PDA

View Full Version : Number of unit files increase/decrease in 8th?



sorberec
22-03-2010, 10:21
Hi everyone,

Just a thought.

If the rumour about 2nd ranks of infantry units being able to attack in 8th edition is true, do you think that people might start to use wider or narrower units more?

i.e. for single attack infantry, go to 6 or 7 files for an extra 2 or 4 attacks (on top of the extra 5 from the second rank)?

or sacrifice rank bonus and 2 attacks for a smaller frontage of 4 files (but you're getting 4 attacks from your second rank so you're up 3 attacks net)?

Or do you think people will just carry on pretty much as they are now?

Was just thinking that it might be something players whose armies use 20mm base infantry might try when playing against armies whose infantry are on 25mm as, for example, you don't (or at least I don't) often see 25mm infantry with more than 5 files so a 20mm player might try and take advantage of the rule change by going 6-wide.

Thoughts?

swifty2
22-03-2010, 10:25
It's an interesting possibility to consider, I know since 7th started and you needed five men to get your rank bonus everyone I know (myself included) started fielding ranks of 7 in units of 28 to maximise ranks and attacks.

Whitehorn
22-03-2010, 10:25
I'll definitely be fielding my Spear Saurus 6 wide for 37 attacks when charged.

Will DoW Pikemen fight in 5 ranks with ASF now? :)

Condottiere
22-03-2010, 10:28
Pikemen are expensive; with three or four ranks in any case, length might be more important than breadth.

Azethel
22-03-2010, 11:01
6 or 7 by 5 HE spearmen FTW...every model attacks with ASF.
Also khorne warriors with xtra hand weapons 7x2 for 56 S4 attacks (I know halbers on average do more wounds but 56 attacks is massive.

sorberec
22-03-2010, 11:43
6 or 7 by 5 HE spearmen FTW...every model attacks with ASF.
Also khorne warriors with xtra hand weapons 7x2 for 56 S4 attacks (I know halbers on average do more wounds but 56 attacks is massive.

See, this is why I was thinking it might be more of an option for 20mm players as if I knew I were going up against Chaos Warriors I might field ranks of 6 for extra attacks against them but to actually get all 7 Chaos Warriors in base contact with a 20mm unit, that 20mm unit would need to be running 7 wide themselves.

That said, even 5x2 Chaos Warriors fighting in 2 ranks with additonal HW is a depressing amount of attacks to potentially have to face... (and probably one of the negatives of the 8th edition changes if the 2 ranks rumour turns out to be true)

Enigmatik1
22-03-2010, 12:25
Am I the only one who reads the potential of 37-54 attacks being standard and instantly thinking...:wtf:

I fail to see how this is really any better for the game than Hero/Monster-hammer. It still boils down to haves vs. have-nots. Someone please enlighten me as to what I'm missing (there has to be something)...unless people just really like rolling that many dice.

sorberec
22-03-2010, 12:35
Am I the only one who reads the potential of 37-54 attacks being standard and instantly thinking...:wtf:

I fail to see how this is really any better for the game than Hero/Monster-hammer. It still boils down to haves vs. have-nots. Someone please enlighten me as to what I'm missing (there has to be something)...unless people just really like rolling that many dice.

It does bring the supposed logic of it increasing the effectiveness of infantry into question - as has been said in other threads, elite infantry will just be insane and it's not like most of the books where the insanity would come from are old and due for re-release to allow GW to strip away the 2 attacks as standard (not that it would make a drastic difference in the case of Chaos Warriors who then, as in the above example, just take Additional Handweapons and Mark of Khorne for silly attacks all round)

It's kind of why I started the thread - if you're going to be facing this do you go wider and hope to get the charges off to try and reduce the amount of attacks coming back or do you sacrifice static resolution and minimise frontage to reduce the number of incoming attacks that way...

Stuffburger
22-03-2010, 14:41
I suppose it would depend on the type of troop your using. Cheap fodder (goblins, state troops, clanrats etc.) will still be in the minimum width to get ranks because extra attacks from them just mean more misses. Killy troops like chaos warriors, saurus, swordmasters etc. now have even more reason to go wide for extra attacks then they do now and 7 wide may become the norm. There are reasons to take mid-range troops both ways though, I can see fielding spear orcs wide for masses of attacks or narrow to hopefully dodge some attacks and maintain ranks longer.

Enigmatik1
22-03-2010, 14:42
It's kind of why I started the thread - if you're going to be facing this do you go wider and hope to get the charges off to try and reduce the amount of attacks coming back or do you sacrifice static resolution and minimise frontage to reduce the number of incoming attacks that way...

If I just had to deal with this nonsense, I'd minimize frontage. The only time its good to maximize frontage is when your units are sufficiently durable and killy at the same time imo. Fodder units would be better served going as thin as possible and pray their opposition flubs a lot of rolls...otherwise, they're pretty much doomed.

Yes, this is really going to give me incentive to field more Skeleton Warriors. YAY! :rolleyes:

Grymlok
22-03-2010, 14:51
Perhaps they should have it that with the exception of spears the second row attacks have a chance of hitting their own first row? :D Maybe just with great weapons. ;) I wouldn't like my fellow warrior standing behind me swinging a great weapon over my shoulder!! A little head tilt and its game over.

I found it a pain from 6th to 7th as I had to make a full set of movement trays again as I always make my own from 3mm plasticard. Even if they do bring this in as long as the file size is still 5 I'll be keeping my units the same size so I don't have to do up new movement trays. Time will tell.

Enigmatik1
22-03-2010, 15:39
Perhaps they should have it that with the exception of spears the second row attacks have a chance of hitting their own first row? :D Maybe just with great weapons. ;) I wouldn't like my fellow warrior standing behind me swinging a great weapon over my shoulder!! A little head tilt and its game over.

HAHA...now this I'm down with. Give the Chaos Warriors or Swordmasters the chance to decapitate their unit mates with an errant swing! Where do I sign?

Condottiere
22-03-2010, 15:54
The wider you make a unit, the harder it becomes to manoeuvre the block; that means your opponent is going to have a better shot at your flanks.

CrystalSphere
22-03-2010, 18:07
I wonder, if the opponent is using a wide prepared to face the minimun wide possible (to not waste any model attacks), then may be if you use a bigger wide you would not get any disadvantage for it.

I know the opponent can change his unit while in the game, but it is curious to think that no matter if you use 5 wide or 7 wide with your 20mm infantry, you will always be receiving the same number of attacks agaisnt a 6 wide 25mm infantry or 6 cavalry troopers.

Cartoon
23-03-2010, 05:18
I was under the impression that the fight in two ranks rule means that models in the second rank will instantly step up to the first rank if the model in front of them is killed and still attack that round. Say you have a unit of 12 chosen, 6 wide. Two models are killed, but since you have 12 in the unit two of those second rank models will step in and attack along with the other four in the front rank, so you still have a full front rank of 6 models fighting back. This would seem to make a lot more sense than both ranks actively attacking.

Great googly moogly, if it's the other way and both ranks get to attack, some units are going to be absolutely crazy. It has to be where second rank models just fill in, or things are going to get out of control with elite infantry units.

Condottiere
23-03-2010, 05:23
There were two rumours:

1. The second rank can step forward and fight;

2. Two ranks fight.

It seems a logical interpretation that both might be connected, since allowing certain elite units with an above average number of attacks to do so would probably make them broken.

ChaosVC
23-03-2010, 05:57
I hope they don't make it such that both rumour is true though I have no problem with infantry stepping foward to fight in place of their fallen 1st rankers...it kinds of make asf useless and highelves will look silly unless every unit they fight only have 5 man haha.

The one about fighting in 2 ranks kinda make units like swordmaster and chaos warriors a little too powerful and will eventually make other lesser infantry even less popular. I am not sure whether to be happy or sad about it...it will definately make my infantry army more powerful but it will also down play the roll of rank and file bonus of lesser infantries used to hold the line...people die faster and combat ends faster.

soots
23-03-2010, 06:07
Ive had a second think about it and I CANT see it happening like that. It would make multi-attack units absurd

I am going to make an educated guess now and say that second rank attacks only get 1 attack regardless of weapons or profile, and this will be effected by who outnumbers the opponent.

You heard it here first :p

Lyynark
23-03-2010, 07:01
Either this rumour has changed or people have forgot the initial wording.

"Infantry fight in two ranks if some condition is met."

I have no idea what this mystery condition is but I'm guessing it's got something to do with outnumbering. I.e. if I outnumber my enemy I get to strike in two ranks.

Condottiere
23-03-2010, 08:08
That should make getting an overrun faster and would speed up combat, but it seems fundamentally unfair.

R-Love
23-03-2010, 23:52
That should make getting an overrun faster and would speed up combat, but it seems fundamentally unfair.

How so? It's the kind of rule that will help weak infantry (the kind that it was said to), and prevents things like Chaos warriors striking in ranks (what most people are complaining about). As soon as I read Avian's original post, I assumed it was something along those lines (only fight in two ranks if you outnumber your opponent, have 4 or more ranks, etc.). Most of the elite units gain no boost, unless someone is willing to make massive units of them which will cost a fortune and be easily flanked. Don't really see the problem.

soots
24-03-2010, 00:04
thats an interesting take Rlove - So you get a second rank if you outnumber the opponent.

I think that can work, since the heavy hitter units usually arent that big so they will rely on skill rather than numbers.

And the numbers units will rely on... numbers...

Panzer MkIV
24-03-2010, 00:19
My Dwarfs will continue being 5 wide as our infantry is designed to absorb charges and win on CR and less on dealing damage.

Also if the rumour is correct that on order to strike on extra ranks is bound by certain requierments like have more ranks or outnumber the enemy it will be a serious boost to Dwarven elite since they alway get deployed in units of 20-25 models.

brynolf
24-03-2010, 00:55
it will be a serious boost to Dwarven elite since they alway get deployed in units of 20-25 models.

That would certainly be a good thing.

Condottiere
24-03-2010, 02:57
How so? It's the kind of rule that will help weak infantry (the kind that it was said to), and prevents things like Chaos warriors striking in ranks (what most people are complaining about). As soon as I read Avian's original post, I assumed it was something along those lines (only fight in two ranks if you outnumber your opponent, have 4 or more ranks, etc.). Most of the elite units gain no boost, unless someone is willing to make massive units of them which will cost a fortune and be easily flanked. Don't really see the problem.
Thin red line - or fat red line, in the case of Ogres, you can't use expensive infantry to hold up an advance, anymore.

Son_Of_A_Horus
24-03-2010, 10:43
My opinion of it is quite simple. I'm not changing my ranking structure for extra attacks. I know that may sound crazy, but I like the way my army works at the moment and unless the new rules make it NECESSARY to change it all about, why mess with what works?

Enigmatik1
24-03-2010, 13:48
How so? It's the kind of rule that will help weak infantry (the kind that it was said to), and prevents things like Chaos warriors striking in ranks (what most people are complaining about). As soon as I read Avian's original post, I assumed it was something along those lines (only fight in two ranks if you outnumber your opponent, have 4 or more ranks, etc.). Most of the elite units gain no boost, unless someone is willing to make massive units of them which will cost a fortune and be easily flanked. Don't really see the problem.

Will it really, though? All I see it doing is maintaining the current status quo while giving fodder units the illusion of having a chance. They still will have a terrible time generating any combat kills unless its against other fodder units. Who this really helps are those ultra defensive units like Phoenix Guard or Dwarfs. Everything else will still get slaughtered just like it does now.

R-Love
24-03-2010, 21:37
Will it really, though? All I see it doing is maintaining the current status quo while giving fodder units the illusion of having a chance. They still will have a terrible time generating any combat kills unless its against other fodder units. Who this really helps are those ultra defensive units like Phoenix Guard or Dwarfs. Everything else will still get slaughtered just like it does now.

I'm not claiming it is a perfect interpretation (or even a correct one, for that matter), but it's still an improvement, even if a minor one. Some units will be largely unaffected by it, such as Chaos Warriors or Temple Guard, but things like Swordmasters or Black Guard become much more manageable. Those clanrats that manage to kill a single Black Guard are already doing better than now, and a single casualty can cause a combat to swing from one side to another more than you might think