PDA

View Full Version : Flaggies in the 8th edition.



Dvnjhn
23-06-2010, 17:10
Hey guys.

I know that Flaggelents are not every Empire Generals cup of tea; but for some reason I have a particular liking for this unit. While all I really use them for in the 7th edition is to hold up enemy units to either restrict there movement or to hammer into them later.

With the ASF rule and higher inititive and two ranks attacking, I believe that this will not be viable to do any more. More of these poor WS and Init guys will just get wiped out, leaving them to be destroyed a turn or two earlier. I suppose the only way around this would be to increase my unit size from around 21 to either 28 or 35.

Any thoughts?

Phaedrus
23-06-2010, 18:02
I used them a great deal in 7th ed, generally in large units (32). I also tended to use them more as a hammer than a tar pit. I think you are right that in 8th they will die in droves (even more so than now) but, really, it's what they want and with the step up and horde rules in effect if you field a large enough unit you have the potential to swing back with 41 str 5 attacks that will re-roll misses and potentially missed wounds. Against lower weapon skills (2-4) that will remain utterly devastating. Against higher ones it will still do a decent amount of damage.

Odin
23-06-2010, 18:21
Hey guys.

I know that Flaggelents are not every Empire Generals cup of tea; but for some reason I have a particular liking for this unit. While all I really use them for in the 7th edition is to hold up enemy units to either restrict there movement or to hammer into them later.

With the ASF rule and higher inititive and two ranks attacking, I believe that this will not be viable to do any more. More of these poor WS and Init guys will just get wiped out, leaving them to be destroyed a turn or two earlier. I suppose the only way around this would be to increase my unit size from around 21 to either 28 or 35.

Any thoughts?

Firstly, you can't have more than 30 in a unit.

Secondly, they seem to perform a very different function in 8th edition - killing people. They can put out a good number of attacks, at S5, re-rolling to hit and possibly to-wound as well. They will die in droves, but whoever attacks them will regret it. Expect enemy elites to learn to avoid them, and for that reason, they may still prove a decent unit to hold up the enemy for a few turns.

stashman
23-06-2010, 18:29
I used them a great deal in 7th ed, generally in large units (32).

Cheating???

Lord Inquisitor
23-06-2010, 18:51
Agreed with Odin.

In 7th, they tarpitted units, but we used to joke about their flails. They'd get charged, have the front rank wiped out, no strikes back. Then next round, they'd be "tired" and not be able to get the strength bonus from the flails!

Anyway, now they're an expensive unit, that, while killy, needs to be used well. However, a unit of 30 can do some horrific damage. Put them in horde formation, that's 2 attacks for each guy in the front rank and 1 attack for each subsequent rank, with martyrdom they'll re-roll to hit and maybe to wound. If they can all get into contact and go first, that's ideally 39 attacks, re-rolling to hit and to wound at S5. Now, you're unlikely to actually get this ideal situation but you should be able to get around 20-30 S5 attacks with hatred and possibly re-rolling to wound too.

Unbreakable will still be useful for pinning units until your own units can get around the flank. They're just going to be a one-shot weapon, they're liable to lose so many to attrition that even if they win they'll be crippled.

grumbaki
23-06-2010, 19:19
Scenario 130 Flaggelants (310) vs. 30 High Elf Spearmen (295)

Flaggelants charge. High elves go first. The HE, ranked 5x6 get 21 attacks. 19 hits (with re-rolls), so about 10 wounds. The flaggelants matyr themselves and get hatred and re-roll to wound. 22 attacks (only 7 in base contact), so 17 hits. 14 wounds, no saves allowed. So in turn 1, the Flaggelants kill 14 of the elves for 10 wounds back.

Turn 2: The high elves get 17 attacks, so 15 hits. 8 kills. The flaggelants in turn kill 5-6 elves. Turn 3 the elves kill the remaining flaggelants. So after 3 turns, the Flaggelants manage to take down 20 out of 30 spearmen, who are perfect for killing low T, low AS troops. Not bad.

Scenario 2 30 Flaggelants (310) vs. 40 Dwarf warriors with GW (425!)

Flaggelants get 41 attacks, 32 hits, 28 kills! The dwarfs get 13 attacks back, 9 hits, and about 8 kills.

My thoughts Just looking at this, I can see flaggelants doing well (if they are not shot to hell before they reach combat). The sheer amount of damage they can put out is scary, and with the step up rule they can actually use their flails. Even against a large block of dwarf warriors, who I hear many say are great for the new horde rule, they can rock.

Run your units in 10x3 blocks, use any spells you can to keep them safe from the enemy, and revel in the destruction they unleash before they get chopped to bits in return. :)

Skyros
23-06-2010, 20:25
Obviously with stepping up and fighting in two ranks, naked WS2 T3 humans aren't going to cut it for a tarpit. Flagellants being used to hold anyone up is essentially dead in 8e - using normal blocks of infantry who are steadfast on the generals leadership and rerolling thanks to the BSB is going to be far more cost effective.

Flagellants aren't even that great as an attacker. They gain less than other units from attacking in multiple ranks, because the rear ranks only get 1 extra attack.

If you are going to use them as attackers, why would you pick a WS2, 0 armor save, S5 only on the first round 10 point human against a WS4, 4+ armor save, S5 on all rounds human?

Sure, the frenzy and flail charge bonus gives flagellants a good one turn punch, but the whole emphasis on 8e is making big combat blocks resilient to one turn hammer blows - more ranks = stubborn, and then after that you've lost the flail bonus.

Not to mention, 10 point no armor T3 troops are just BEGGING to have templates dropped on their heads.

poboom
23-06-2010, 20:40
They will still have their uses against low initiative armies plus they are hilarious since they're obivously crazy and are waving flails around. There should be a minimum requirement to take at least 10 of them in every Empire army.

bluemage
23-06-2010, 20:47
You could rank them up 1 model wide, correct? Sure you'll lose every combat, but the enemy will be stuck in that tarpit the rest of the game.

Narf
23-06-2010, 20:56
how? if the enemy attack they will attack with 1-3 models depending on their own base size, and the same for the rank behind......

plus to be 1 model wide they will not be a large unit as they will need to be almost 30" onto the table already in they are 30 strong.....

Odin
23-06-2010, 21:01
If you are going to use them as attackers, why would you pick a WS2, 0 armor save, S5 only on the first round 10 point human against a WS4, 4+ armor save, S5 on all rounds human?


Good point, and Greatswords certainly look a lot more tempting in 8th. But the re-rolls to hit and usually to wound as well mean the damage output from Flagellants is much higher in the first round of a combat.

poboom
23-06-2010, 21:23
The 2nd Light spell seems perfect for the flatulence guys as well. 10 WS and 10 Init makes them (most likely) harder to hit and strike first, and should make a mess of the opponent.

They will still die a horrible death in every single game, but I believe that is their purpose.

Dvnjhn
23-06-2010, 21:32
They will still die a horrible death in every single game, but I believe that is their purpose.

And the purpose of any Empire general worth his salt ;).

bluemage
24-06-2010, 01:32
how? if the enemy attack they will attack with 1-3 models depending on their own base size, and the same for the rank behind......

plus to be 1 model wide they will not be a large unit as they will need to be almost 30" onto the table already in they are 30 strong.....

The point is that the enemy only gets 9 models attacking instead of 30. They hit of 3's and maybe wound on 3's or 4's but they won't be killing them that quickly.

Second if you want to take 30 deploy them maybe 3 wide and then you can move them forward and reform them to be less wide.

Petey
24-06-2010, 06:18
Scenario 130 Flaggelants (310) vs. 30 High Elf Spearmen (295)

Flaggelants charge. High elves go first. The HE, ranked 5x6 get 21 attacks. 19 hits (with re-rolls), so about 10 wounds. The flaggelants matyr themselves and get hatred and re-roll to wound. 22 attacks (only 7 in base contact), so 17 hits. 14 wounds, no saves allowed. So in turn 1, the Flaggelants kill 14 of the elves for 10 wounds back.

Turn 2: The high elves get 17 attacks, so 15 hits. 8 kills. The flaggelants in turn kill 5-6 elves. Turn 3 the elves kill the remaining flaggelants. So after 3 turns, the Flaggelants manage to take down 20 out of 30 spearmen, who are perfect for killing low T, low AS troops. Not bad.

Scenario 2 30 Flaggelants (310) vs. 40 Dwarf warriors with GW (425!)

Flaggelants get 41 attacks, 32 hits, 28 kills! The dwarfs get 13 attacks back, 9 hits, and about 8 kills.

My thoughts Just looking at this, I can see flaggelants doing well (if they are not shot to hell before they reach combat). The sheer amount of damage they can put out is scary, and with the step up rule they can actually use their flails. Even against a large block of dwarf warriors, who I hear many say are great for the new horde rule, they can rock.

Run your units in 10x3 blocks, use any spells you can to keep them safe from the enemy, and revel in the destruction they unleash before they get chopped to bits in return. :)

I agree with everything here.

Paraelix
24-06-2010, 06:26
Plus don't forget that with a Priest these guys fill out some required Core %s, allowing you to bulk out on you special and rare without hordes of swords/spear/halberdiers. Just a thought.

I just love the models/concept :D

Lord Solar Plexus
24-06-2010, 06:35
Agreed with Odin.

In 7th, they tarpitted units, but we used to joke about their flails. They'd get charged, have the front rank wiped out, no strikes back.

We always charged the enemy. I'm surprised that you see the fault in your approach but did not remedy it.