PDA

View Full Version : should mounted chars be allowed to join infantry units?



rtunian
17-01-2010, 17:21
well, should they?

the on-foot models for many characters are great-looking, characterful models, but from an army-building perspective, it's almost always better to mount your chars, so it seems rare to see these fantastic on-foot models (on the battlefield, at least)

it seems odd to me that they are even allowed in the first place (to be on a horse in a unit of foot soldiers). woe to be the one unlucky grunt directly behind these horses or boars, who finds himself treading more carefully than were he in a minefield!!

some thoughts:
- certain mounts would require adjustments (gigantic spider, i'm looking at you) to remain viable as options, if they are not allowed to join infantry units

- alternatively, the benefit for being on-foot could be improved. a slightly cheaper character is not much of a boon at all!!

Davo
17-01-2010, 17:30
I think that it is perfectly realistic for it to happen, however I agree with you about the great on foot character models not being seen so often (especially in certain armies). I also hate how a cavalry character in a unit of 20mm bases makes the whole thing look messy with the gaps etc.

Avian
17-01-2010, 17:32
Cavalry mounts (horse, boar, etc)? Yes.
Monstrous mounts (Stegadon, Corpse Cart, etc.)? No

Monsters these days tend to displace a bit too many models for my taste, now that they are more and more often on a base bigger than 4 infantry models.

scipunk
17-01-2010, 17:40
Why not, but it has limitation. I honestly never add mounted characters in infantry units, for one specific reason. You loose the benefit and capabilities of both models. In addition could add traits into units that you did not want to like stupidity (ie Dark Elves and Lizardmen cold one mounted characters). By mounting a character, you are trying to achieve two things: to get them into combat as quickly as possible and to improve armour.

Infantry are there to provide with crucial placement on the battle field and hold down units that you don't want to deal with right away. If you win combat, unit still goes 2d6 and the character cannot run after them on his own.

As the feel and look...mounted characters are cool in their own way when in infantry but that's pretty much it IMHO


it seems odd to me that they are even allowed in the first place (to be on a horse in a unit of foot soldiers). woe to be the one unlucky grunt directly behind these horses or boars, who finds himself treading more carefully than were he in a minefield!!

Never thought of that before :D wonder if the draw straws:shifty:

Idle Scholar
17-01-2010, 18:09
No because of the previously mentioned problem of making mounts an auto-choice for a fair few armies.

edit: Though I guess you could have mounted characters dismount when they join a unit, but that sounds a bit finnicky for warhammer.

PeG
17-01-2010, 18:15
I dont see why they should not be able to do this. Also used to be very common especially to have higher ranking officers on horseback in a unit of infantry.

Condottiere
17-01-2010, 18:18
Going by RL, there's nothing against the practice; anything larger needs limitations.

rtunian
17-01-2010, 18:27
Why not, but it has limitation ... You loose the benefit and capabilities of both models.

the differences between cav mounted and on foot in a unit of infantry:
- mounted: +1 armor save, +mount attacks, +any mount special rules, greatweapon weaker by 1s, spear adds 1s on charge, can use lance, adds 1 extra unit strength

- foot: eligible for hw&s armor bonus, stronger great weapon by 1, can dual wield mundane hand weapons

the only advantages for being on foot, that i can think of, are all cancelled by the equipping of a magic weapon (with limited exception), and most chars equip magic weapons don't they? besides, many mounts give more armor save than the parry bonus would give, and they give it fighting from all sides (not just front)

one reason to have char on foot i can think of is the cheap ld buff. in larger points games where you can have many more chars than normal 2kish games, you can afford to spend a hero to up the ld & combat ability of an otherwise disposable inf block. when you have that many chars, it's also more likely that you will have chars with mundane equips.

but in the more common game, in the points range of most pickup games, tourney games, league games, etc, is there any practical reason for a character to be on foot besides "to save a few points" ???

edit
i pose a new question, or perhaps pose the same question in other ways:

what is the point of having on-foot character models, and rules for them, if the only time you would ever see one on the battlefield is when a monster or chariot mounted character loses their ride? why bother continuing to make models that people don't use in their games?

do you think that from a game design perspective, it is a job well done when an entire aspect of character design is almost never applied because of how drastically inferior it is to its alternatives? consider how tolerant we are of magic items that are deemed inferior to other magic items within the same list (eg "why does item x exist? it's horribad and everyone always takes item y instead!")

Avian
17-01-2010, 18:34
The WoC army has several magic items that are only usable by models on foot.

I'm hoping to get the new GD Sorcerer guy and give him the Bloodskull Pendant. Strength 8 Killing Blow auto-hit surprise! :D


Besides that, there are more character models on foot than mounted, so by going on foot you can save yourself some converting.

Drakcore Bloodtear
17-01-2010, 19:04
The funny thing is, most people in my local club don't even know it's a rule

So nobody does it, which is nice, except nurgle palaquins which is rather fluffy IMO

Urgat
17-01-2010, 19:09
If melee attacks directed at mounted characters (and units) had a +1 to hit like they should (+2 for things like stegadons), maybe people would think a bit more about it.

xragg
17-01-2010, 20:10
Bring back some variation of the rule that lone characters within 3" of a large unit cant be targeted by range attacks and I would be for it. As of now, I dont usually put my mounted heros into infantry blocks. More often I mount my sorceresses and have them tag along with infantry units until the heat gets too hot, and then ride off to another unit.

5Pointer
17-01-2010, 21:22
I don't do it, cause I don't like how it looks. No other reason, I just think it looks ugly.

scipunk
17-01-2010, 21:36
what is the point of having on-foot character models, and rules for them, if the only time you would ever see one on the battlefield is when a monster or chariot mounted character loses their ride? why bother continuing to make models that people don't use in their games?

On foot characters when on their own benefit from a 360 line of sight, which is something you can not take lightly compared to mounted. I say this because there are a few characters that can not join units, per say the Masque or giving characters certain abilities that would not allow them to join units (wood elves) This way the lone characters are able to move around with no penalties. Mounted can only see in the 90 degree, movement is considered of that of a unit, meaning in turning you lose a quarter of your movement, etc. In addition monstrous mounts are considered large target, thus your opponent can pick out your character, and such mounts never give you any benefit, other than running around causing terror. (Can't tell you how many times my old blood would die and my carnosaur just runs about out of control....good times:p)


do you think that from a game design perspective, it is a job well done when an entire aspect of character design is almost never applied because of how drastically inferior it is to its alternatives? consider how tolerant we are of magic items that are deemed inferior to other magic items within the same list (eg "why does item x exist? it's horribad and everyone always takes item y instead!")

I'll be first to admit that sometimes I don't play with special characters no matter how nice the fluff is, unless they benefit my army as a whole or if I want to try something new then I would consider in using them once in a while. Not to say that they are not good, but sometimes you can take the normal hero and make him/her much better than the named character. This simply applies to magic items as well. Removing the aspect if your mounted or not...some items are not that useful and many army books have those items that they will never use. Not sure why they are there, but they are.

Avian
17-01-2010, 21:41
If melee attacks directed at mounted characters (and units) had a +1 to hit like they should (+2 for things like stegadons), maybe people would think a bit more about it.
That would be completely unrealistic, if anything you should get a -1 to hit a guy on a horse. There is a reason riot police use horses.

Commodus Leitdorf
17-01-2010, 21:43
Yes. It allows me to give my characters a decent armour save without taking anything out of the characters magic item alotment. Plus a noble would ride a horse amongst his men anyway.

Its done because it allows characters to get better armour. If I can be on foot and get the same without investing in magic items I would...but I cant get it so I'd rather this rule stay as is.

Now as for mounts on larger bases......I'd rather they change it so mounts on 40mm bases dont receive this bonus...they do displace alot of extra troops.

Malorian
17-01-2010, 21:51
I think it's fine and fluffy.

They are just going to have trouble when they want to enter a building ;)

someone2040
18-01-2010, 01:44
If melee attacks directed at mounted characters (and units) had a +1 to hit like they should (+2 for things like stegadons), maybe people would think a bit more about it.
Why would it be easier to hit a guy on top of a huge stegadon? If anything, how are your little daggers reaching the guy up on top of the Stegadon in the first place?

ChaosVC
18-01-2010, 01:54
Foot characters are still useful, they have their own tactical role. That said, some armies are better off with mounted chars while some are better off with foot chars.

Lord Malorne
18-01-2010, 01:59
OP:

Well I have skarsnik, so base displacement is good for me :angel:.

Lord Malorne

brynolf
18-01-2010, 02:06
Yes, it's realistic and looks neat. But there should be downsides (except for the ones already mentioned, because those are hardly downsides at all). All choices should be equally valid.

Bloodknight
18-01-2010, 02:28
The problem with mounted characters (human on a barded horse in this example) is basically that you get +1 US, +2 AS and an extra S3 attack at practically no cost because the mounted character also counts for rank bonus so a unit bought for said character can be one less model strong without losing any benefits. There's almost no reason for fighter characters or Chaos Sorcerors (because they can actually get a decent armour save) to be on foot. Mages usually don't get a useful armour save anyway so they can be on foot, but the double movement they get from the horse can also be crucial; they suck wandering around alone (they can easily get shot) so they're better off in a unit and then they lose the 360° view...except in a unit of skirmishers, of course.

Urgat
18-01-2010, 03:00
That would be completely unrealistic, if anything you should get a -1 to hit a guy on a horse. There is a reason riot police use horses.

Yeah, you give me a long stick, and I'll see what I hit easier, the guy on a horse (or the horse itself, mind) in the middle of a big melee, swinging left and right from up there with all those blind spots everywhere, or the guy on the ground swinging left and right behind a shield. Yeah, there's a reason (a very small handful of) riot police members are on horses: it is because it can go faster in the middle or, well, a riot (and they don't stay there if said riot is even midly agressive). And so, there's a reason why true riot forces are footmen behind plexiglass shields. I'll let you have a look at what happened to horsemen stuck in the middle of a melee, with not momentum, by yourself. Nope, they were not invincible warriors, immovible rocks which avoided blows with magic back flips or whatever.

edit: so make that +1 to hit if the mounted minis have not charged that turn if you want. Still, immobile knights are sitting ducks in melee, that's what all I've learnt about medieval warfare pointed to.

RGB
18-01-2010, 03:14
Yeah, you give me a long stick, and I'll see what I hit easier, the guy on a horse (or the horse itself, mind) in the middle of a huge melee, or the guy behind a shield swinging left and right.

I would first say you overestimate the length of most combat weapons. As to the effectiveness...

...well, it depends. Is the "stick" a halberd? Because halberds have hooks, and hooks mean dead shieldmen if their shields are strapped to their arms. There's a reason why nobody really used shields in the Renaissance. Not very useful against bullets or horsemen, not very good against good mercenaries with halberds.

Excellent vs. Mesoamerican warriors, of course, I'll give you that.


Nope, they were not invincible warriors, immovible rocks which avoided blows with magic back flips or whatever.

That said, in all cases heavy cavalry took much smaller casualties, percentage-wise, even when stuck in, than foot troopers would...better equipment and overall training being the probable reason.

As terribly as the Ordonnance performed against the Swiss, the knights always fought the hardest and the longest, and survived the most (dismounted or otherwise). And this is against the Swiss, who actually had no qualms about killing captured nobility.

PARTYCHICORITA
18-01-2010, 03:23
Cavalry mounts (horse, boar, etc)? Yes.
Monstrous mounts (Stegadon, Corpse Cart, etc.)? No

Monsters these days tend to displace a bit too many models for my taste, now that they are more and more often on a base bigger than 4 infantry models.

This seems resonable.

Urgat
18-01-2010, 03:42
I
That said, in all cases heavy cavalry took much smaller casualties, percentage-wise, even when stuck in, than foot troopers would...better equipment and overall training being the probable reason.

What I read told otherwise, knights would get butchered when stuck in, and did well on foot only if they dismounted prior to entering melee (something they did quite often after Agincourt and co. People tend to forget that the war didn't stop there, that the situation was reversed at Bauge and especially at Patay, etc, anyway, they learned that walking could be good in many situations).

Oh yeah forgot, and my stick was just that, a stick, since Avian thought it right to compare knights pitted againts people with haberds, spears and pikes, to policemen pitted against people armed with bare fists and bad haircuts :p

edit: whoa, sorry, I've reread myself and I went completly OT. My bad.

Condottiere
18-01-2010, 03:55
As terribly as the Ordonnance performed against the Swiss, the knights always fought the hardest and the longest, and survived the most (dismounted or otherwise). And this is against the Swiss, who actually had no qualms about killing captured nobility.The Swiss adopted a no-nonsense attitude towards warfare and preferred that their opponents feared them. While ransoms may seem attractive, they developed a method of collective negotiation that allowed an earlier return on investment.

Gromdal
18-01-2010, 09:39
The halberd was a guards weapon, perfect for pushing back crowds. It could also work vs cavalry with its hook and vs infantry with moderate effect.

The halberd on the battlefield was vastly outmatched by the pike (very good vs cavalry, easy to use, quick to train troops with)

The sword and shield is when it comes to melee far superior than the halberd or pike, however the pikes were used as a def unit protecting the handgunners or crossbowmen or bows (eventually the firepower became so good that the pike was abandoned alltogether).

The greek phalanx was utterly destroyed by the board and sword style that the romans employed.

Avian
18-01-2010, 09:51
What I read told otherwise, knights would get butchered when stuck in, ...
*facepalm*

Peregijn
18-01-2010, 10:00
i think that mounted models leading a big blok of infantry looks awsome. the juggernout in a big blok of handwapon/shield wielding chaoswarriors just looks great. plus the unit gets to cuase fear ;)

Idle Scholar
18-01-2010, 10:19
The halberd was a guards weapon, perfect for pushing back crowds. It could also work vs cavalry with its hook and vs infantry with moderate effect.

The halberd on the battlefield was vastly outmatched by the pike (very good vs cavalry, easy to use, quick to train troops with)

The sword and shield is when it comes to melee far superior than the halberd or pike, however the pikes were used as a def unit protecting the handgunners or crossbowmen or bows (eventually the firepower became so good that the pike was abandoned alltogether).

The greek phalanx was utterly destroyed by the board and sword style that the romans employed.

Pikes beat all other weapons to the front, as a formation and over non difficult ground. The Romans beat the Macedonians by breaking up the phalanx over rocky ground and by having a far greater troop replacement rate.

Halberds (and other pollarms) invariably beat all other melee weapons 1 on 1, but needed space to perform.

My gut feeling as to why shields disappeared is the improvement in metallurgy that allowed for better armour. Shields are a bugger to carry around and a soldier is much more effective with his weapon if he can use two hands. Or it could have been their ineffectiveness vs firearms. It should be noted that military theorists kept trying to re-introduce the shield after it had disappeared from use.

With the exception of the Romans the sword has always been the backup infantry weapon and considered inferior to almost anything else on the battlefield.

Tarax
18-01-2010, 10:26
I dont see why they should not be able to do this. Also used to be very common especially to have higher ranking officers on horseback in a unit of infantry.

While I agree that it was common, I would say that it's only model-wise they should be on horseback (or any other back). But game-wise I don't like the idea. And the look of a unit doesn't appeal to me.

If they do, however, I think they should be able to be targeted out by shooting.

The Red Scourge
18-01-2010, 11:08
I never engage in such foolishness.

My vamps prefer to stand discreetly among the foot soldiers and not draw too much attention to themselves.

My WoC closest thing resembling infantry is warhounds - cheap and dispendable ;)

And my woodies never understood the concept of armor anyway :p

Condottiere
18-01-2010, 11:51
Reach tends to trump anything else in melee, as long as your troops maintain cohesion, which is where training comes in. Pike versus pike depends on who gets tired or breaks first. At this point you send halberdiers or any other infantry to try and hack up the flanks of the phalanx.

The Roman Legion won out due to their flexibility.

Gromdal
18-01-2010, 12:17
Pikes beat all other weapons to the front, as a formation and over non difficult ground. The Romans beat the Macedonians by breaking up the phalanx over rocky ground and by having a far greater troop replacement rate.

Halberds (and other pollarms) invariably beat all other melee weapons 1 on 1, but needed space to perform.

My gut feeling as to why shields disappeared is the improvement in metallurgy that allowed for better armour. Shields are a bugger to carry around and a soldier is much more effective with his weapon if he can use two hands. Or it could have been their ineffectiveness vs firearms. It should be noted that military theorists kept trying to re-introduce the shield after it had disappeared from use.

With the exception of the Romans the sword has always been the backup infantry weapon and considered inferior to almost anything else on the battlefield.

Shields disappeared because of the increased firepower and mass recruitments (meaning troops where actually became less effective but greater numbers). Armor also disappeared for the same reason.

There is no melee weapon that can rival the power of sword and board.
A pike doesnt stand a chance, in or outside formation, nor does a halberd.
In a duel noone would ever had chosen to fight with a halberd vs an enemy using a shield and sword.

Pikes where used as defensive formations in the late middle ages to defend the firepower from cavalry charges (or infantry) but not by killing them simply by halting them (and the firepower would do the killing). Most prof. soldiers using pikes in the late middle ages had both a shield and sword as "backup". Ie when formations were not held and the real melee started they wouldnt be caught with a pike or halberd.

Gromdal
18-01-2010, 12:19
Reach tends to trump anything else in melee, as long as your troops maintain cohesion, which is where training comes in. Pike versus pike depends on who gets tired or breaks first. At this point you send halberdiers or any other infantry to try and hack up the flanks of the phalanx.

The Roman Legion won out due to their flexibility.

See my other comment : )

the Goat
18-01-2010, 12:38
On foot characters when on their own benefit from a 360 line of sight, which is something you can not take lightly compared to mounted.
This is huge! Mounted characters only have a 90 degree line of site. This is a new rule in 7th edition. (I still call it "new" when 8th is right around the corner)

I have seen many times late in the game when a character on foot would get a charge and wreak havok. But instead the mounted character doesn't get a charge and is stuck trying to maneuver in order to not get charged up his *&#$%.

Mounted vs. on foot is a pretty even trade off in my opinion.
________
Vapir Air One 5.0 Vaporizer Reviews (http://vaporizers.net)

Bloodknight
18-01-2010, 12:54
This is a new rule in 7th edition

It used to be that way in 6th, too, but back then it wasn't a good idea to lead an infantry unit from a mount since because of the size difference you could target the character with magic and shooting specifically inside the unit.

theunwantedbeing
18-01-2010, 13:05
Yes, they should be able to.

However, it would be nice to see some additional rules on how to deal with them within a unit.
eg. Much like how kroxigor in skinks work, shooting hits on the unit will randomise between the unit and any overly large mounts within the unit.

Similarly, seperate psychology tests would be nice as well.
The mount within the unit still of course bolster's the courage of the unit massively
eg. why be scared of a bunch of trolls when there's a giant killing machine of a monster that eats trolls for breakfast wandering along with you?

Although a mount is not going to be as easily stayed as the unit is, so making it test seperately for psychology would be interesting. Perhaps even for break tests as well.
With not so pleasant results if you fail
eg. if the mount runs and unit doesnt, then it'll be running through the unit in all likelihood and any models it runs through are going to suffer an impact hit at the strength of monster. Or maybe just on a failed initiutive test as they try and avoid it, could easily be applied to all fleeing monsters using ground movement (flying monsters fly over so dont cause the damage)

I do like monsters within units though.
It looks especially impressive but the rules currently have a few too many grey area's.

Idle Scholar
18-01-2010, 13:25
Shields disappeared because of the increased firepower and mass recruitments (meaning troops where actually became less effective but greater numbers). Armor also disappeared for the same reason.

There is no melee weapon that can rival the power of sword and board.
A pike doesnt stand a chance, in or outside formation, nor does a halberd.
In a duel noone would ever had chosen to fight with a halberd vs an enemy using a shield and sword.

Pikes where used as defensive formations in the late middle ages to defend the firepower from cavalry charges (or infantry) but not by killing them simply by halting them (and the firepower would do the killing). Most prof. soldiers using pikes in the late middle ages had both a shield and sword as "backup". Ie when formations were not held and the real melee started they wouldnt be caught with a pike or halberd.

Armour disappeared because of firepower; the (lack of) protection offered was not worth the hassle of lugging it around or the expense of providing it.

The Swiss and Landschneckt pike phalanx's were one of the most effective (pre widespread gunpowder) infantry formations created. They were used offensively, either at a walking charge (the Landschneckts) or at a run (the Swiss). To the front the pikes were arranged to present a three or four deep interlocking layer which stabbed a few men and trapped the rest so that the attached halberdiers and zweihanders could go round the side and start hacking the opposing block. Then when they got closer the front ranks would become so packed together it was difficult to breath. I'm not sure what a sword and shieldman could do when faced with a three deep row of points or when jammed up against his opponent, and if they were as effective as you say in more open combat why didn't the swiss employ them on the flanks as opposed to halberdiers?

Gromdal
18-01-2010, 13:35
Armour disappeared because of firepower; the (lack of) protection offered was not worth the hassle of lugging it around or the expense of providing it.

The Swiss and Landschneckt pike phalanx's were one of the most effective (pre widespread gunpowder) infantry formations created. They were used offensively, either at a walking charge (the Landschneckts) or at a run (the Swiss). To the front the pikes were arranged to present a three or four deep interlocking layer which stabbed a few men and trapped the rest so that the attached halberdiers and zweihanders could go round the side and start hacking the opposing block. Then when they got closer the front ranks would become so packed together it was difficult to breath. I'm not sure what a sword and shieldman could do when faced with a three deep row of points or when jammed up against his opponent, and if they were as effective as you say in more open combat why didn't the swiss employ them on the flanks as opposed to halberdiers?

They swiss used shields to a great extent actually. They were amongst the best armored and equipped troops of the day, and on more than one occasion when melee ensued they surrendered (often switching sides after the battle, being hired by those who defeated them).

And armor protected decently against the firepower but it was far to expensive compared to 2-3 additional riflemen.
Many in the nobility had armors that saved them from crossbows, gunfire and the like. The mass drafted militias often didnt even get basic protection.

Idle Scholar
18-01-2010, 13:47
Have you got any references for that? I've tried the all powerful google but it just brings up wikipedia and all my sources are for the 17th century.

The wiki page does have the 'badwar' wood cut though, which shows two pikeblocks at push and the halberdiers on the flanks using their halberds with their swords sheathed. It also lacks any shields.

edit: Armour only ever protected against pistol shot, musket shot would go straight through

Whitehorn
18-01-2010, 13:48
For gameplay, yes and I do.

It seems a shame to not use great looking models on foot, but the advantages of being mounted are too good to ignore.

rtunian
18-01-2010, 13:53
regarding the 360 line of sight for being on foot, this thread is about a char in an infantry rank & file unit (i may have implied that instead of explicitly stating it). so you can assume that the arc of sight is cut down to 90' no matter what


Yes, they should be able to.

However, it would be nice to see some additional rules on how to deal with them within a unit.
eg. Much like how kroxigor in skinks work, shooting hits on the unit will randomise between the unit and any overly large mounts within the unit.

Similarly, seperate psychology tests would be nice as well.
The mount within the unit still of course bolster's the courage of the unit massively
eg. why be scared of a bunch of trolls when there's a giant killing machine of a monster that eats trolls for breakfast wandering along with you?

Although a mount is not going to be as easily stayed as the unit is, so making it test seperately for psychology would be interesting. Perhaps even for break tests as well.
With not so pleasant results if you fail
eg. if the mount runs and unit doesnt, then it'll be running through the unit in all likelihood and any models it runs through are going to suffer an impact hit at the strength of monster. Or maybe just on a failed initiutive test as they try and avoid it, could easily be applied to all fleeing monsters using ground movement (flying monsters fly over so dont cause the damage)


i like this way of approaching it. instead of trying to make more positives for being on foot, or restricting which type of unit a character can join, implement some real, tangible, potentially-game-impacting negatives for being mounted. can achieve exactly the same desired result, which is: encourage greater use of on-foot characters

Gromdal
18-01-2010, 14:00
Have you got any references for that? I've tried the all powerful google but it just brings up wikipedia and all my sources are for the 17th century.

The wiki page does have the 'badwar' wood cut though, which shows two pikeblocks at push and the halberdiers on the flanks using their halberds with their swords sheathed. It also lacks any shields.

edit: Armour only ever protected against pistol shot, musket shot would go straight through


Read about the battle Ravenna, where spanish infantry with swords and shields (or rapiers and bucklers) defeated swiss pikemen.
There are many many more examples. Many a rifle shot has been deflected by plate armor, even leather armor sometimes stopped a bullet.

Idle Scholar
18-01-2010, 14:15
Yes, after the pike formation was disrupted by attacking across a ditch.

With regards to armour it's all a question of range. At close range an average musket will pierce a good suit of plate armour, so armour fell out of use.

Condottiere
18-01-2010, 14:18
They swiss used shields to a great extent actually. They were amongst the best armored and equipped troops of the day, and on more than one occasion when melee ensued they surrendered (often switching sides after the battle, being hired by those who defeated them).

And armor protected decently against the firepower but it was far to expensive compared to 2-3 additional riflemen.
Many in the nobility had armors that saved them from crossbows, gunfire and the like. The mass drafted militias often didnt even get basic protection.For this I would like some references.

Gromdal
18-01-2010, 14:54
For this I would like some references.

Just search the internet for a few minutes. It isnt exactly hidden knowledge....

Gromdal
18-01-2010, 14:58
Yes, after the pike formation was disrupted by attacking across a ditch.

With regards to armour it's all a question of range. At close range an average musket will pierce a good suit of plate armour, so armour fell out of use.

And the quality of the armor, the quality of the firearm, the amount of gunpowder, the bullet itself, the weather, what is between the armor and the skin, from what angle the shot is fired, from what angle the target is and many more.

Armor fell out of use because of the cost compared to its uses.

Idle Scholar
18-01-2010, 15:14
And the quality of the armor, the quality of the firearm, the amount of gunpowder, the bullet itself, the weather, what is between the armor and the skin, from what angle the shot is fired, from what angle the target is and many more.

Armor fell out of use because of the cost compared to its uses.

I admit I am in error for using absolutes but in general at say 20 feet an 8 gauge musket will go through most suites of plate armour.

Condottiere
18-01-2010, 15:20
Just search the internet for a few minutes. It isnt exactly hidden knowledge....http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_armies_swiss.html

Renaissance Armies: The Swiss
An article by George Gush

The Swiss established their military reputation, along with their liberty, in the 15th Century, and their victories of the 1470s over the armies of Charles the Bold gained them general recognition as the supreme foot-soldiers of Europe, a reputation which they held until their defeat at Bicocca (1522). Even after that, though a little of their edge had gone, they remained very good soldiers, as their selection by both the Pope and the King of France as bodyguards indicated.

Click to enlarge
Swiss soldiers in equipment and fighting positions. (Swiss National Museum, Zurich)
Mercenary service was a useful supplement to the mountaineer's frugal way of life, and their hirers included Milan, Venice, the Papacy, France, Spain and even Henry VIII of England. In 1516, however, they signed a "Perpetual Peace" with France and from then on were found more or less exclusively in French service; small groups of Swiss were sometimes found in 16th Century Imperial armies, but these were deserters, who showed few of the normal Swiss qualities. For the French, the Swiss formed, as Sir Roger Williams observed, the Body of All Battles, being their chief pike infantry through the first half of the 16th Century, playing the same role for the Catholics during the French Wars of Religion, and they continued in French service through to the Revolution and beyond. In the French army, indeed, the Swiss were not really mercenaries but rather the subsidized troops of a friendly power, and even before this the Swiss, unlike the Landsknechts, were patriotic, would not fight each other, and would go at once to the aid of their Confederation if required (very disconcerting for their employer—like Francis I, who lost 6,000 Swiss this way, four days before the critical battle of Pavia).

Swiss Qualities
The Swiss troops of this period were remarkable both because of the terror they inspired in their opponents, and for their own extraordinary qualities. First of these was sheer courage—no Swiss force of this period ever seems to have been broken or to have run or surrendered; several literally fought to the last man, and the only concession they would make to defeat was a bitter and grudging retreat in good order, defending themselves against all attacks (for example, at Marignano, 1515, where their losses were over 50 percent). Perhaps their habit of hanging the first man to panic had something to do with this!

Secondly, superiority of training: The Swiss relied on a simple traditional system of tactics, practiced until it became second nature to every man, and applied it unhesitatingly under the direction of a sort of committee-leadership of dour and experienced old soldiers—rather like a Roman legion and its centurions.

Thirdly, ferocity: The Swiss spared no-one, refused quarter to their enemies—even prisoners who could afford a ransom were mercilessly slaughtered; they violated terms of surrender given to garrisons and pillaged towns that had capitulated—not a small part of the fear they inspired sprang from this bloody reputation.

With this ruthlessness went a strongly commercial attitude to war—Point d'argent, point de Suisse ("No money, no Swiss") went the saying; if not paid they simply marched off, no matter how that left their employer. If regularly paid they were normally loyal, but there were some examples of their being bribed to change sides. They were also independent and headstrong, their wish to get the job over often leading to attacks without orders, nor would they accept any discipline from outsiders.

loveless
18-01-2010, 15:28
I started in a thread about mounting characters in Fantasy...now I somehow found a history lesson. I do not approve.

-----

I don't mind putting mounted characters in units from a rules perspective. I do, however, get easily annoyed by the dreadful appearance of a 25x50 base in a 20x20 unit. Back when I was playing Empire, there was little reason not to mount my general - other than it being such a pain to get him to rank properly. I eventually switched over to an Arch Lector on War Altar just to give me less of a headache.

Tarax
18-01-2010, 15:36
I started in a thread about mounting characters in Fantasy...now I somehow found a history lesson. I do not approve.

I agree. Not only that it is a history lesson, but has gone to something that has nothing to do with the original question.


I don't mind putting mounted characters in units from a rules perspective. I do, however, get easily annoyed by the dreadful appearance of a 25x50 base in a 20x20 unit.

I would like to see some conversions of mounted models on 20x20, 20x40 or even 40x40 (with other models) bases that can fit in a 20x20 unit. If someone has got that, I don't mind playing against it.

Gromdal
18-01-2010, 15:37
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_armies_swiss.html

Renaissance Armies: The Swiss
An article by George Gush

The Swiss established their military reputation, along with their liberty, in the 15th Century, and their victories of the 1470s over the armies of Charles the Bold gained them general recognition as the supreme foot-soldiers of Europe, a reputation which they held until their defeat at Bicocca (1522). Even after that, though a little of their edge had gone, they remained very good soldiers, as their selection by both the Pope and the King of France as bodyguards indicated.

Click to enlarge
Swiss soldiers in equipment and fighting positions. (Swiss National Museum, Zurich)
Mercenary service was a useful supplement to the mountaineer's frugal way of life, and their hirers included Milan, Venice, the Papacy, France, Spain and even Henry VIII of England. In 1516, however, they signed a "Perpetual Peace" with France and from then on were found more or less exclusively in French service; small groups of Swiss were sometimes found in 16th Century Imperial armies, but these were deserters, who showed few of the normal Swiss qualities. For the French, the Swiss formed, as Sir Roger Williams observed, the Body of All Battles, being their chief pike infantry through the first half of the 16th Century, playing the same role for the Catholics during the French Wars of Religion, and they continued in French service through to the Revolution and beyond. In the French army, indeed, the Swiss were not really mercenaries but rather the subsidized troops of a friendly power, and even before this the Swiss, unlike the Landsknechts, were patriotic, would not fight each other, and would go at once to the aid of their Confederation if required (very disconcerting for their employer—like Francis I, who lost 6,000 Swiss this way, four days before the critical battle of Pavia).

Swiss Qualities
The Swiss troops of this period were remarkable both because of the terror they inspired in their opponents, and for their own extraordinary qualities. First of these was sheer courage—no Swiss force of this period ever seems to have been broken or to have run or surrendered; several literally fought to the last man, and the only concession they would make to defeat was a bitter and grudging retreat in good order, defending themselves against all attacks (for example, at Marignano, 1515, where their losses were over 50 percent). Perhaps their habit of hanging the first man to panic had something to do with this!

Secondly, superiority of training: The Swiss relied on a simple traditional system of tactics, practiced until it became second nature to every man, and applied it unhesitatingly under the direction of a sort of committee-leadership of dour and experienced old soldiers—rather like a Roman legion and its centurions.

Thirdly, ferocity: The Swiss spared no-one, refused quarter to their enemies—even prisoners who could afford a ransom were mercilessly slaughtered; they violated terms of surrender given to garrisons and pillaged towns that had capitulated—not a small part of the fear they inspired sprang from this bloody reputation.

With this ruthlessness went a strongly commercial attitude to war—Point d'argent, point de Suisse ("No money, no Swiss") went the saying; if not paid they simply marched off, no matter how that left their employer. If regularly paid they were normally loyal, but there were some examples of their being bribed to change sides. They were also independent and headstrong, their wish to get the job over often leading to attacks without orders, nor would they accept any discipline from outsiders.



Hate to break it to you but the swiss were not supermen nor had the to the last man mentality you think.

They were mercernaries who would, when a battle turned against them often surrender and find a new employer (as all mercenaries did under this period).

It was less bloodbath, less money lost. Win win for all parties and it was very common. The swiss have however on several occasions in history fought to the last man.

But I agree with the topic creator, the thread has derailed. I will stop the history lesson.

Desert Rain
18-01-2010, 15:54
Interesting history lesson :)
But on topic I have to say that I don't really care. Personally I never put mounted characters in infantry units because I hate the look of it, but I don't mind that it is possible. Quite the opposite actually for it is always nice to have extra options in the middle of a battle.

RGB
18-01-2010, 17:14
There is no melee weapon that can rival the power of sword and board. A pike doesnt stand a chance, in or outside formation, nor does a halberd. In a duel noone would ever had chosen to fight with a halberd vs an enemy using a shield and sword.


The numerous two-handed-sword and polearm dueling schools would disagree. As long as there's armour being worn, swords are distinctly second-rate weapons.

15th c. men at arms' most commonly used melee weapon in combat and in duels is in fact the polearm.


Pikes where used as defensive formations in the late middle ages to defend the firepower from cavalry charges (or infantry) but not by killing them simply by halting them (and the firepower would do the killing). Most prof. soldiers using pikes in the late middle ages had both a shield and sword as "backup". Ie when formations were not held and the real melee started they wouldnt be caught with a pike or halberd.

Actually, the Swiss just charged at you with the pike most of the time. Combat with swords was known as "catfights" which were regarded as wasteful and requiring little to no skill. The infamous katzbager sword was designed precisely for such occurences, and was mostly used without a shield.

----

And yes, back on topic: my commanders are nobility and wouldn't be caught dead on foot!

Gromdal
18-01-2010, 18:04
The swiss were famous for using the pike offensively (which was rare), it was a defensive weapon. I have allready explained how sword and board dominated the swiss in several battles. But in respect of this topic, I would suggest if you would like to talk further make a new topic.

---
Mounted chars should definetly be able to join infantry troops, it looks pretty good and fits the game nicely.

What is a problem however is what has been discussed, there is to many benefits with this (ie little reason to have infantry heroes), and that is a pity.

Maybe 8th edition will boost infantry to make the choice harder.

artisturn
18-01-2010, 18:09
I pretty much will only put a mounted level one hero on a horse in an infantry unit and only use this tactic once in my list , I don't like putting anything larger in an unit it is putting to many eggs in one basket and is not really my playing style but if my opponent wants to I don't mind.

A few of the guys in my gaming group also told me it is ok if I want to add a corpse cart to my units but it seems a cheap way to enlarge an unit and if I am going to outnumber some one it will be with an actual bigger unit not a padded out unit of 15 ghouls plus like it was mention in previous posts it just looks messy and makes that unit hard to move as well.

Urgat
18-01-2010, 18:49
useless post

decker_cky
18-01-2010, 20:42
I like mounted characters in units, but agree there should be negatives to compensate with the bonuses they get. Maybe take away look out sir or something?

Gromdal
18-01-2010, 21:02
I like mounted characters in units, but agree there should be negatives to compensate with the bonuses they get. Maybe take away look out sir or something?

Or boost the infantry rules.

the Goat
18-01-2010, 23:14
regarding the 360 line of sight for being on foot, this thread is about a char in an infantry rank & file unit (i may have implied that instead of explicitly stating it). so you can assume that the arc of sight is cut down to 90' no matter what
Maybe that is why I specified "late in the game". In my experience characters who start a battle in a unit don't always stay there.
________
IPAD GUIDE (http://ipadguides.info)

I_ated_Warpstone
19-01-2010, 01:10
To echo the majority I don't mind mounted models being able to join units. With that said I do find myself opposing most monsters in units as I just don't see it working. I may just not have the imagination but I find it hard to picture a stegadon having room to fight when bracketed on both sides by regimented saurus warriors.

I would, however, like to see more of a bonus for being on foot. I don't think mounted models need a penalty for being in a unit, I think characters on foot need a bonus for hanging out in units.

brendel
19-01-2010, 12:34
I always thought that mounted models in units didnt get the look out sir rule and could be picked out in the unit by missle troups, or is that an old rule the myself and my group have carried on with without checking if it had changed, cant find my rule book at the moment so cant check for myself, other wise im fine with it never done it myself but cant see a problem apart from units with 20mm bases.

RGB
19-01-2010, 19:27
I always thought that mounted models in units didnt get the look out sir rule and could be picked out in the unit by missle troups, or is that an old rule?

That would be correct. Last edition.

Stonewyrm
20-01-2010, 16:14
My first and best army being Brets I have no clue to how you are suppose to use a Character on foot. :) I think improving infantry rules is the answer to this debate. If you want more chars in blocks of infantry make the infantry rules better (and thus also the char is the idea).
Stupid idea but what about a 6+ ward save for chars on foot? Ducking and weaving and throwing themselves to the ground when a cannon whisles by ect?


Side note: The Swiss were the best mercenaries available at the time. Often Swiss were found in both opposing forces. When Swiss were forced to fight other Swiss in melee they "surrendered", refusing to kill their brothers and posibly switched sides.

UberBeast
20-01-2010, 17:34
I've been fortunate in that my gaming community still fields lots of foot characters. My biggest issue with mounted characters in my units is base size. I hate having a 25mm cavalry base mixed in with my 20mm based units.

UberBeast
20-01-2010, 17:35
Side note: The Swiss were the best mercenaries available at the time. Often Swiss were found in both opposing forces. When Swiss were forced to fight other Swiss in melee they "surrendered", refusing to kill their brothers and posibly switched sides.

No money, No Swiss!

Tarax
21-01-2010, 09:48
Stupid idea but what about a 6+ ward save for chars on foot? Ducking and weaving and throwing themselves to the ground when a cannon whisles by ect?

That's called 'Look out, Sir!'. :rolleyes:

decker_cky
21-01-2010, 21:05
I think look out sir is the rule to go. A rank and file troop on foot pushing a warhorse, war litter or corpse cart out of the way as a cannon ball comes onward doesn't fit the cinematics.

Condottiere
22-01-2010, 05:37
Unless the occupant jumps out of his seat and cowers underneath the vehicle.

Necromancy Black
22-01-2010, 06:14
I think the poll is pretty clear, people are happy to have these units mixed.

I personally love that you can do this, and reckon that, apart from some problems with base size, many armies look great with it including Empire, WoC and Lizardmen.