was angled towards 7th edition but it def does not measure up to reccent books. Apparently hammerers don't deserve 2 attack like HE / DE / Chaos warriors. I think dwarfs need something to keep them in the close combat game witht the rest of these heavy hitters...

Fair enough. I wasn't sure on the exact publishing date for the book or 6th edition. However, like you said the book WAS written with 7th edition in mind and isn't getting an update soon.

As for the 2 attacks issue, I think it's mostly new army envy. I've been seeing that a lot lately. I've been involved in a Wood Elf community project to design a hypothetical update to the Wood Elf book to bring it in line with the new armies, so I've even experienced it a little myself.

However, I think Dwarves and Wood Elves are in the same boat here. They're not quite as flashy as the new armies, but their old tricks still work and they're still competative. Buffing all the units/special rules/point costs to match would probably result in some really broken armies.

Personally, I like playing an army that's GOOD as long as you're smart and play well better then playing an army that wins because it's loaded with big flashy toys.


I consider "Undead" a amalgimation of specail rules...immune to psche, cause fear... just like daemons. And yes it is an army wide rule because there used to be units that didn't have it, ghouls, vampires and bats. Yes back in the old days you could panic a vampire.
True. But it was hardly added. It was slightly expanded.
Very different from High Elves and Dark Elves where a new rule was grafted on as a buffing mechanism for the army. THAT is the trend I don't think is actually a trend.

Lordsaradain
23-10-2008, 20:23
The problem with Wood Elves and their shooting rules, is that some Asrai units don't have a bow! Eternal Guard, Wardancers, Wild Riders, and they tend to be the better units! An army wide WE rule should be that *every* asrai has a bow and that it's 24", can move and shoot with no penalties and is armour piercing. Compared to Asur and Druchii, Asrai are falling far behind in the army wide rules. Always strike first and Hatred + far outstrip the WE ones. But then we see that nearly ever WE unit has a plethora of special rules for themselves.

Wood elves are perfectly fine.
Dryads for 12/model and core? Sweet!

SolarHammer
23-10-2008, 20:24
Get rid of the lance rule entirely. It's a crap rule that has been crap in every incarnation of the game.

If they want a rank bonus, they can get it the same way everyone else does.

FigureFour
23-10-2008, 20:40
Get rid of the lance rule entirely. It's a crap rule that has been crap in every incarnation of the game.
What makes it a crap rule?

It gives the army some style and it's not unreasonable to want to rank knights up in a long narrow formation instead of a big line or block. They did actually USE wedge formations for cavalry.


If they want a rank bonus, they can get it the same way everyone else does.
Yeah, because a +1 or +2 rank bonus the turn they charge is really the issue here.

SolarHammer
23-10-2008, 20:58
Well in 4th and 5th it was a crap rule because it made big dumb pyramids of knights that had no flanks (counting everything as a charge to the front), and in 6th and 7th it's been a crap rule because it allows 2 or 3+ units of knights to combo charge the same unit and make a billion attacks.

On a per unit basis, a Lance doesn't get many more attacks than any other single unit of cavalry. What the lance lets them do is pile in 3 times as many units onto a single target, ensuring local superiority. Sure flee and flank works against this kind of nonsense, but there are plenty of units that cannot flee for one reason or another (Frenzy, ItP, Unbreakable, etc.) and this makes it very much more difficult than it should be to play against Brets.

The blessing should be more than enough of a special rule for any army. Bret players can keep that, but lose the loser lances.

Alternately, make them 4 wide, give them the rank bonus all the time but don't allow anyone not in BtB to make attacks. That's the stupidest part. I'd be happy with that change.

FigureFour
23-10-2008, 21:02
Well, I never played against Brets in 4th and 5th edition, so I didn't know about the no flanks thing (which is retarded).

However, I think currently the rule is flavourful and helps to shape the Bretonnian style a little bit by giving them a unigue look on the table and making their knights extra deadly on the charge and sort of boned when not charging (like knights should be). It seems like a good rule that unfortunatly had an obvious abuse opened up when the new edition came out.

Famder
23-10-2008, 21:50
The simple fix is add two lines to the lance formation: "A lance formation is so effective because it drives deep into the heart of enemy formations, forcing the enemy to split its ranks or be crushed by stampeding horses, this is represented by all knights on the edge of a lance formation to attack. Because of this nature of the lance charge if two or more units in the lance formation charge the same unit they are unable to benefit from the attacks of models not in base to base contact with the enemy."

Or a better worded version of that. Essentially keep the lance formation 3 wide, but make it impossible to get more than 6 models involved in the fighting unless a flank or rear charge is involved. So a unit of 9 could charge getting the normal 7 model's attacks against the enemy, or two units of 9 could charge the same unit and get only 6 models attacking.

larabic
23-10-2008, 22:23
Ok, i see where you are going with that but maybe a less complex better explanation would be something along the lines of:

"Due to the honor and virtue of a knight no more then one unit of knights in lance formation may charge the same enemy unit on the same turn. Knight Errants don't follow this virtue."

This would prevent overwhelming force creaming the best unit you have, but still leave options open. Charge in with pesants to assist or flank. Or charge in stages. Turn 2 your knights charge but don't break a unit. Turn 3 you bring in a second unit to finish off what is left.

I think GW would rather reduce the price of a knight by 2-3 pts and have 4 wide. More models sold and the rules can be changed by changing one number, doesn't get any easier then that really.

Famder
23-10-2008, 22:30
I think outright prohibiting multiple charges is a bad idea. If they want to they should be allowed to charge in a unit of Questing Knights with their Knights of the Realm against a unit of Plaguebearers. There should be a trade off though of not getting the extra attacks the lance formation offers a unit when multiple units are on an enemy's front, flank, or rear.

theunwantedbeing
23-10-2008, 22:37
I dont see anythign wrong with the current lance formation.

Yes it's brutal if you get hit by 2 of them....so?
2 of them are expensive!!!

Not to mention manovering a lance when it's 3 ranks deep is incredibly tricky when there's another lance right next to it(or other troops in close proximity)...they end out being able to go forwards and that's prettymuch it.

A helpful "nerf" for the lance would be to clarify that the "outside model" for wheel purposes is the one that moves the furthest (usually the back corner oppsite the one you are wheeling around). This further limits the lance to charging prettymuch straight forwards.

4 wide just ruins the look of the lance and doesnt make it deep enough.
(so it becomes more manoverable and less inclined to just go straight forwards).

FigureFour
23-10-2008, 23:42
I dont see anythign wrong with the current lance formation.

Yes it's brutal if you get hit by 2 of them....so?
2 of them are expensive!!!

Not particularly. Bretonnian cavalry is a bargain really. And when have you seen a Bretonnian army with less then 3-4 wedges of knights?


Not to mention manovering a lance when it's 3 ranks deep is incredibly tricky when there's another lance right next to it...they end out being able to go forwards and that's prettymuch it.

They don't have to be side by side to get two units in the enemy's front arc, and you don't need to maneuver much when you can blow through a unit on a frontal charge.


A helpful "nerf" for the lance would be to clarify that the "outside model" for wheel purposes is the one that moves the furthest (usually the back corner oppsite the one you are wheeling around). This further limits the lance to charging prettymuch straight forwards.

The problem is that charging straight forwards is way to effective . . . I'd rather if they were able to (and had to) try for flank charges to achieve a devastating combat.

Rolo Ramone
24-10-2008, 02:30
Ok, here I bring the solution to the bretonnia megapowerfull lance formation!!
Letīs wipe it out!! And then, give Bretonnia better mages! and add some heave artillery and some cannons!!! And after that, rename the army for something like "Imperio", "Imperium" or similar....



Did you see?....:eyebrows:

Emeraldw
24-10-2008, 04:53
The Brets are all about cavalry, I don't see why they can't have These awesome knight formations. I think it works well and they are the focus of the army.

If you want ot nerf the lance, nerf the fact that you can take an all knight list. A list that has peasants isn't bad at all. It's when you see all Knights that things get a little OTT.

Avian
24-10-2008, 08:37
The simple alteration to the lance formation is to simply remove the clause about getting a rank bonus with only three models. That gives the bret player an encouragement to run with infantry if he wants ranks (or use fast cavalry to negate the ranks of others) and means that a single lance to the front of a large, ranked infantry unit is unlikely to break it.

Urgat
24-10-2008, 10:46
What's the point in keeping the lance rule, then?

Avian
24-10-2008, 10:56
What do you mean? It gives more attacks on a narrower frontage, which is a very nice bonus for a cavalry army since manoeuvering units is easier and you can do combined charges more easily.

And it emphasises the need to charge, since a unit in lance formation that fails to break through when charging would actually be in trouble, as opposed to units now that still do all right because they have ranks and other bonuses and even when not charging knights tend to do well in combat. That currently knights who get bogged down in combat do badly is largely a myth.

vinush
24-10-2008, 11:05
It seems every army is getting an across the board rule change / update / addition...


Empire: Detatchments

The empire detachment rule isn't army wide. Only state troops benefit from the rule, so knights, militia, flagellants, etc don't get to use it.

Not a complaint, just an observation.

\/ince

kramplarv
24-10-2008, 11:06
or, learn clever manovering and the 3*3 or 3*4 lances wont be of problem.

the best lance is the 6 man unit. they are small,fast and very agile, and also cheap.
If I'd have to nerf the lancefomration id say the knights must be at least 9 to use it.

units smaller than 9 can use the normal rules. this makes both the rule less powerful, and also more fluffy. :)

marv335
24-10-2008, 11:21
Let the lance keep it's attacks but lose the rank bonus.
let them take the warbanner like everyone else to get a rank bonus for cavalry.
:D

Orcboy_Phil
24-10-2008, 11:26
The lance formation is unfair because its rather silly. Why can't chaos knights or Vampire counts use it? Is it that Brettonians are so pure that there uncoruptable? Or do they just forget all they knew when they fell from grace? Why don't other armies copy them? Are the Empire or the High Elves so stuck in there ways that they won't copy tactics of others?

The Red Scourge
24-10-2008, 11:55
I'm not that up to date on the brets. But aren't they all single attack knights?

Compare them to Dragon Princes, Chaos Knights and Blood Knights, and then you've got units hitting just as hard without the lance formation, while being less vulnerable to artillery.

Duke Georgal
24-10-2008, 11:56
My biggest disappointment with the new edition so far was the missed opportunity with Vampire Counts.

The rewrite did not need to be so extensive, all the army needed was a new army wide rule:

Total Fear: Everything, unless immune to psychology, fears the undead. Even if they cause fear or terror themselves. The sight of animated corpses will cause even the most mighty of dragons to become uneasy.

There, simple, effective, and totally in character. No Blood Knights. No stupid bloodline combos. Everything is still in character and models are worth their points costs.

Oh well.

Anyway, I like army wide rules.

Duke Georgal
24-10-2008, 11:59
The lance formation is unfair because its rather silly. Why can't chaos knights or Vampire counts use it? Is it that Brettonians are so pure that there uncoruptable? Or do they just forget all they knew when they fell from grace? Why don't other armies copy them? Are the Empire or the High Elves so stuck in there ways that they won't copy tactics of others?

The lance formation has always had silly rules, all the way back to the 5th edition book.

I REALLY hope they fix it in the next book, but I doubt it.

Harwammer
24-10-2008, 12:51
With complaints that bet cav have too much staying power on a protracted combat, wouldn't the most simple fix be the following:

They only get rank bonus in the first turn of combat (provided they have charged).

Lances should only work on the charge, be it lance weapon or lance formation.

Ward.
24-10-2008, 12:52
And the random weapon explosions need to happen more!!


The hell they do.


My biggest disappointment with the new edition so far was the missed opportunity with Vampire Counts.

The rewrite did not need to be so extensive, all the army needed was a new army wide rule:

Total Fear: Everything, unless immune to psychology, fears the undead. Even if they cause fear or terror themselves. The sight of animated corpses will cause even the most mighty of dragons to become uneasy.

There, simple, effective, and totally in character. No Blood Knights. No stupid bloodline combos. Everything is still in character and models are worth their points costs.

Oh well.

Anyway, I like army wide rules.

Who would have bought that? Personally I think they could have easily combined the two books and given everyone buckets of variety.

Mireadur
24-10-2008, 18:26
Its strange because i find the lance formation extremely balanced right now (Thanks Anthony you did a great job on this one).

Where are your diversion maneuvers? its not like if he manages to get a double lance charge on your main unit you didnt totally suck at the game.

I guess some people is never going to stop whinning. IF for something, begin whinning for bretonnians to get a wider spectrum of useful units and for some ruling (not easy at all to come with it) which encourages poor players like you to actually use the peasants (rules any decent player doesnt need since they already use peasants a lot and with great success).

FigureFour
24-10-2008, 18:51
With complaints that bet cav have too much staying power on a protracted combat, wouldn't the most simple fix be the following:

They only get rank bonus in the first turn of combat (provided they have charged).

Lances should only work on the charge, be it lance weapon or lance formation.

That would be a fine fix, if that was the problem. As it is, the rule makes them deadly on the charge and sort of crap after the charge.


Its strange because i find the lance formation extremely balanced right now (Thanks Anthony you did a great job on this one).

I wouldn't say extremely, but it is pretty balanced.


Where are your diversion maneuvers? its not like if he manages to get a double lance charge on your main unit you didnt totally suck at the game.

Wait, it's hard to get two out of four cavalry units in the front arc of a unit and within charge range?

Sure you might be able to divert a charge or through but it's still pretty easy for a bret player to just line up his lances and blow through your lines.


I guess some people is never going to stop whinning. IF for something, begin whinning for bretonnians to get a wider spectrum of useful units and for some ruling (not easy at all to come with it) which encourages poor players like you to actually use the peasants (rules any decent player doesnt need since they already use peasants a lot and with great success).

Oh, come on. Seriously? I think the rule can be exploited in an undesirable way so I'm a bad player?

And the only reason I don't use peasants is because I don't play brets. I've discussed how useful they are with my bret playing friend on many ocasions.

popisdead
29-10-2008, 04:11
Beasts will theme around ambush as well I can see them getting the current Und. mark free (re-roll psych since they have low LD it's such a help now).

I highly doubt the other armies mentioned will change much.