PDA

View Full Version : How can Cav. deal with infantry now?



Venerable_Bede
14-07-2010, 16:20
At first I thought that under 8th cavalry would just have to work harder to get a flank attack so they could remove the infantry rank bonus.

But then I realized that the rules say that even where a unit is hit in flank and thus disrupted so that it loses the flank bonus for Combat Res, being disrputed doesn't remove the Steadfast Rule. (see pages 54-55).

So what good does that flank charge do? Even though the cav might be likely to win the combat, the infantry will still take the unmodified break test and now the cav is in a tar pit.

Ovassilias
14-07-2010, 16:33
1 attack cav is really dead in this edition.
Not only they cant win fights, but most of the times they loose also.
They cant negate ranks with less then 10 models, rank and file are still stubborn with more ranks and it gets better.

They take an LD test and reform to face you, meaning getting full suport attacks next CC round.
And ofc lets not forget that even if u charge and u have lower I theres a chance that half will die before they attack. (depending on the unit u charge ofc)

now, lets bypass CC for now. Cav take dangerous everywhere, meaning not all will make it there. Shooting and magic is insane as well.

So unless your a chaos knight of nurgle with 7+ models in the unit there is really no reasson to include cav in your list. But then again u can invest those points to a cheap maurauder horde which will perform ten times better through every game.

so to sum up....cav is dead in this edition at least until new army books come out and something really great happens.

Lord of the End Times
14-07-2010, 16:35
Good question indeed. With my bretonnians I will be taking advantage of the lance formation to pile 3 big lance formations into 1 enemy horde and hopefully damage it enough so I have more ranks and so they are no longer steadfast. It's all about concentrating everything you have in one place at a time I think.
With normal 5+ per rank cavalry, I think the only option is take epic sized units or use them as killy flank support for your infantry to try and take away their steadfast through casualties and your own ranks of infantry. I don't think just piling a small unit of cavalry into a big infantry block is feasible any more.

Reticent
14-07-2010, 16:46
Monstrous Infantry is actually quite similar to elite cavalry in the sense of conceding steadfast, and people are generally quite happy with Monstrous Infantry in 8th. I think the key is to either pick fights you'll keep winning so as to get the enemy to eventually fail a steadfast break test, or to coordinate your combats with the support of one of your ranked units.

Where it is at all affordable to do so, building ranked units of cav may also be wise.

minionboy
14-07-2010, 16:49
Out maneuver the enemy? Charge a small unit of infantry (5x2 or more) into the flank and hit them in the front with cavalry. Just because your cavalry is faster, doesn't mean that you need to be running them out unsupported.

Ovassilias
14-07-2010, 16:51
Monstrous Infantry is actually quite similar to elite cavalry in the sense of conceding steadfast.

huge difference.

Monstrous infantry have 3 attacks minimum per model at the same WS and S, stomp at the end and some have impact as well when they charge. Also 6 models get one rank and full attacks.

Not really similar when 6 monstrous inf can give such a load out of attacks in one round.

oh yeah and 3 wounds each.

madden
14-07-2010, 16:52
True but monster infantry have 2+ attacks min plus stomp some have impact hits plus the supporting attacks from second rank if there, so they can dish out2/3 times the amount of attacks that cav can for about the same cost. So overall cav are support units now or small unit killers unless you go large unit size.


Ninjad (first time ever)

mostlyharmless
14-07-2010, 16:54
Minionboy has it on this one. Cavalry are still viable units, and they can still deal with infantry. You just have to not be an idiot.

Mike3791
14-07-2010, 17:05
Yea cav still have a purpose, but they are no longer the no brainer option that they were in 7th(which is a good thing)

Reticent
14-07-2010, 17:07
huge difference.

Monstrous infantry have 3 attacks minimum per model at the same WS and S, stomp at the end and some have impact as well when they charge. Also 6 models get one rank and full attacks.

Not really similar when 6 monstrous inf can give such a load out of attacks in one round.

oh yeah and 3 wounds each.

Well yeah- obviously two different things are not the same thing, but despite that they can still have similarities.

Two ranks of Ogres give up steadfast to exactly the same units as two ranks of, say, mounted Chaos Warriors. Who is better in combat is completely irrelevant to my point (though in this example it may well be the cavalry).

Justice And Rule
14-07-2010, 17:12
1 attack cav is really dead in this edition.
Not only they cant win fights, but most of the times they loose also.
They cant negate ranks with less then 10 models, rank and file are still stubborn with more ranks and it gets better.

They take an LD test and reform to face you, meaning getting full suport attacks next CC round.
And ofc lets not forget that even if u charge and u have lower I theres a chance that half will die before they attack. (depending on the unit u charge ofc)

now, lets bypass CC for now. Cav take dangerous everywhere, meaning not all will make it there. Shooting and magic is insane as well.

So unless your a chaos knight of nurgle with 7+ models in the unit there is really no reasson to include cav in your list. But then again u can invest those points to a cheap maurauder horde which will perform ten times better through every game.

so to sum up....cav is dead in this edition at least until new army books come out and something really great happens.

This is horrible analysis. Just because they can no longer do frontal charges with 5 guys and expect to break a unit does not mean they are dead. They simply fulfill a different (and more realistic) role now.

(And before anyone it's foolish to have realism in Warhammer, there should be a basic level of equivalence with the real world. Otherwise why have different weapon types and cavalry be faster than infantry, or any other realistic things?)

Cavalry is (rightfully) a support unit now, outside of specialists like Brentonnians which have the Lance formation which allows them to work as a line unit better. But instead of just charging in, they'll likely need to be used as maneuver and flanking units. Remember; you only get the ranks of attack if you are facing that unit; theoretically, if you kill off the side rank you've charged, there will be no more attacks coming at you.

Terrain is dangerous for cavalry, yes, but when hasn't it? Unless you are charging through a marsh or a forest, moving cavalry into favorable charge positions shouldn't be that hard. Nothing has really changed since last edition.

Overall, cavalry is not dead. Absolutely not. It simply has switched roles from infantry crusher to infantry supporter. They can still kill a ton of guys, but you need to be careful in how you use them.

random600
14-07-2010, 17:13
Justice and rule beat me to it. Oh well.

jet_palero
14-07-2010, 17:21
This is horrible analysis. Just because they can no longer do frontal charges with 5 guys and expect to break a unit does not mean they are dead. They simply fulfill a different (and more realistic) role now.

(And before anyone it's foolish to have realism in Warhammer, there should be a basic level of equivalence with the real world. Otherwise why have different weapon types and cavalry be faster than infantry, or any other realistic things?)

Cavalry is (rightfully) a support unit now, outside of specialists like Brentonnians which have the Lance formation which allows them to work as a line unit better. But instead of just charging in, they'll likely need to be used as maneuver and flanking units. Remember; you only get the ranks of attack if you are facing that unit; theoretically, if you kill off the side rank you've charged, there will be no more attacks coming at you.

Terrain is dangerous for cavalry, yes, but when hasn't it? Unless you are charging through a marsh or a forest, moving cavalry into favorable charge positions shouldn't be that hard. Nothing has really changed since last edition.

Overall, cavalry is not dead. Absolutely not. It simply has switched roles from infantry crusher to infantry supporter. They can still kill a ton of guys, but you need to be careful in how you use them.

I looked for this rule, but since casualties are removed from the rear, I think that you still get step up on the flanks, just no supporting attacks (or parry ward save).

I agree that cavalry is best attacking from the flanks, just like it was really used. Thats why it has the extra speed.

Idle Scholar
14-07-2010, 17:25
It seems to me that they've 'fixed' stupidly powerful cavalry (Chaos Knights et al) at the expense of making medium or 1A heavy cavalry pretty damn worthless.

For all those who talk about realism cavalry should move faster, charge further, be effectively unchargable (by infantry) and be able to beat any infantry on the charge provided they don't charge 'set' pikes or spears. This however is not good for gameplay.

For my money a flank charge by two complete ranks should negate steadfast.

Justice And Rule
14-07-2010, 17:40
I looked for this rule, but since casualties are removed from the rear, I think that you still get step up on the flanks, just no supporting attacks (or parry ward save).

I agree that cavalry is best attacking from the flanks, just like it was really used. Thats why it has the extra speed.

Well, page 49 says you can't make supporting attacks to the flanks or the rear, so I'm partially right. Forgot about always removing from the back (I got in my mind the idea of Stepping Up being related to Supporting Attacks), but thank you. :)

And think about that; catching a unit with two ranks of cavalry when only one rank (Likely of 3-5 infantry) will be striking back? Not only this, but you don't just cause casualties to the first rank, but to the unit itself. I think flank charges are deceptively devastating; they seriously limit your strikes, but still allow for you to be completely devastated in the new combat rules.

I can't see fast-moving, hard hitting units like Cavalry being dead when flank charges can be so damn kill-tastic in these rules.


For all those who talk about realism cavalry should move faster, charge further, be effectively unchargable (by infantry) and be able to beat any infantry on the charge provided they don't charge 'set' pikes or spears. This however is not good for gameplay.

1) If they use the flee option, it really is pretty hard for infantry to catch them as they roll 3d6 and take the top 2.
2) How much farther should cavalry be able to charge and how much further do they need to be able to move? They already move double. They also still charge further as well. I don't see the problem here under the current rules.
3) Charging larger units always causes the chance for bogging down, a problem they always faced. They might beat a unit down, but after the charge they should be fairly vulnerable due to their lesser numbers.

The SkaerKrow
14-07-2010, 17:48
Cavalry is no longer particularly viable in a combat role. You're better off spending those points on infantry.

Justice And Rule
14-07-2010, 17:50
Cavalry is no longer particularly viable in a combat role. You're better off spending those points on infantry.

Justify this. With their ability to maneuver and flank charge, they are absolutely a viable unit in a combat role. They simply have to support infantry instead of doing it all themselves.

Thanatos_elNyx
14-07-2010, 17:55
Historically Cavalry was good vs Archers
Archers were good vs Infantry
and Infantry were good vs Cavalry.

This edition is actually quite close to that.

So don't charge you cavalry headlong into massed ranks of spearmen. That is folly.

Gazak Blacktoof
14-07-2010, 17:56
Cavalry are still packing enough punch to slam through a weakened unit. Plan to have your warmachines, magic and other ranged elements concentrate fire on a small unit, and then charge it with cavalry to break it once it will no longer receive steadfast. You're then behind the opponent's battle line and can support charge with a block for maximum combat potential.

Now that BSBs allow re-rolls on all Leadership tests, I think that the best way to use your ranged elements will be in softening up a portion of the battle line, so that something can then plough through.

The SkaerKrow
14-07-2010, 18:07
Justify this. With their ability to maneuver and flank charge, they are absolutely a viable unit in a combat role. They simply have to support infantry instead of doing it all themselves.You'll find that you're almost always going to be better off investing those points in your units of infantry, giving them deeper ranks and therefore giving them a better chance to break Steadfast and maintain it themselves. It isn't enough to win combat anymore, you have to win it in a fashion that actually maximizes your ability to affect the Steadfast metagame.

Cavalry, by the way, completely overwhelmed non-spear/pike phalanx infantry. It isn't even slightly realistic to relegate shock cavalry to the role of flankers. There are some decent arguments out there for the weakening cavalry in WHFB, but "historical precedent" is none of them.

willowdark
14-07-2010, 18:22
Cavalry on the flank where supportive attacks don't go, combined with high armour save means that they'll add to overall kills for your side without yielding them back to the other. Chaos Warriors and Saurus/TG are the only infantry that can really claim that, and neither are contenders for Steadfast.

TheWave
14-07-2010, 18:30
I dont know to much about non lizard cav but I think I have finaly found a good use for Saur Cav or at least a decent one. With the nerfing of TG the Saur cav is one of the most resistant units in the lizardman army with their base 2+ save. With cold blooded and most of the time a 9 leadership would it not be usefull to use them as a moble tarpit? I mean wouldnt there be a benefit to having a long range unit that can choose an enemy unit and just stick them on the other side of the table. Your enemy may then get a flank off but even then against standard core troops the saur cav may very well stick there another turn. This would give your standard infantry the chance to catch up and in turn flank unit two. That and get more time to magicly bombard them. Even if the unit costs 350 points if lizardmen can stick two units in a semi small area for two turns isnt it worth it?

I mean it may be unusual to use cav in this manner because we commonly think of tarpits being made with semicheap units but with cav you could stick just as long and take stuff with you. I dont know enough about the cav in other armies but it may work out.

Has anyone done any kind of math on templates with cav units? It seems to me that while they are more expensive less of them will get hit due to the size of the bases.

Ovassilias
14-07-2010, 18:47
Even if the unit costs 350 points if lizardmen can stick two units in a semi small area for two turns isnt it worth it?

This right here is the biggest problem with cav. They cost too much in this edition for what they deliver.

For 350pts of cav u get around 30 saurus full command. Hell u can even use them with horde formation and get more attacks in if your up to it (no spears that it).

Whereas 350 of 2+ armor cav. can be blown in one round from a metal wizard just like that.
no guessing Cannonballs?sign them up for that too.
Shooting units in two ranks with musician reforms? sign them up for that too.

You will always need one round where your enemy can see you so u can charge the next one. That round is what makes cav. not worth it in 8th with the new rules and lores.

Don Zeko
14-07-2010, 18:47
Cavalry on the flank where supportive attacks don't go, combined with high armour save means that they'll add to overall kills for your side without yielding them back to the other. Chaos Warriors and Saurus/TG are the only infantry that can really claim that, and neither are contenders for Steadfast.

Yes. I think that this is particularly true for High Elves and Dark Elves, since so few other choices won't give up a bunch of casualties to attacks back. I also think that Chaos Knights will be happy to get stuck in a protracted combat against a bunch of infantry, as will Empire Knights of the White Wolf.

khedyarl
14-07-2010, 19:10
Cavalry, by the way, completely overwhelmed non-spear/pike phalanx infantry. It isn't even slightly realistic to relegate shock cavalry to the role of flankers. There are some decent arguments out there for the weakening cavalry in WHFB, but "historical precedent" is none of them.

I'd like you to give me a single example in history where a formation of eight or less cavalry broke apart the opposing infantry forces via a frontal assault, SkaerKrow.

Don't poopoo somebodies argument, and then throw up a straw-man in reply.

Cavalry, at least Cavalry that actually did run frontal assaults consisting of only mounted men {The French are the only ones that come to mind immediately around the timeframe we are considering} were used en masse, and yes, they would break infantry apart - but there was a huge number of them.

Run a unit of 30 Empire Inner Circles with one of those crazy banners from the book, and a character or two, then find out what happens to the opposing units. You'll have an incredible charge, and by the second of third round of combat you'll have killed enough men to remove steadfast.

Cavalry has never been about ten guys destroying armies. I suggest anyone attempting to make any historical arguments holds off and does some research beforehand instead of base assumption on movies, or novels they've read.


EDIT: 12 Grail Knights with a character is going to wreck any unit they touch - frontal assault, or not.

willowdark
14-07-2010, 19:14
except that Warhammer's scale is completely out of whack. Roman infantry, arguable the most successful infantry in history in terms of longevity and influence, was organized in regiments of 100 men.

True numbers in historical precedent are not reflected in Warhammer in any way.

Bac5665
14-07-2010, 19:16
I'd like you to give me a single example in history where a formation of eight or less cavalry broke apart the opposing infantry forces via a frontal assault, SkaerKrow.

Yeah, cause units of 20 were real common back then too.

8 cav units didn't exist, neither did 20 man units. Units had 50+ people, and cav units more like 20+. And with those numbers, you will find plenty of times where cav wrecked house.

Souppilgrim
14-07-2010, 19:23
I've been having good luck with regular empire knights w/ great weapons, and a warrior priest in the unit. I like about 13 for an added rank and some room for casualites. 9 ws4 str5 attacks, 5 str 3 attacks, and 2 str 6 attacks (priest), rank busting and they are pretty fast. Good deal imho. Could I get a big unit of infantry for that? Kinda, but it wouldn't fill the same role.

Gromdal
14-07-2010, 19:25
Here is a secret that no hobby historians understand: Cavalry did not kill infantry. Infantry did not kill cavalry. Men killed men.

The mongols defeated many enemy armies (full cavs, infantry, mixed, sieges and so on) and they fought full cav mounted battles, full infantry sieges.

They won because they were better trained, better fed, better equipped (be it on foot or mounted), better lead, better spies, more war tricks.

Now look at the romans, full infantry. They won because they were better trained, better fed, better equipped (be it on foot or mounted), better lead, better spies, more war tricks.

Normally these kinds of talks just make me LOL and mostly they are about the longbow.

Well check how the longbow fared in the 100 years war against italian heavy cav. They got routed....thats how.

These same italian cav then got crushed by heavily armed and armored english foot troops later on.

The english didnt win because paper beats rock

They won because men beat men. When the longbow failed them the warhammer did not.

If a weapon is truly superior then it quickly replaces the opposition everywhere.

Tanks vs horse is an example of this.

Longbow vs armor is not.

willowdark
14-07-2010, 19:25
I think he's also missing the point that, if one 24 point cav model is supposed to be twice as good as a 12 point infantry model, or worse, a 5 or 7 point model, it shouldn't take 400 pts of cav to reliably beat 200 pts of infantry. It should take 200 pts.

Dokushin
14-07-2010, 19:40
Unsupported cavalry will probably always win combat vs. infantry blocks but needs to kill enough to break steadfast. As cavalry is pretty good at killing things, generally, I don't see what the problem is; small unsupported cavalry "wings" shouldn't just roll over blocks of infantry. If you can kill enough to drop steadfast you'll win; if not then don't do it. If your plan depends on it get bigger cavalry or a better plan.

To those people saying "get more infantry instead of cavalry", an infantry block + cavalry will roll two infantry blocks pretty much every time. That's the answer people are looking for here: you need to use cavalry and infantry together. Someone who goes just one or the other (even the 'almighty' infantry blocks) will lose to blocks with proper support.

I bought in to this nonsense myself with Stegadons -- I was worried that they wouldn't be useful with the return attacks, the inability to break ranks, and the steadfast rules. But six or seven games in they're doing fine, and there's so much more strategic depth to the game now that I'm actually getting more use out of them (instead of the old warspear-charge in the flank for outnumber fear autobreak).

Don't assume things are useless. Instead, find a use for them.

chinnfrequent
14-07-2010, 19:47
It seems to me that they've 'fixed' stupidly powerful cavalry (Chaos Knights et al) at the expense of making medium or 1A heavy cavalry pretty damn worthless.

Chaos Knights still destroy units, it just takes more than one turn now.

Miredorf
14-07-2010, 19:55
Historically Cavalry was good vs Archers
Archers were good vs Infantry
and Infantry were good vs Cavalry.

This edition is actually quite close to that.

So don't charge you cavalry headlong into massed ranks of spearmen. That is folly.

Depends on what cavalry or infantry type/period we are talking about.

Real heavy cavalry would still be super good agaisnt units such as bretonian peasants, chaos marauders or beastmen, no matter how big those units were, but very bad agaisnt empire or elves spears.

So 8th edition isnt really anymore realistic than 7th was.

Ridarsin
14-07-2010, 20:14
Chaos Knights and Blood Knights are the only knights that will be able to solo infantry now. Best way to use knights are flank charges, where they have fewer attacks back (no support attacks). I routed a unit of 9 empire cavalry with a WP with my ghouls (5x5). I am now hording my ghouls and they should have a much better chance as they will be doing double the wounds.

slayer8045
14-07-2010, 20:18
This is horrible analysis. Just because they can no longer do frontal charges with 5 guys and expect to break a unit does not mean they are dead. They simply fulfill a different (and more realistic) role now.

(And before anyone it's foolish to have realism in Warhammer, there should be a basic level of equivalence with the real world. Otherwise why have different weapon types and cavalry be faster than infantry, or any other realistic things?)

Cavalry is (rightfully) a support unit now, outside of specialists like Brentonnians which have the Lance formation which allows them to work as a line unit better. But instead of just charging in, they'll likely need to be used as maneuver and flanking units. Remember; you only get the ranks of attack if you are facing that unit; theoretically, if you kill off the side rank you've charged, there will be no more attacks coming at you.

Terrain is dangerous for cavalry, yes, but when hasn't it? Unless you are charging through a marsh or a forest, moving cavalry into favorable charge positions shouldn't be that hard. Nothing has really changed since last edition.

Overall, cavalry is not dead. Absolutely not. It simply has switched roles from infantry crusher to infantry supporter. They can still kill a ton of guys, but you need to be careful in how you use them.

Well said!

chamelion 6
14-07-2010, 20:31
Willowdark has a point. The size relationship in WFB is skewed. But this is a fantasy wargame and not many people are gonna want to model several 100 model pike / spear units as their core. So there is a comprimise.

The game also departs from history in that the spear was the basic infantry weapon in almost every major culture. It got used slightly differently in some respects but it was generaly ever present. Especially if you look at the periods the game cultures most closely represent. The Dark Ages to the Rennisance.

If we take a general survey of histor we can make some generalizations...
1. Except for a very brief period large blocks of infantry dominated the battlefield.
2. Calvary commited to an attack unsupported generally died a glorious but otherwise pointless death.

The game models this very well. It's not an accurate historical model, but it captures the general way of things. If you go any further historically you gotta make spear / pike armed infantry available to everybody as well as some variation of the bow... and handgunners and cannons versus swords and rocklobbers is probably not gonna match up well so I don't think we wanna go that far.

I will say this, the game models history enough to reward historic tacktics. There was a general method to cracking large blocks of infantry and hurling cavalry into it alone wasn't it.

enygma7
14-07-2010, 20:52
To those people saying "get more infantry instead of cavalry", an infantry block + cavalry will roll two infantry blocks pretty much every time. That's the answer people are looking for here: you need to use cavalry and infantry together. Someone who goes just one or the other (even the 'almighty' infantry blocks) will lose to blocks with proper support.


Quoted for truth. Defeating a large block of ranked infantry quickly now requires co-ordinating 2 units (unless you are lucky enough to have infantry that is both fully ranked and really killy). A large block of infantry to contest steadfast and a second unit to win the combat and quickly reduce the enemy's ranks so they lose steadfast. This unit could be elite infantry, but cavalry has the advantage of both speed and armour.

When unsupported heavy cavalry should be using its speed to hunt down missile troops, small elite units and flack.

Cavalry isn't useless now. If anything, when it comes to killing 1A cavalry is better than ever. Attacking in two ranks with your riders effectively doubles your maximum killing potentual which is what cavalry has always been about.

I hate to get involved in "realism" debates, but the idea that heavy cavalry ruled the battlefield has no basis in any military history book I've ever read. Except for the medieval period heavy cavalry has always lost to well trained, ranked and disciplined combat infantry. It was different during the medieval period because a) the infantry were largely poorly motivated, untrained peasants with pointy sticks and b) the armoured knight was at the peek of its power. Thanatos_elNyx has it bang on:



Historically Cavalry was good vs Archers
Archers were good vs Infantry
and Infantry were good vs Cavalry.

This edition is actually quite close to that.


Heavy cavalry isn't a point and click easy button anymore, it needs some thought.

willowdark
14-07-2010, 20:53
Another reason why Infantry dominated warfare is because maintaining horses is an enormous drain on resources. Hannibal's army, for instance, was primarily cav, with a mix of elephants of course. The primary reason why his invasion failed was because he had to postpone a direct assault on Rome, which was vulnerable and would've fallen, in order to sequester the grain fields to the south.

Hannibal's invasion failed for a lot of reasons, but ultimately it boiled down to huge delays caused by the huge drain on his resources that his army created.

Conversely, Genghis Khan's army was as unstoppable as it was because he primarily campaigned over grass lands where his horses were indigenous and would've naturally populated easily in the thousands.

I think it's more realistic for some armies to have dominant cav than others, Like Bretonnia which is primarily grasslands, as well as Empire which is mostly metropolitan and would logically produce beasts like horses commercially, which can be just as productive as naturally.

The overall dominance of cav should be directly balanced by the overall availability, but armies that have cav should be on par with armies that don't. Neither should be better than the other. Historically speaking, every army that excelled at cavalry tactics excelled at warfare. The ebb and flow is as much a matter of resources as it is tactical innovation.

macdaddy
14-07-2010, 21:04
HA HA HA I love this. Yeah right. 2 ranks of chaos knights? lets see that would be oh about 500 points!!! I cant even have 2 units in 3000 pts armies. They were designed to hit the front and plough through. now they are tarpitted by 100 pts of infantry, even in the flank.(which would only be for 1 turn.) oh, I know, i will use marauder horsemen....oh wait, with the inclination towards shooting, they're dead in the second turn, yes even 15 of them. No, i think cav. is pretty much dead in this edition, especially shock cav.

as for hunting down war machines and such marauder horse do that(supposedly) better than 300 pt. knight units. Face it, they (GW) wanted more infantry in the game and that is what they got. Too bad, I cant find a place for the 2 best looking units in the chaos range.

Eta
14-07-2010, 21:14
Throw two units of cavalry against an infantry unit and you will eventually win. Perhaps not without losses, but still you win. The times of cutting down an entire army with a unit of potent knights is gone, but they can still kill plenty.

Greetings
Eta

chamelion 6
14-07-2010, 21:17
HA HA HA I love this. Yeah right. 2 ranks of chaos knights? lets see that would be oh about 500 points!!! I cant even have 2 units in 3000 pts armies. They were designed to hit the front and plough through. now they are tarpitted by 100 pts of infantry, even in the flank.(which would only be for 1 turn.) oh, I know, i will use marauder horsemen....oh wait, with the inclination towards shooting, they're dead in the second turn, yes even 15 of them. No, i think cav. is pretty much dead in this edition, especially shock cav.

as for hunting down war machines and such marauder horse do that(supposedly) better than 300 pt. knight units. Face it, they (GW) wanted more infantry in the game and that is what they got. Too bad, I cant find a place for the 2 best looking units in the chaos range.

Infantry should be more dominate in the game. Why would calvary be so dominate in the Warhammer world? Why is a block of cav more vulnerable to shooting than a block of infantry?

And 5 Chaos Knights are still capable of trashing a block of infantry. Just gonna take a little more thinking and preperation. Or some thought and coordination. 5 mounted warriors shoul not be able to scream "boo" at 10 times their number and run them off. If you plan your attack properly 5 knights are still an awsom killing machine. I plan on using my Empire knights... 3 units of em'.

Don Zeko
14-07-2010, 21:20
HA HA HA I love this. Yeah right. 2 ranks of chaos knights? lets see that would be oh about 500 points!!! I cant even have 2 units in 3000 pts armies. They were designed to hit the front and plough through. now they are tarpitted by 100 pts of infantry, even in the flank.(which would only be for 1 turn.) oh, I know, i will use marauder horsemen....oh wait, with the inclination towards shooting, they're dead in the second turn, yes even 15 of them. No, i think cav. is pretty much dead in this edition, especially shock cav.

as for hunting down war machines and such marauder horse do that(supposedly) better than 300 pt. knight units. Face it, they (GW) wanted more infantry in the game and that is what they got. Too bad, I cant find a place for the 2 best looking units in the chaos range.

Have you played a game of 8th edition yet? It doesn't sound much like you have. For an example of heavy cavalry being effective against infantry in 8th edition, check here:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4819023&postcount=51

macdaddy
14-07-2010, 21:23
cant "throw" 2 units, they cost too much. at 2000 pts i can spens 500 pts(1 unit of 10) at 3000 pts i can have 750 (1 unit of 10 and 1 unit of 5) units of 5 even of khorne dont produce enough to negate steadfast fast enough to avoid being flanked themselves. especially now that there is much more shooting involved. The fact is that any shooting and now magic(which is way more devastating now) will make even chaos knights dissapear rather quickly.

Again, GW designed them (and blood knights) to be able to hit ranked units. this is gone.

Idle Scholar
14-07-2010, 21:23
Another reason why Infantry dominated warfare is because maintaining horses is an enormous drain on resources.

I'd argue that was the primary reason.

To give an example of the effectiveness of cavalry against infantry at the battle of Naesby (1642) a relatively small reserve unit of Parliament cavalry (~200) was able to rout a regiment of close to 1000 of pike and musket by charging the infantry as it advanced and broke up it's formation slightly. (this was from the front). So in WH tems that's a 25 man unit destroyed by 5 cavalry.

Anyway to move away from the realism debate my point is that it's silly units from the Army books (Blood Knights etc) that created a problem with heavy cavalry in 7th.

From a game point of view you shouldn't be able to destroy enemy units without loss with a single manoeuvrable unit that they can't avoid.

8th has 'fixed' this (though the better cavalry units will still win by attrition eventually) but now it's very difficult to field most cavalry as effective flanking units.

Ideally, as I said before, a flank charge with a large enough unit should negate steadfast. Now there's a reason to take big units of cheaper cavalry. The super expensive super killy stuff has it's place as small regiments of elite butchers, while the cheaper cavalry becomes important 10+ sized units of mobile flankers.

As it is it's still reasonably worthwhile to take 1 or 2+ AS cavalry in units of 10+ but it's going to be a lot of points for an uncertain return and potentially an easy target for a spell or template.

Amnar
14-07-2010, 21:25
This is horrible analysis. Just because they can no longer do frontal charges with 5 guys and expect to break a unit does not mean they are dead. They simply fulfill a different (and more realistic) role now.

(And before anyone it's foolish to have realism in Warhammer, there should be a basic level of equivalence with the real world. Otherwise why have different weapon types and cavalry be faster than infantry, or any other realistic things?)

Cavalry is (rightfully) a support unit now, outside of specialists like Brentonnians which have the Lance formation which allows them to work as a line unit better. But instead of just charging in, they'll likely need to be used as maneuver and flanking units. Remember; you only get the ranks of attack if you are facing that unit; theoretically, if you kill off the side rank you've charged, there will be no more attacks coming at you.

Terrain is dangerous for cavalry, yes, but when hasn't it? Unless you are charging through a marsh or a forest, moving cavalry into favorable charge positions shouldn't be that hard. Nothing has really changed since last edition.

Overall, cavalry is not dead. Absolutely not. It simply has switched roles from infantry crusher to infantry supporter. They can still kill a ton of guys, but you need to be careful in how you use them.


You're talking about realism and then calling cavalry a support unit? With few exceptions (the english, schiltrons etc.) infantry was the support unit up intil the 1500's. Cavalry ruled the battlefield from the invention of the stirrup up until the invention of firearms.

blackjack
14-07-2010, 21:26
What is all this #@#$@ about flanking infantry. Quick reform. oops there goes your flank setup.

Ok so lets pretend you get the flank. 6 Chaos Knights, command, khone, against 50 marauders, Great weapons, command, khorne. both about 300pts, (chaos knights are actually 320).

Knights kill 12, Maruders kill .87 (call it one),

Marauders hold on rerollable 7 with BSB near, 9 if there is a general nearby) Reform on thier turn to face the cav.

Next turn cav do about 10 more kills, Maruaders kill 4.

Following turn Cav are wiped out. So much for flank chage, with a 20pt advantage using the hittiest point for point cav in the game and not counting terrain damage (would kill 1 knight before the charge even started on average.)

Cav is USLESS.. Only hordes and shooting matter in 8th. The only possible use for cav is to hunt warmachines and gunlines.

Amnar
14-07-2010, 21:27
Historically Cavalry was good vs Archers
Archers were good vs Infantry
and Infantry were good vs Cavalry.

This edition is actually quite close to that.

So don't charge you cavalry headlong into massed ranks of spearmen. That is folly.

I see this a lot, but historically, cavalry trampled all over infantry, and archers, and usually just got stopped by other cavalry.

Tjuba
14-07-2010, 21:30
Steadfast does not mean unbreakable. You can still fail. While it is not likely, it will happen.

Take 12 empire knights against 60 Men at arms. Cav will probably have a flank charge otherwise they wouldn't have charged. Knights will most likely win and then the Men at arms have a leadership test of 5 as they are steadfast.
If they make it, they will need a modified ld test to be able to reform.

"but.. the Paladin bsb makes it a ld 8 rerollable"

Here is the thing about comparing units:
You can't just add units to one side to make it superior and not do it for the other side as well.

If you assume that your bsb is always where you need him, and you always makes your ld tests. It is pretty weird not to assume that your opponent simply have a character of death that always kills your bsb and a couple of mortars who blew away half of your Men at arms the turn before.

Yes I know I took Men at arms as an example and they are probably the worst infantry in the game... but I also took those worthless a1 s3 knights as an example aswell.

For an (rather extreem) example on why infantry isn't always best and the benefits of cavalry watch this battle report from OnceBitten360:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB0aH4rwdwU

Theory is one thing but how it works in reality is what matters.

Amnar
14-07-2010, 21:33
Another reason why Infantry dominated warfare is because maintaining horses is an enormous drain on resources. Hannibal's army, for instance, was primarily cav, with a mix of elephants of course. The primary reason why his invasion failed was because he had to postpone a direct assault on Rome, which was vulnerable and would've fallen, in order to sequester the grain fields to the south.

Hannibal's invasion failed for a lot of reasons, but ultimately it boiled down to huge delays caused by the huge drain on his resources that his army created.

Conversely, Genghis Khan's army was as unstoppable as it was because he primarily campaigned over grass lands where his horses were indigenous and would've naturally populated easily in the thousands.

I think it's more realistic for some armies to have dominant cav than others, Like Bretonnia which is primarily grasslands, as well as Empire which is mostly metropolitan and would logically produce beasts like horses commercially, which can be just as productive as naturally.

The overall dominance of cav should be directly balanced by the overall availability, but armies that have cav should be on par with armies that don't. Neither should be better than the other. Historically speaking, every army that excelled at cavalry tactics excelled at warfare. The ebb and flow is as much a matter of resources as it is tactical innovation.

Hannibal's invasion did fail, but he smacked down the Romans pretty handily in the process. He won his battles easily, and they were usually massacres.

pointyteeth
14-07-2010, 21:34
What is all this #@#$@ about flanking infantry. Quick reform. oops there goes your flank setup...

I believe the discussion is that cavalry are for flanking infantry that is already engaged by infantry to the front (to provide ranks). I'm fairly certain that the unit can't reform to negate the flank if its engaged on two fronts (though I could be mistaken)

macdaddy
14-07-2010, 21:38
Yes, I have played many games in 8th. and the results are always the same. The new game is begging you to take as much shooting and as much huge blocks of infantry as you can. I am not saying that cav should be dominant, but if a 500 pt unit with multiple attacks and 1+ as. cant break a unit of similar cost, then something is wrong.

Every one in my area(philadelphia) is now using rats, he, de, and the 2 slann eog lizzies..... so i am seeing this on a regular basis.

Don, thanks for that 1 example. I have 10 - 15 examples of how they fail to do their job.

3+units of empire knights are NOT the same.

chamelion...no they arent... it no longer matters where i hit them, and how many i kill, they will still be steadfast. this will inevitably lead to my knights being flanked.

10 knights charge...15a for the knights 5 for the steads. even if i kill all 20(25for khorne) the unit will be steadfast. Thats assuming that all of my knights make it across. Again, shooting, and magic have increased so they haven't in 15 games so far.

I am NOT asking for a I WIN button. only for my knights to do what they were designed(by GW) to do. they arent 110 pt empire knights.

Skyros
14-07-2010, 21:43
Unsupported by their own infantry, they can't. (Well, some of the really killy ones can)

8th edition is about combined arms.

Skyros
14-07-2010, 21:45
if a 500 pt unit with multiple attacks and 1+ as. cant break a unit of similar cost, then something is wrong.


So if one 500 point unit can't trash another 500 point unit then something is wrong? I beg to differ. It looks to me as though something is right.

Why should cavalry sweep away equal points of infantry?

Skyros
14-07-2010, 21:48
Units of 10 chaos knights are a horrific waste of points. The back ranks aren't even getting their full attacks in, and it's going to be a magic/shooting draw like you wouldn't believe.

Take units of 5 and use them to flank a unit already engaged to the front with marauders/warriors.

That's what combined arms means.

chamelion 6
14-07-2010, 21:48
I'd argue that was the primary reason.

To give an example of the effectiveness of cavalry against infantry at the battle of Naesby (1642) a relatively small reserve unit of Parliament cavalry (~200) was able to rout a regiment of close to 1000 of pike and musket by charging the infantry as it advanced and broke up it's formation slightly. (this was from the front). So in WH tems that's a 25 man unit destroyed by 5 cavalry.

And except for that anomally it was the New Model Army's infantry that ultimately carried the day. In that battle calvary didn't dominate. There are always exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions...


cant "throw" 2 units, they cost too much. at 2000 pts i can spens 500 pts(1 unit of 10) at 3000 pts i can have 750 (1 unit of 10 and 1 unit of 5) units of 5 even of khorne dont produce enough to negate steadfast fast enough to avoid being flanked themselves. especially now that there is much more shooting involved. The fact is that any shooting and now magic(which is way more devastating now) will make even chaos knights dissapear rather quickly.

Again, GW designed them (and blood knights) to be able to hit ranked units. this is gone.

The days of a single knight unit running roughshod over formed infantry are over. One single unit is not going to win your game for you very often. Chaos Knights are still a game winner, but not on their own. Time to start thinking in terms of combined arms.


You're talking about realism and then calling cavalry a support unit? With few exceptions (the english, schiltrons etc.) infantry was the support unit up intil the 1500's. Cavalry ruled the battlefield from the invention of the stirrup up until the invention of firearms.

We ain't reading the same history books. Calvary as the dominat arm in European warfare beginning with the development of the stirrup but that dominance lasted until slightly after Hastings in 1066. Everyone except the French relied on large blocks of spears and pikes. The Frence relied on their cav and used mercinaries (mostly the Swiss) for their infantry. The "infantry never stood against heavy cavalry" scene in Braveheart was nice but more art than reality. The accuracy of the movie was that when heavy cav was used like it was in the movie, the result was pretty much like what you saw.

There were several successful "Infantry" armies during the period, I can't think of one truely successful "cavalry" army. The French tried it and their success with that idea is pretty clear.

The Mongols were a nomadic people and every warrior was mounted, but they didn't all fight as cavalry...

Damocles8
14-07-2010, 21:49
You'll find that you're almost always going to be better off investing those points in your units of infantry, giving them deeper ranks and therefore giving them a better chance to break Steadfast and maintain it themselves. It isn't enough to win combat anymore, you have to win it in a fashion that actually maximizes your ability to affect the Steadfast metagame.

Cavalry, by the way, completely overwhelmed non-spear/pike phalanx infantry. It isn't even slightly realistic to relegate shock cavalry to the role of flankers. There are some decent arguments out there for the weakening cavalry in WHFB, but "historical precedent" is none of them.

Wow this post is so wrong it's funny.


Steadfast metagame? Are you making terms up on percieved tactics? I always run cavalry and large units of infantry, every game of 8th so far has seen use of both and have done fairly well supporting each other, either by striking the same unit together, or my cavalry driving off harassing enemy cav, or hunting archers and warmachines.

As for history, well 20 decently trained and equipped soldiers facing 5 decently trained and equipped cavalry....my money's on the soldiers.

Any more than half ratio of cavalry to infantry; cav wins (minus force multipliers.)

macdaddy
14-07-2010, 21:49
This is NOT, i repeat, NOT, the real world. 500 pts of chaos knights which were designed by GW to kill everything they touch, should be able to destroy a similar pt cost of core troops.

Skyros, GW gave me something to do that with, marauder horsemen. chaos knights were NO(T designed to be a flanker.

Miredorf
14-07-2010, 21:49
Hannibal's invasion did fail, but he smacked down the Romans pretty handily in the process. He won his battles easily, and they were usually massacres.

Actually hannibals cavalry were support cavalry as there was no heavy cavalry in that period (just the macedonians had something that was considered ''heavy'' back then).

He used his far superior cavalry for flanking and rear attacks.

In the middle age there was little that resembled tactics or organized infantry this is why cavalry ruled so easily.

Latter Genghis khan dominated everything with his cavalry hordes for this same reason.

When infantry regiments went back to ''greek'' infantry tactics resembling the old phalanxes cavalry went back into stagnation and stopped dominating the battlefield.

Early romans didnt rely on cavalry at all, but in their time there was little cavalry to face anyway. When they faced the partians for the 1st time their infantry got owned.. Until they developed new tactics consisting of a mix of good cavalry, bowmen and legions.

What i want to say is that all depends on the period of the history and the way generals used the resources they had at hand at the their time.

I guess the end of heavy cavalry was a combination of the improvement of fire arms and the return to the phalanx tactics. But definitely not dependant on the numbers of said infantry units.

Its remarkable how an army of barely 1000 heavy cavalry men from the kingdom of Jerusalem was able to route a huge egiptian army by a suicidal frontal charge. The surprise and brutality factor were key there, but the lack of organization in the charged troops had to be the major factor.

It appears they tried again the same tactics later in similar circunstances but they failed epicly :p

EDIT: what is out of discussion is that heavy cavalry regiments were normally really expensive to maintain and equip. This was their main limiting factor in the ancient ages. To represent this in WH, the most heavy cavalries should be rare units rather than special.

blackjack
14-07-2010, 21:52
"I believe the discussion is that cavalry are for flanking infantry that is already engaged by infantry to the front (to provide ranks). I'm fairly certain that the unit can't reform to negate the flank if its engaged on two fronts (though I could be mistaken) "

Well several problems with this idea,

Infantry support the way you describe it is for chariots which A move at the same speed as infantry, B provide impact hits, C cost less than a unit of heavy knights.

If you are already invested in a unit of infantry capable of holding the enemy in place why not simply beef up that infantry block so they actually beat the enemy block instead of just holding it? (hint it's much cheaper to add ranks to a cheap infantry block than to buy a unit of heavy cav.)

If you can afford to put an infantry block and a cav unit against one of his units great, what is the opponent doing with his spare points not tied up in this engadement? Bascially saying play2x his points against him is not a realistic tactic.

Amnar
14-07-2010, 21:54
So if one 500 point unit can't trash another 500 point unit then something is wrong? I beg to differ. It looks to me as though something is right.

Why should cavalry sweep away equal points of infantry?

If it hits them in the flank it should be able to. Plus in this case, its not exactly a draw, one 500 point unit that got caught flat footed trashed the other 500 point unit that charged it in an advantageous position....

Cavalry was overnerfed, infantry now rule the battlefields in the warhammer world. My cold one knights only come along because I like the models.

Eta
14-07-2010, 21:54
What is all this #@#$@ about flanking infantry. Quick reform. oops there goes your flank setup.

Ok so lets pretend you get the flank. 6 Chaos Knights, command, khone, against 50 marauders, Great weapons, command, khorne. both about 300pts, (chaos knights are actually 320).

Knights kill 12, Maruders kill .87 (call it one),

Marauders hold on rerollable 7 with BSB near, 9 if there is a general nearby) Reform on thier turn to face the cav.

Next turn cav do about 10 more kills, Maruaders kill 4.

Following turn Cav are wiped out. So much for flank chage, with a 20pt advantage using the hittiest point for point cav in the game and not counting terrain damage (would kill 1 knight before the charge even started on average.)

Cav is USLESS.. Only hordes and shooting matter in 8th. The only possible use for cav is to hunt warmachines and gunlines.

Your math is off. First, the marauders lose their frenzy after losing the first combat round. Then they reform. You can get seven marauders in base contact with the knights. In horde formation, that would be 21 marauders that can attack the knights. They have to pass a fear test to attack with full WS (more likely on Ld8 max, normal Chaos lords are still very subpar in comparison to sorcerer lords). If they pass: 10.5 hits, 7 wounds, about 2 more dead knights. The marauders have to pass their break test again. Now it is your turn again and you can slam another unit into the marauders and watch them die before they strike. You lost three knights, your opponent a whole unit. Seems to work OK for me.

Greetings
Eta

Justice And Rule
14-07-2010, 21:54
You're talking about realism and then calling cavalry a support unit? With few exceptions (the english, schiltrons etc.) infantry was the support unit up intil the 1500's. Cavalry ruled the battlefield from the invention of the stirrup up until the invention of firearms.

Dear God, no. Cavalry did not rule the battlefield, knights did. Knights refers to both the them on foot and on horseback. But you have to realize that Knights did a lot more fighting on foot than on horseback. They liked saving horses for pursuit.

Warhammer is a much more Renaissance-styled game. I figure you would, logically, use them in a Renaissance fashion.


I see this a lot, but historically, cavalry trampled all over infantry, and archers, and usually just got stopped by other cavalry.

I suppose you are right, King Philip. But we need to hurry; I hear the English are at a place called Crecy. Let us win an easy victory, for they have so many archers and so few horses!

Skyros
14-07-2010, 21:56
This is NOT, i repeat, NOT, the real world. 500 pts of chaos knights which were designed by GW to kill everything they touch, should be able to destroy a similar pt cost of core troops.

I think you're confused. Chaos knights are not designed to kill everything they touch. If they were supposed to massacre similar points of units with ease, don't you think that would be just a TAD imbalanced?




GW gave me something to do that with, marauder horsemen. chaos knights were NO(T designed to be a flanker.

All cavalry units are flankers. That's why you have the extra speed - to get into the flank. If you aren't going to flank the enemy but just charge him head on on his terms, then why aren't you taking infantry?

Marauders serve a completely different purpose than Chaos Knights, by the way. That's like empire players saying their knights should be able to destroy anyone and clearly aren't flankers because they have pistoliers for that!

macdaddy
14-07-2010, 21:58
Stop. I don't care what happened in ancient rome or greece.

GW designed a game.

in that game GW gave chaos Really hard hitting, tough knights.

GW also gave chaos light cav to use as flankers.

they did this (presumably) because chaos didn't have access to shooting.

These knights were designed to hit (and break) units from the front.

that does not work anymore.

no, empire knights are half the cost and less than half the effectiveness.

skyros, that is my point exactly. your fist part, anyway.

Skyros
14-07-2010, 21:58
If it hits them in the flank it should be able to. Plus in this case, its not exactly a draw, one 500 point unit that got caught flat footed trashed the other 500 point unit that charged it in an advantageous position...


All that example showed is that Khorne marauders are hideously undercosted. If you want to raise their cost I agree 100%, but I don't think it's going to wind up helping WoC players.

Skyros
14-07-2010, 21:59
These knights were designed to hit (and break) units from the front.


Nope - from the flank!

If you want to hit units from the front use your lineup of very powerful infantry.

Fabius
14-07-2010, 22:00
I think heavy cavalry may still be able to grind a potential enemy to death - if your armour saves are good enough and if you manage to invest enough points. A direct front charge with chaos knights is still going to cripple most units, you just can't run them into every unit without loosing them anymore. It's not like their damage potential has been lowered, you're just very likely to get stuck when attack deep infantry units. Many cav units are quite good in subsequent rounds, it just never happened before :P.

On the other hand, heavy cav is still a very good counter against light and medium cav (and those troop types will still be around, since warmachines are still very vulnerable to them, even if you can't break ranks with them).

Amnar
14-07-2010, 22:01
Dear God, no. Cavalry did not rule the battlefield, knights did. Knights refers to both the them on foot and on horseback. The heavy cav you are thinking about started coming around into big use in the 1100's, and there was a 250-year period where they were really big. But you have to realize that Knights did a lot more fighting on foot than on horseback. They liked saving horses for pursuit.

Warhammer is a much more Renaissance-styled game. I figure you would, logically, use them in a Renaissance fashion.



I suppose you are right, King Philip. But we need to hurry; I hear the English are at a place called Crecy. Let us win an easy victory, for they have so many archers and so few horses!

I'd say cavalry, not just knights. Mongol cavalry, and Muslim cavalry, in particular the Mamelukes regularly rocked knights.

Knights only really started fighting on foot in Europe when things like longbows ruined their day by killing their mounts.

In general, any large body of horsemen after the invention of the stirrup would rock infantry in the open unless it was a wall of pikes. Even spears weren't enough. A few dead horses with enough forward momentum would plow gaps in any organized formation. Firearms were the game changer.

chamelion 6
14-07-2010, 22:01
I see this a lot, but historically, cavalry trampled all over infantry, and archers, and usually just got stopped by other cavalry.

Specific examples?



3+units of empire knights are NOT the same.

chamelion...no they arent... it no longer matters where i hit them, and how many i kill, they will still be steadfast. this will inevitably lead to my knights being flanked.

10 knights charge...15a for the knights 5 for the steads. even if i kill all 20(25for khorne) the unit will be steadfast. Thats assuming that all of my knights make it across. Again, shooting, and magic have increased so they haven't in 15 games so far.

I am NOT asking for a I WIN button. only for my knights to do what they were designed(by GW) to do. they arent 110 pt empire knights.


This is NOT, i repeat, NOT, the real world. 500 pts of chaos knights which were designed by GW to kill everything they touch, should be able to destroy a similar pt cost of core troops.

I can break a block with Empire knights. Your's are better so I presume you can do it too. Alone, both units fail. I'm not suggesting the game is real, but I'm saying the game models the historic infantry / cav relationship enough that many historic tactics are now going to work.

Stop thinking of your knights as a self contained unit killer. It cannot do that anymore. You're goingh to have to do what they really did, soften up the target, smack it, slap it and when they get wobbley you hit it with the shock troops. If you do it right the target wil crumble like a wet paper bag. How you soften it up depends on your other assets.

But you also need to first decide whether you need to kill it to win the game in the first place. Its a waste of assets if you fixate on killing something that's gets you no closer to winning....

8ths scenario system puts a premium on asset managment...

Miredorf
14-07-2010, 22:02
Stop. I don't care what happened in ancient rome or greece.

GW designed a game.

in that game GW gave chaos Really hard hitting, tough knights.

GW also gave chaos light cav to use as flankers.

they did this (presumably) because chaos didn't have access to shooting.

These knights were designed to hit (and break) units from the front.

that does not work anymore.

no, empire knights are half the cost and less than half the effectiveness.

Haha i guess you are right =), but by my calculations those chaos knights will still kill every horde they can charge, just now they will do it over a few turns.

R-Love
14-07-2010, 22:04
This is NOT, i repeat, NOT, the real world. 500 pts of chaos knights which were designed by GW to kill everything they touch, should be able to destroy a similar pt cost of core troops.

Skyros, GW gave me something to do that with, marauder horsemen. chaos knights were NO(T designed to be a flanker.

500 points of core troops were designed to pin units in place, and should be able to hold any unit of similar point cost they touch.

See what I did there?

enygma7
14-07-2010, 22:06
Bascially saying play2x his points against him is not a realistic tactic.

Actually, its pretty much the definition of tactics. Concentrating your force and preventing the enemy concentrating theirs is what most wargames boil down to at the most fundimental level.

chamelion 6
14-07-2010, 22:07
I'd say cavalry, not just knights. Mongol cavalry, and Muslim cavalry, in particular the Mamelukes regularly rocked knights.

Knights only really started fighting on foot in Europe when things like longbows ruined their day by killing their mounts.

In general, any large body of horsemen after the invention of the stirrup would rock infantry in the open unless it was a wall of pikes. Even spears weren't enough. A few dead horses with enough forward momentum would plow gaps in any organized formation. Firearms were the game changer.

What is the basis of this. Can you supply some examples?

I can't think of a single battle after Hastings where cav dominated... I'm sure there are some, but not many. Take a look at the Italian Wars -- late 15th century to mid 16th century. Two right and proper Empire-esque armies, one Cavalry dominate the other Invantry dominant. Guess which won?

N1AK
14-07-2010, 22:15
Haha i guess you are right =), but by my calculations those chaos knights will still kill every horde they can charge, just now they will do it over a few turns.

5 Chaos Knights: Command vs 40 Marauders: GWs & Command (8x5)

R1: Knights kill 9, Marauders kill 1-2.
R2: Knights kill 5-7, Marauders kill 1-2.
R3: Knights Kill 2-5, Marauders kill 1-2.
R4: Marauders win if they haven't already. 20-25 Marauders remaining.

chamelion 6
14-07-2010, 22:24
5 Chaos Knights: Command vs 40 Marauders: GWs & Command (8x5)

R1: Knights kill 9, Marauders kill 1-2.
R2: Knights kill 5-7, Marauders kill 1-2.
R3: Knights Kill 2-5, Marauders kill 1-2.
R4: Marauders win if they haven't already. 20-25 Marauders remaining.

A perfect illustration of how not to break a block of infantry. Unsupported calvary is going to loose.

Godgolden
14-07-2010, 22:33
Seems alot of people have little grasp on how the game plays, amusing.

Cav are fine, cheap empire knights? solid guys, need some support.

Chaos knights, blenders, still need support

etc, if you cant break them with one unit, use two instead.

and why charge a unit you know your going to bounce off? not a good player.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
14-07-2010, 22:47
This is NOT, i repeat, NOT, the real world. 500 pts of chaos knights which were designed by GW to kill everything they touch, should be able to destroy a similar pt cost of core troops.

Skyros, GW gave me something to do that with, marauder horsemen. chaos knights were NO(T designed to be a flanker.

You seem to think that the game has only one player. In no fair game ever should you have 500 points of any unit [Chaos Knights included] be able to 'destroy' 500 points of another troop. They should have a 50/50 chance of winning [actually probably something closer to 45/45/10 to take into account the times the game ends before either unit wins].
It is true that the last editions of warhammer were skewed to the knights and they could easily and often destroy more than their point cost of infantry [and were of course far more able to pick their fights] so you may have gotten use to that, but it was in no way good design.

5 Chaos knights will still chew through an equal amount of infantry troops- 5 knights cost about the same as 50 Empire spearmen. Assuming a 7X7 formation [the best for the spears as in the horde, a bunch wouldn't be able to attack and they would lose steadfast quicker], will kill a single Chaos knight in 2 rounds of combat meanwhile, the knights will kill about 15 spearmen in those two rounds. Now the knights lose their effectiveness more quickly [each knight death is worse than the first 29 spear deaths], but as the spearmen are having to pass LD tests just to stay in the fight and the knights have more freedom to choose their fights [even if this is less in 8th than in 7th] that seems fairly balanced to me.

R Man
14-07-2010, 22:57
The history of Cavalry and Infantry is often confusing and probably far too simplified. Command problems were a big issue such as at Crecy (I think) where the French Knights charged before forming any kind of real formation. Having noted that, a vast amount of French Infantry also died in the confusion and massed English Arrows. Truth is that combined arms are often the best as both Infantry and Cavalry are Superior when they work together.

Now, it is also important to remember that most units that get stubborn, unless the general is nearby, are only going to pass their break test about 50% of the time. So the average knight unit only needs to be capable of wining 2 rounds of combat mostly. Steadfast only helps break tests, it does not remove them.

CrystalSphere
14-07-2010, 23:15
I think there are two main things going on here:

-the "step up" rule of 8th edition, which makes cavalry now vulnerable to attacks after charging. They can no longer wipe the front rank and don´t let the enemy make any attack agaisnt them, winning the combat quickly.

-the steadfast rule, which makes infantry usually stubborn when facing cavalry (the infantry is likely to have more ranks). This applies even if the cavalry flank the infantry unit.

So the main question would be: can a cavalry unit in 8th edition break an infantry unit of similar point cost or more, like it used to do in 7th? My reasoning is that no, cavalry can no longer act on it´s own, perhaps except bretonian cavalry.

To win agaisnt a infantry unit which is steadfast, you can´t win with a cavalry unit in a single rank. You would have to kill all the ranks of the enemy, and leave the enemy infantry with only one rank, then the unit would lose steadfast. It doesn´t matter if you hit the flank or rear (the difference is that you get less attacks agaisnt your cav) that the infantry is not going to move as long as it have enough numbers.

What you have to do is to either make your own cavalry bigger/deadlier (adding one extra rank, and/or characters) and soften up the target with missiles/magic before sending your cavalry.

Another way is to use a infantry unit of your own, to engage the enemy infantry on the front, and later try to flank the enemy unit with your cavalry. Of course this requires two of your units to beat one enemy unit.

So in short a unit of infantry with steadfast is pretty much like an old stubborn unit, which the only difference that they lose stubborn when they have few models left. I think cavalry will have to be used much more conservatively in 8th edition, because it is very easy to get "stuck" into a steadfast unit, and left in a vulnerable position your expensive knigths.

pointyteeth
14-07-2010, 23:24
Well several problems with this idea,

Infantry support the way you describe it is for chariots which A move at the same speed as infantry, B provide impact hits, C cost less than a unit of heavy knights.

If you are already invested in a unit of infantry capable of holding the enemy in place why not simply beef up that infantry block so they actually beat the enemy block instead of just holding it? (hint it's much cheaper to add ranks to a cheap infantry block than to buy a unit of heavy cav.)

If you can afford to put an infantry block and a cav unit against one of his units great, what is the opponent doing with his spare points not tied up in this engadement? Bascially saying play2x his points against him is not a realistic tactic.

I agree that chariots can be a good infantry support but at the same time, a unit of knights (depending on the army) can be more killy than the chariot for not a heck of alot more points (definately more, but nothing I'm not willing to spend). True, the knights prolly wont have a rank to knock off ranks, but neither will the chariot.

I'm all for beefing up an infantry block, but there's only so many models you can add to the unit before becomes unneccessary to add more. as for 2x the points, it all depends on the army really. a unit of gobbos with boar boys flanking a unit of warriors surely wont be twice the points. Situational really. Even WoC have cheap marauders which if given light armour, shields and mark of tzeentch make an inexpensive bunker with 5+/5+ (not great, but only 6 points each and 10 points for the mark)

I do respect your argument, and you make some good points. Cheers :)

GodlessM
14-07-2010, 23:28
Seems alot of people have little grasp on how the game plays, amusing.

Cav are fine, cheap empire knights? solid guys, need some support.

Chaos knights, blenders, still need support

etc, if you cant break them with one unit, use two instead.

and why charge a unit you know your going to bounce off? not a good player.

Well said; I think people are just looking for something to complain about at this rate.

Gazak Blacktoof
14-07-2010, 23:31
Actually, its pretty much the definition of tactics. Concentrating your force and preventing the enemy concentrating theirs is what most wargames boil down to at the most fundimental level.

Hush! You're giving away all the secrets!

Justice And Rule
14-07-2010, 23:34
I agree that chariots can be a good infantry support but at the same time, a unit of knights (depending on the army) can be more killy than the chariot for not a heck of alot more points (definately more, but nothing I'm not willing to spend). True, the knights prolly wont have a rank to knock off ranks, but neither will the chariot.

I'm all for beefing up an infantry block, but there's only so many models you can add to the unit before becomes unneccessary to add more. as for 2x the points, it all depends on the army really. a unit of gobbos with boar boys flanking a unit of warriors surely wont be twice the points. Situational really. Even WoC have cheap marauders which if given light armour, shields and mark of tzeentch make an inexpensive bunker with 5+/5+ (not great, but only 6 points each and 10 points for the mark)

I do respect your argument, and you make some good points. Cheers :)

To add to your points:

Beefing up the infantry block is a poor substitute for the knights/infantry. Two equal blocks of infantry will take much longer to get in a "winning" position than a cavalry/infantry attack, and stands to lose just as easily as the block they are attacking.

Attacking with the knights on the flank, you can takeaway the rank bonus and kill more figures because the knights are not only deadlier, but receiving fewer attacks in return.

In short, you can grind with twice as many guys, but your more assured to win by using knights to attack the flank while the infantry occupy the unit.

chamelion 6
14-07-2010, 23:46
To add to your points:

Beefing up the infantry block is a poor substitute for the knights/infantry. Two equal blocks of infantry will take much longer to get in a "winning" position than a cavalry/infantry attack, and stands to lose just as easily as the block they are attacking.

Attacking with the knights on the flank, you can takeaway the rank bonus and kill more figures because the knights are not only deadlier, but receiving fewer attacks in return.

In short, you can grind with twice as many guys, but your more assured to win by using knights to attack the flank while the infantry occupy the unit.

Exactly. But even if you're using the old tactics there is a possibility. Hopefully by hittin a unit in the flank or rear and negating the rank is enough to pull off a win for the cav if they can put on enough wounds in the 1st round (Something Chaos Knights should excell at) the infantry still has to roll against their leadership. Yes, they have a better chance of standing than in 7th but it's not a sure theing they will.

That's a calculated risk. In situations it may be worth the gamble, other times no. That's the tone of 8th. The assuredness of 7th is gone and and it is potentally going to reward players who know when to take those kinds of risks and when not to. Bluffing is going to be a much bigger part of the game because it is going to be harder to predict outcomes. That to me makes a much more interesting game.

DDogwood
14-07-2010, 23:47
I can't think of a single battle after Hastings where cav dominated...

Cavalry didn't even dominate at Hastings - William's cavalry repeatedly failed to break the Anglo-Saxon line. They only found success when Harold was killed and the infantry became disordered, pursuing the cavalry as they feigned retreat.

But on the main topic: it doesn't really matter whether the new rules are more or less historically accurate, and it doesn't matter whether knights used to be able to break units on a frontal charge. It's pretty clear that GW doesn't want cavalry to dominate anymore, but knights are far from useless now - they simply aren't an easy button anymore.

chamelion 6
14-07-2010, 23:59
Cavalry didn't even dominate at Hastings - William's cavalry repeatedly failed to break the Anglo-Saxon line. They only found success when Harold was killed and the infantry became disordered, pursuing the cavalry as they feigned retreat.


That's true... But that's pretty much the battle they built their reputation on and it was pretty decisive once it swung their way. If you mark that point as the high point, as most historians do, then the argument that cav should dominate because of historical precident falls pretty flat.

What I like about the game, even if the historical relationship is dismissed, is the way it rewards combined arms tactics. Infantry may dominate the game but two big units turn into a slugging match... Using your cav's shock value is the key to tipping that combat drastically. Missile troops are going to play a big roll. Every troop type has a place in the new game if you take the time to learn to use them. Again, the new rules emphasize asset management.

DDogwood
15-07-2010, 00:08
I totally agree.

Fobster
15-07-2010, 00:16
I would of liked to see heavy cav given some form of impact hits to balance out the hitting power of truly heavy cav formations. Or some rule of momentum, infantry units that marched the previous turn would be more susceptible to a cav charge as they are more disordered. So maybe steadfast only applied if the unit was stationary in the previous turn. Random thoughts for next edition.

Venerable_Bede
15-07-2010, 00:18
I think there are a lot of people who are used to taking their powerful Chaos Knight unit/Brettonian Lance and slamming it into the front of a unit of infantry and wiping it away (it's happened on more than one occassion to my Dwarves facing Brettonians).

It's not surprising that they're disappointed that this will no longer work with the regularity they're used to (everyone's forgetting that the cav. should still win the combat and that it's not impossible for a unit of Ld 7 infantry to fails its unmodified break test).

The question is whether their cavalry oriented army has become useless. If anyone has the right to complain it's Brettonian players since their army is completely mounted knight oriented.

soots
15-07-2010, 00:41
My biggest beef is as an empire player, knights brought me some melee power. But with the huge knight nerf, theyve cut that phase out of my game. What used to be the most flexible army is now dependant on shooting. Sad times.

Skyros
15-07-2010, 00:52
I would of liked to see heavy cav given some form of impact hits to balance out the hitting power of truly heavy cav formations. Or some rule of momentum

That's a good idea. Maybe GW should give cavalry a strength bonus in the turn they charge!

Venerable_Bede
15-07-2010, 00:59
My biggest beef is as an empire player, knights brought me some melee power. But with the huge knight nerf, theyve cut that phase out of my game. What used to be the most flexible army is now dependant on shooting. Sad times.

What about the Empire's Halbardiers and spear infantry? What's wrong with them?

Venerable_Bede
15-07-2010, 00:59
That's a good idea. Maybe GW should give cavalry a strength bonus in the turn they charge!

Knights armed with lances, like Brets, already have this in effect, don't they?

Don Zeko
15-07-2010, 01:03
I believe Skyros was making a joke. Yes, they do already get a strength bonus on the charge...unless they're Chaos Knights, in which case they fight just as well in round 5 of combat as round 1, which is why I see chaos knights becoming even better relative to other WoC choices, albeit not quite as good as they used to be.

Amnar
15-07-2010, 01:03
Specific examples?



Some that spring to mind are Manzikert, Patay, Ayn Jalut, Legnica, Nicopolis come to mind. Not to say that well prepared infantry couldn't defeat cav, but they were definitely the dominant force in the middle ages until proper pike tactics were developed, or infantry were in prepared positions (e.g. English longbows with their stakes)

Venerable_Bede
15-07-2010, 01:12
Some that spring to mind are Manzikert, Patay, Ayn Jalut, Legnica, Nicopolis come to mind. Not to say that well prepared infantry couldn't defeat cav, but they were definitely the dominant force in the middle ages until proper pike tactics were developed, or infantry were in prepared positions (e.g. English longbows with their stakes)

I think you also have to consider the era you're speaking of.

During the medieval period the only professional soldiers were the knights. Infantry was more often then not made of ad hoc soldiers.

Contrast it with the ancient period where there were armies composed of professional, well disciplined infantry.

Were the Legions at a disadvantage with respect to cavalry? I don't think so.

Campbell1988
15-07-2010, 01:14
Cavalry, by the way, completely overwhelmed non-spear/pike phalanx infantry. It isn't even slightly realistic to relegate shock cavalry to the role of flankers. There are some decent arguments out there for the weakening cavalry in WHFB, but "historical precedent" is none of them.
Actually no. Shock cavalry was highly effective against loosely spaced or poorly armed troops at all times (Archers being the most common). By and large, however, they only broke main-line non-spear regiments through numbers or sheer psychology. Seeing all those heavily armored dudes on horses running at you was pretty damn scary and many poorly disciplined units (and there were a lot way back) wavered or even broke before the charge hit home, those that merely wavered usually collapsing as the knights hit their front ranks. However, most units that did not flee from the initial impact were able to bog down and slaughter the knights shortly afterwords.

EDIT: As Venerable Bloke said before me, look at the ancient ages. Professional armies like Rome's did very well against cavalry because they were disciplined and held their ground rather than break.

On the game...I think cavalry are still useful. As useful? No. However they can still easily engage units like archers or artillery and some lone heroes very well (Elven fast cav especially has the speed to go after these guys). They can also play assassin still. Enemy got a juicy mage or lightly to moderately armored mage in a unit? Try and stick a spear in his eye (Yes I know this is somewhat hurt by the I based combat).

Wakerofgods
15-07-2010, 01:34
Cav are now a support unit.

If you win the support battle you get to surround your enemy...surrounding your enemy is likely to win games even with steadfast.

chamelion 6
15-07-2010, 01:37
Some that spring to mind are Manzikert, Patay, Ayn Jalut, Legnica, Nicopolis come to mind. Not to say that well prepared infantry couldn't defeat cav, but they were definitely the dominant force in the middle ages until proper pike tactics were developed, or infantry were in prepared positions (e.g. English longbows with their stakes)


Give me a chance to look up these engagements so I'm not just pulling stuff out of my backside...

If memory serves though at Manzikert the Seljuk cave played mostly a skirmisher role harassing the Byzantines then fleeing the field when directly challenged. Missile fire was the biggest factor of the battle and eventually caused the byzantine command to falter with a signifigant part of the army quitting the field, and ended up with with the Turks outnumbering the remaining forces by a huge number. I don't recall any grand calvary force sweeping the field.

The battle of Patay was mostly the English getting caught with their pants down and getting over run by French heavy cavalry. The vast majority were long bowmen that had not yet prepaired their position. That was critical for light skirmish infantry of the time. Again, the French heavy cav didn't sweep the field of a massed determined infantry force. It was a bunch of guys in tights that looked up to see a juggernaut aiming for them and they broke and ran... and got mowed down, just as infantry in the game does when they get caught fleeing.

The battle of Legnica was predominately a calvary engagement that was mostly a series of cavalry skirmishes... The Mongols eventually provoked the heavily armored Teutons into abandoning their infantry. The infantry was then surrounded by several Mongol cav units and picked apart. Once the infantry was dealt with the Mongols pretty much ran around and defeated the heavier Teutonic Knights piecemeal. Not really an indication that heavy cav ruled the battle field... Pretty much the opposite.

On a side note regarding history... In medeival warfare and it's accounts you have to take into account the "Chivalric Cult" that surounded the warfare of the time. The point of most of the accounts wasn't to portray history, it was to glorify the ruling elite. You hear alot about grand and glorious charges because the knights were the intended audience and they didn't want to hear about how all those dregs that formed the infantry had anything to do with their victory. So the end result is the infantry becomes invisible in many medeival accounts. The graves and battle sites tell a very different story. You have to take the medeival propoganda machine with a grain of salt. During the Crusades it is estimated for every hundred men at arms there were thousands of pesant milita, mostly armed with some form of spear...

ChaosVC
15-07-2010, 01:54
If you folks haven't realized yet, cavalry or heavy cavalry roles are now reduce to mostly being reserved rather than flankers, the real flankers now are actually fast cav because of their ability "free reform" and speed ie; march after asking mr dice for permission even when near enemy.

But its much harder to pull off since shooting is the main threat against light cav since the dawn of dice...

nevermind....

Campbell1988
15-07-2010, 02:12
Some that spring to mind are Manzikert, Patay, Ayn Jalut, Legnica, Nicopolis come to mind. Not to say that well prepared infantry couldn't defeat cav, but they were definitely the dominant force in the middle ages until proper pike tactics were developed, or infantry were in prepared positions (e.g. English longbows with their stakes)

Patay: This was against unprepared and unsupported longbowmen. In other words, damn right the cav won. That's heavy armored cav against poorly armed longbowmen. It was a massacre for good bloody reason. Poor example.

Manzikert: I think this one was actually almost entirely cavalry on the part of the victorious forces. However, it should be noted that they avoided direct contact for most of the engagement, wearing down the opponent with hit and run missile fire. They only attacked and engaged when the Byzantines were highly disorganized (not to mention one of the wings had simply left the field). The advantages of infantry would be difficult to bring to play here.

Ayn Jalut- Actually pretty good example, though the Mongols were notorious for cavalry as well, much of their force were conquered peoples. However, should be noted that the Mongol force was worn down and dragged out of position with hit and run. Charges were only executed when the time was just right, and even then almost failed. Still good example.

Legnica: Decent example, but not really of cavalry dominance so much as one of mobility and communication. The Mongols outmanuevered a clumsy European force that largely engaged them with cavalry (though given how conflicting the accounts of the battle are pretty much all information is suspect).

Nicopolis: Not sure which one ya mean here. If it's the one in the Crusades that saw the cavalry of the French massacred (though they did break some poorly trained conscripts first...). Don't know much bout the one that involved Rome though. Just know it as a defeat.

chamelion 6
15-07-2010, 02:32
Ayn Jalut- Actually pretty good example, though the Mongols were notorious for cavalry as well, much of their force were conquered peoples. However, should be noted that the Mongol force was worn down and dragged out of position with hit and run. Charges were only executed when the time was just right, and even then almost failed. Still good example.

The problem I have with this battle as an exapmple of cav dominance is that much of it was a fought with skirmishing tactics, not as heavy cav sweeping the field of all before it. I also can't find much on the composition of the armies... It seems much of it was light troops which would be appropriate for the region and the armies involved.




Nicopolis: Not sure which one ya mean here. If it's the one in the Crusades that saw the cavalry of the French massacred (though they did break some poorly trained conscripts first...). Don't know much bout the one that involved Rome though. Just know it as a defeat.

The French ran off some untrained skirmishers right off but got hung up in several prepaird traps that forced most of the knights to dismount. By the time they got to the top of the hill the Turks were waiting for them with several light cav units that pretty much hammered the dismounted and disorganized knights all the way back down the hill...

That cav was effective and important against infantry I don't dispute, I think the examples show that well. That heavy cav dominated I dont see at all... The image of all those grand and glorious charges are more Hollywood than fact. Perhaps that fits some people's image of a fantasy battle. I can see that argument. But I prefer the more combined arms approach the game now supports.

acx
15-07-2010, 03:05
The rules as written prevent a unit from moving it's center point when it reforms. Combat reform rules refer to the standard reform rules with one special caveat, the unit may not reform so that less models in base contact with the enemy. The regular reform rule combined with the special caveat make it so that combat reforms can't add or subtract ranks since that would shift the center point of the unit. So a 10 wide x 5 deep unit engaged in the flank can only turn to the flank and become a 5 wide by 10 deep unit.

Gozew
15-07-2010, 03:10
I think he's also missing the point that, if one 24 point cav model is supposed to be twice as good as a 12 point infantry model, or worse, a 5 or 7 point model, it shouldn't take 400 pts of cav to reliably beat 200 pts of infantry. It should take 200 pts.

This pretty much, if GW stuck to a decent points system for all stats, points for points, without special rules etc, things with identical points should have an equal chance to be effective (at something anyway).

In any case this made me laugh.. :D


Massed English longbowmen triumphed over French cavalry at Crécy, Poitiers and Agincourt, while at Gisors (1188), Bannockburn (1314), and Laupen (1339), foot-soldiers proved their invulnerability to cavalry charges as long as they held their formation.

ChaosVC
15-07-2010, 05:31
You know what made me laugh even more, points are also priced for other abilities in things like speed and special roles etc... its not always about the ability to kill better...

Zzzz

Miredorf
15-07-2010, 06:27
5 Chaos Knights: Command vs 40 Marauders: GWs & Command (8x5)

R1: Knights kill 9, Marauders kill 1-2.
R2: Knights kill 5-7, Marauders kill 1-2.
R3: Knights Kill 2-5, Marauders kill 1-2.
R4: Marauders win if they haven't already. 20-25 Marauders remaining.

Ahh yes, great weapons own cavalry. Now more than ever. Lets try spears, S4 halberds or hw& shield.

And maybe more expensive infantry..like dwarves? This is why i say 8th is totally unrelated with realism. Theres no way such a mob of barbarians would bounce off an elite cavalry charge (unless they were inside a wood).

macdaddy
15-07-2010, 06:34
Am I really asking too much for my 500 pt. knights to be able to dispatch 100 points of infantry in 1 turn? That is really the question. 50 skaven slaves will now hold up my knights for 4 full combat phases, allowing them to be flanked, and killed, no matter where i charge them.

fine, GW want me to use them as flankers in this ed. 500pt flankers, = useless.
As I said before, they want everyone to play with tons of infantry.

chamelion 6
15-07-2010, 06:43
Am I really asking too much for my 500 pt. knights to be able to dispatch 100 points of infantry in 1 turn? That is really the question. 50 skaven slaves will now hold up my knights for 4 full combat phases, allowing them to be flanked, and killed, no matter where i charge them.

Not if handled correctly.... Forget points. 5 guys versus 50 large slavering insane rats. They're gonna be swarmed... Just the logic of the situation says it's gonna take longer than a round of combat.........

Time to embrase a new paradigm. ;)

macdaddy
15-07-2010, 06:48
fine get me new models.
edit- new cool models.

handled how?
50 slaves that dont really want to be there and would run at the first sign of trouble.

its 10 knights that just happen to be designed(by GW) to be my big hammer,now cant be used that way.
and you cant ignore points.

besides - your logic fails at the fantasy door

Eta
15-07-2010, 07:47
fine get me new models.
edit- new cool models.

handled how?
50 slaves that dont really want to be there and would run at the first sign of trouble.

its 10 knights that just happen to be designed(by GW) to be my big hammer,now cant be used that way.
and you cant ignore points.

besides - your logic fails at the fantasy door

Why are you running ten knights in the first place? Six knights are more than enough.

Greetings
Eta

macdaddy
15-07-2010, 07:54
more than enough for what? to sit in combat with your opponent's throw away unit? with all the extra shooting i have faced, 6 never get across the board.

Xelloss
15-07-2010, 07:57
Why are you running ten knights in the first place? Six knights are more than enough.
I think that's because he wants two ranks of five to nullify the skaven's rank bonuses. From your post I think the knights are monstrous cavalry and only need ranks of 3, aren't they ?

Stonewyrm
15-07-2010, 08:51
Ok first of all interessting History disscusion. Only about 80% correct but interessting. About the line from Braveheart: Longshanks said "No army without Heavy Cavalry has won in (over) 300 years".

So in that time frame all armies with Heavy Cavalry beat those armies without heavy cavalry. The armies were still mainly infantry. Hv Cav are designed to "concentrate force", just like the all momentum from the warhorse is concentrated at the tip of the lance. Concentrating force is warfare rule #2.

So what does that mean for WFB? Infantry makes the battle line, archers and warmachines try to thin them out and Cavalry is sent to "concentrate force" at the point where you want to break the "steadfast stalemate".

For my Brets it will be: My infantry holds them, my knights flank them, enemy breaks because they have less ranks as my infantry and my knights overrun into the next block.

That's a huge oversimplifacation but shows Cavalrys "new" role in 8th. A histrorically more accurate role actually. There is also 2 types of Hv Cav. Shock Cav, those with lances that need to do their job in one round and Grinders, those that keep their S high after the first round (Chaos Knights, Questing Knights ect.). Shock Cav got nerfed a lot more than grinders but they still both have a role to play.

If a slight boost is needed then Shock Cav should get it. The Devastating Charge" rule for all Cav with lances might work or impact hits for the momentum of the horses. Against everything other than Spears/Pikes to the front Hv Cav was brutal but only as long as they had momentum.

Stonewyrm

ChaosVC
15-07-2010, 10:00
Its only correct that you "only need 6 chaos knighs, blood knights their equivalent" in terms of cost and effectiveness.

Taking less than 10 knights that cost less than 30 pts each and with only one attack is just for the sake of killing warmachines, stragglers and looking good...

chamelion 6
15-07-2010, 13:01
fine get me new models.
edit- new cool models.

handled how?
50 slaves that dont really want to be there and would run at the first sign of trouble.

its 10 knights that just happen to be designed(by GW) to be my big hammer,now cant be used that way.
and you cant ignore points.

besides - your logic fails at the fantasy door

My logic works in my vision of the fantasy thing. Hard to kill 50 rat things as they swarm all over you... But beside the point.

Ok... Go take a break, have a huge glass of Dr. Pepper and watch some Sponge Bob. When you get back forget everything you learned in 7th edition. You're not going to get anywhere if you keep insisting that your knights can only function in a singular mode.

Your cav still hits hard and causes lots of bodies. That's the same. What it doesn't do anymore is scare the enemy out of it's wits by posing for them. That's what they need help with. You got to get them ready... So when the big charge comes they're gonna crumble. That means nulifying stead fast and that means charging them with another block of infantry too. Or... Start thinning the ranks with some kind of missile fire. WoC is at a disadvantage in that regard but that's part of playing that army. The flipside in your knights will do enough damage the enemy doesn't need as much softening. Think in that direction... What can you do to make your knight's charge more effective?

But before you get all twisted aroung that, do you really need to kill them to win???

Eta
15-07-2010, 13:26
more than enough for what? to sit in combat with your opponent's throw away unit? with all the extra shooting i have faced, 6 never get across the board.

Have you thought about dedicating some units for screening purposes? Use the terrain to your advantage, there should be plenty with the new terrain placement rules. Deploy them on a flank with few shooting units.

Greetings
Eta

Justice And Rule
15-07-2010, 14:21
Am I really asking too much for my 500 pt. knights to be able to dispatch 100 points of infantry in 1 turn? That is really the question. 50 skaven slaves will now hold up my knights for 4 full combat phases, allowing them to be flanked, and killed, no matter where i charge them.

fine, GW want me to use them as flankers in this ed. 500pt flankers, = useless.
As I said before, they want everyone to play with tons of infantry.

1) 50 slaves ranked how? 5 ranks of 10? It's still only a Ld 7. I don't see how they can hold you up for 4 rounds without losing a rank or two at least. At the very least they are going to be ridiculously hard for your opponents to move around and they shouldn't be hard at all out outmaneuver.

2) For Christs' sake, why are you charging a tarpit like that head-on? If you want to break them quick, pin them with a unit and charge them from the side. That denies them their rank bonus, which means they have a Ld 2.

3) Why are you charging Skavenslaves with Chaos Knights at all? Outside of the "Hurr Hurr, let's kill 50 guys", you are basically expending resources in the stupidest place you could. There have to be other, better units that you can charge. If not, then don't.

4) Just because a unit is 500 points doesn't mean it'll roll over a unit that is 100 points in every situation. That 500 points charging a 100 or 200 point unit of pikes would get absolutely walloped due to the nature of their advantage (Yes, pikes aren't in the rules). Even points values do not mean that they will necessarily fight each other to a stalemate. They show necessity, versatility, and skill at their roles. Just because you paid more does not mean that lesser units will simply roll over for you, especially if they were designed not to (Massive units of Skavenslaves, for example).

Lord Solar Plexus
15-07-2010, 14:36
Patay: This was against unprepared and unsupported longbowmen. In other words, damn right the cav won. That's heavy armored cav against poorly armed longbowmen. It was a massacre for good bloody reason. Poor example.


Well...there is a good reason for the contrary, ie when infantry won against cavalry as well. There being a reason for an outcome hardly makes it a bad example. Otherwise I could brush aside every example of a battle where infantry defeated cavalry by pointing to the reasons...

Welfur
15-07-2010, 15:00
I personally think the nerv of Cavalry was important. With one exception. The Bretonians are now one of the weakest factions in WhFB.
Not cause the Cav got nerved but cause that you now need a good mix of Cav and Inf. But in the later department there are simply no choices for the Brets. They have the weakest Inf in the whole game and the Grail reliquie (which is 0-1). Oh I forgot they can take bowmen too. By design the Brets were made to be Cav heavy and have 1 or two smaller Inf untis to hold strategic points.
A tactic which simply won't work anymore.
So i guess it is time for a new AB or else the Brets will be what DE were a long time in 6th and 7th ED. Something for real enthusiasts who can take beating after beating after beating.

Greets
Welfur

Rogue
15-07-2010, 15:06
I'd argue that was the primary reason.

To give an example of the effectiveness of cavalry against infantry at the battle of Naesby (1642) a relatively small reserve unit of Parliament cavalry (~200) was able to rout a regiment of close to 1000 of pike and musket by charging the infantry as it advanced and broke up it's formation slightly. (this was from the front). So in WH tems that's a 25 man unit destroyed by 5 cavalry.

Anyway to move away from the realism debate my point is that it's silly units from the Army books (Blood Knights etc) that created a problem with heavy cavalry in 7th.

From a game point of view you shouldn't be able to destroy enemy units without loss with a single manoeuvrable unit that they can't avoid.

8th has 'fixed' this (though the better cavalry units will still win by attrition eventually) but now it's very difficult to field most cavalry as effective flanking units.

Ideally, as I said before, a flank charge with a large enough unit should negate steadfast. Now there's a reason to take big units of cheaper cavalry. The super expensive super killy stuff has it's place as small regiments of elite butchers, while the cheaper cavalry becomes important 10+ sized units of mobile flankers.

As it is it's still reasonably worthwhile to take 1 or 2+ AS cavalry in units of 10+ but it's going to be a lot of points for an uncertain return and potentially an easy target for a spell or template.

Well said, it seems that a lot of the changes in the 8th edition was made to fix a lot of the inequities of bad army books in the 7th edition and not specifically to have good core rules.

tetrishermit
15-07-2010, 15:16
I have been playing around with the idea of taking 5 cheap cavalry mounted heroes plus 5 rank and file cavalry models. You need at least that many to block the +3 rank bonus and with the new rules you can replace command models such as standard / musician / champ with heroes from the second rank at the start of combat. That way you can have all the benefits of command and still have 5 heroes up front to dish out the hurt. I'm thinking of doing it with great weapon scar vets because now you get the full 2 strength even while mounted. It would be an expensive unit but 20 str 7 attacks is on blood knight tier.

Amnar
15-07-2010, 16:55
I think you also have to consider the era you're speaking of.

During the medieval period the only professional soldiers were the knights. Infantry was more often then not made of ad hoc soldiers.

Contrast it with the ancient period where there were armies composed of professional, well disciplined infantry.

Were the Legions at a disadvantage with respect to cavalry? I don't think so.

Good point on the training. By the eras are totally different because the invention of the stirrup revolutionized cavalry warfare. Without a stirrup, you have little leverage and can't properly couch a lance. All you have is arm strength. Heavy infantry ruled the battlefield for the most part in the ancient world.

That said, professional, trained infantry armed with pikes (the Spanish tercio, Swiss pikemen, landschneckts etc. Had no trouble dealing with cavalry, but that is the twilight of the cav era.

Amnar
15-07-2010, 17:00
Patay: This was against unprepared and unsupported longbowmen. In other words, damn right the cav won. That's heavy armored cav against poorly armed longbowmen. It was a massacre for good bloody reason. Poor example.

Manzikert: I think this one was actually almost entirely cavalry on the part of the victorious forces. However, it should be noted that they avoided direct contact for most of the engagement, wearing down the opponent with hit and run missile fire. They only attacked and engaged when the Byzantines were highly disorganized (not to mention one of the wings had simply left the field). The advantages of infantry would be difficult to bring to play here.

Ayn Jalut- Actually pretty good example, though the Mongols were notorious for cavalry as well, much of their force were conquered peoples. However, should be noted that the Mongol force was worn down and dragged out of position with hit and run. Charges were only executed when the time was just right, and even then almost failed. Still good example.

Legnica: Decent example, but not really of cavalry dominance so much as one of mobility and communication. The Mongols outmanuevered a clumsy European force that largely engaged them with cavalry (though given how conflicting the accounts of the battle are pretty much all information is suspect).

Nicopolis: Not sure which one ya mean here. If it's the one in the Crusades that saw the cavalry of the French massacred (though they did break some poorly trained conscripts first...). Don't know much bout the one that involved Rome though. Just know it as a defeat.

What an interesting discussion :) just to be clear, my main point isn't that cavalry always charged and won, but that cavalry was THE dominant combat arm in the middle ages, and that infantry played a supporting role, rather than the other way around.any of the examples above, e.g. Manzikert are included because one side, in this case the Turks, was all cav.

chamelion 6
15-07-2010, 17:10
Well...there is a good reason for the contrary, ie when infantry won against cavalry as well. There being a reason for an outcome hardly makes it a bad example. Otherwise I could brush aside every example of a battle where infantry defeated cavalry by pointing to the reasons...

Except there are a thousand examples to the contrary for every example of cavalry sweeping the field... Historians generally accept that formed, trained and steady infantry dominated the battle field. There are reasons that is generally accepted. If you are putting forth a theory to the contrary there must be proof to support it and that means looking at the evidence. At Patay the infantry was not formed or steady. It isn't an exception to the general rule.

I'll discuss the history of it forever, I love this stuff, but as has been pointed out this isn't exactly history. Using history to support a given rule is really on pretty thin turf. As it stands, the rules follow a generally accepted balance of power between various troop types. That means that several generally accepted tactics now become playable on the table top. I think that's about as far as you can reasonably draw the historic analogy.

I can see that many people would prefer the "heroic ideal" of the grand cavalry charge sweeping the field. In a fantasy game that's a valid point of view and one that seems to have carried in 7th.

In other words, it's not right versus wrong, it a matter of preferance. I don't think the history part of the debate is going to really go anywhere... We history geek can find the stupidest of details to argue over and happily spend years doing it.

I think this is at the point where the rules are as they are. They allow for viable tactics that offer opportunity for pretty much every troop type the game offers. It's up to the players to figure out how to use them. I already have my own ideas and I'm going to build an army with just those ideas in mind.


What an interesting discussion :) just to be clear, my main point isn't that cavalry always charged and won, but that cavalry was THE dominant combat arm in the middle ages, and that infantry played a supporting role, rather than the other way around.any of the examples above, e.g. Manzikert are included because one side, in this case the Turks, was all cav.

In engagements where both combatants field disproportionate numbers of cav the results get skewed. If you take two Britonian armies each with only a single infantry unit each it's not going to give you an honest assesment of the value of infantry in the game, is it? Real battles have the same problem. Worse yet we often do know what the infantry really contributed because the chroniclers distorted and pretended they didn't exist.

Who supported who depends on how you want to see it. The reality is that in most armies infantry dominated, that is it was the most numerous and decisive. The battle generally flowed around the infantry positions. The cavalry's job was to catch and shatter enemy units. Sometimes other cav, most times infantry. It did this by providing a severe blow to an enemy formation at a critical moment, that was when it was most effective. Infantry could hold its own against cav in most situations and it could effectively deal with other infantry. Cavalry was less flexible. To deal with other cav in needed either a certain amout of luck or numbers... To deal with infantry it needed support, either missile troops or formed infantry) or an insane number troopers.

That is the reason most historians tip the scale towards formed infantry. If you read contemporary accounts though most emphasis is place on the cavalry, the knights, the aristocracy. It was an idealized image.

Both units benefited from the mutual support. Combined they were greater that the individual parts. Infantry could force a win on it's own, but it could win decisivly with the shock value cav provided. So if you really wanna grind down the debate, when both were present on the field in reasonable numbers, the support was pretty mutual. I think the new rules play that out pretty well....

Amnar
15-07-2010, 17:20
Except there are a thousand examples to the contrary for every example of cavalry sweeping the field... Historians generally accept that formed, trained and steady infantry dominated the battle field. There are reasons that is generally accepted. If you are putting forth a theory to the contrary there must be proof to support it and that means looking at the evidence. At Patay the infantry was not formed or steady. It isn't an exception to the general rule.

I'll discuss the history of it forever, I love this stuff, but as has been pointed out this isn't exactly history. Using history to support a given rule is really on pretty thin turf. As it stands, the rules follow a generally accepted balance of power between various troop types. That means that several generally accepted tactics now become playable on the table top. I think that's about as far as you can reasonably draw the historic analogy.

I can see that many people would prefer the "heroic ideal" of the grand cavalry charge sweeping the field. In a fantasy game that's a valid point of view and one that seems to have carried in 7th.

In other words, it's not right versus wrong, it a matter of preferance. I don't think the history part of the debate is going to really go anywhere... We history geek can find the stupidest of details to argue over and happily spend years doing it.

I think this is at the point where the rules are as they are. They allow for viable tactics that offer opportunity for pretty much every troop type the game offers. It's up to the players to figure out how to use them. I already have my own ideas and I'm going to build an army with just those ideas in mind.

I know, I love these discussions too :) I suppose part of the argument is that while I do agree that trained and steady infantry could hold cavalry at bay, there really wasn't all that much of it during the middle ages, mainly due to the way their society worked. Even in Egypt, before the Mamluks came to power, the main iniatives were to add additional cavalry to the army, with little concern for the infantry in general.

WHFB 8th is definitely the era of infantry though, no doubt about it.

Amnar
15-07-2010, 17:25
I suppose it depends on the army. As a DE player, I feel like the relative value of my CoK has gone down quite a bit.

chamelion 6
15-07-2010, 17:46
I know, I love these discussions too :) I suppose part of the argument is that while I do agree that trained and steady infantry could hold cavalry at bay, there really wasn't all that much of it during the middle ages, mainly due to the way their society worked. Even in Egypt, before the Mamluks came to power, the main iniatives were to add additional cavalry to the army, with little concern for the infantry in general.

WHFB 8th is definitely the era of infantry though, no doubt about it.

My conclusion, based on what I've read, is that the mind set in the Feudal ages was fixated on the nobility and justifying their dominance in everything. When you read contemporary accounts you get this vision of masses of awsome cavalry and a few missle troops with the battle decided by some trickery or by the glory of the mounted nobility. Excavations though tend to show a different history as they find large numbers of mass graves full of light and medium armed men.

So it seems the infantry was there in numbers, we just don't hear about their exploits very often. We don't get the visual of them standing and holding the enemy cav while the knights charge in for the big win, we just get the big charge as though it happened in isolation... Which is probably how the nobels themselves saw it to. After all, they charged in and won the battle, what does that have to do with a bunch of stinky pesants with pointy sticks...

You get a really good feel for this if you read much about the Crusader's journeys to the Holy Land. From the Crusader's POV it was a bunch of well mounted knights and men at arms, and a few light troops and some pilgrems. The Byzantines told it much differently. The reason they didn't want them in their domain was the thousands of raggedy pillagers that made up the bulk of the Crusader's armies. And most of the accounts of these soldiers in action come from the opposing side......

Amnar
15-07-2010, 18:14
My conclusion, based on what I've read, is that the mind set in the Feudal ages was fixated on the nobility and justifying their dominance in everything. When you read contemporary accounts you get this vision of masses of awsome cavalry and a few missle troops with the battle decided by some trickery or by the glory of the mounted nobility. Excavations though tend to show a different history as they find large numbers of mass graves full of light and medium armed men.

So it seems the infantry was there in numbers, we just don't hear about their exploits very often. We don't get the visual of them standing and holding the enemy cav while the knights charge in for the big win, we just get the big charge as though it happened in isolation... Which is probably how the nobels themselves saw it to. After all, they charged in and won the battle, what does that have to do with a bunch of stinky pesants with pointy sticks...

You get a really good feel for this if you read much about the Crusader's journeys to the Holy Land. From the Crusader's POV it was a bunch of well mounted knights and men at arms, and a few light troops and some pilgrems. The Byzantines told it much differently. The reason they didn't want them in their domain was the thousands of raggedy pillagers that made up the bulk of the Crusader's armies. And most of the accounts of these soldiers in action come from the opposing side......

It's definitely tough with all the conflicting accounts. You're right, the cavalry does get all the credit, and infantry is usually glossed over. Does this mean that infantry played a bigger part? At the beginning of this conversation I would definitely have said no, but now, I just honestly don't know. Cavalry dominated medieval warfare, but the more I think about it, the more I question whether it was due to overwhelming effectiveness or just the dynamics of society at the time.

I think the book "The Face of Battle" by John Keegan gives a great account of a medieval battle. He likens knights to tanks, but he describes a battle (Agincourt) where the knights were mostly dismounted.

chamelion 6
15-07-2010, 18:32
It's definitely tough with all the conflicting accounts. You're right, the cavalry does get all the credit, and infantry is usually glossed over. Does this mean that infantry played a bigger part? At the beginning of this conversation I would definitely have said no, but now, I just honestly don't know. Cavalry dominated medieval warfare, but the more I think about it, the more I question whether it was due to overwhelming effectiveness or just the dynamics of society at the time.

I think the book "The Face of Battle" by John Keegan gives a great account of a medieval battle. He likens knights to tanks, but he describes a battle (Agincourt) where the knights were mostly dismounted.

There is a series of books by Hans Delbruck... The series is The History of The Art of War and there are 4 books covering everything from ancient times to WWII and a little afterwards. I like the way they deal with the topic because they really try to focus on the general trends and the balance of the different troop types through the ages. He looks at the roll each element in the army played more so than dealing with specific issues, like pike drills and such. He does get into that kind of detail where it is relevant to the discussion. He also compares the roll knights played in certain periods to the roll tanks generally play in modern warfare. One of the best chapters is his discussion on the conversion of knights into cavalry proper and what that meant in practical terms. You get something of an idea about how the soldiers see themselves and how it affects their roll in the field. I don't know if they are still in print, but I recomend them if you can find them.

As for the infantry during the period, it's hard to say. It is apparent they were there in numbers, but what and how they functioned is much less certain. They were used in the thick of it as attested to by the mass graves, but there is little hard proof on anything beyond that.

Gamewise... I really like the Empire flagellants. They really give me the image of what I imagine these pesant soldiers to be like. I wished they were a little less elite in the game, I'd consider fielding a few units of them just capture the feel of it.

Amnar
15-07-2010, 18:34
I like Hans Delbruck, but unfortunatley I only read his books dealing with 1800+

chamelion 6
15-07-2010, 18:42
I have the whole series... But the one you read and the 3rd in the series "Medieval Warfare" are the two most relevant. to what we're talking about. The one dealing with the 1800's on starts at the end of the Medieval period and has quite a bit on Pike and Shot armies. That one is titled "The Dawn Of Modern Warfare"

Damocles8
15-07-2010, 19:46
So following this wonderful discussion between chamelion6 and Amnar, a point arose. Do we define the overal technological advances of the Old World, or are we looking at the Empire in examples of the cavalry vs infantry debate?

If we were to put said cavalry against Bretonian peasants, would the effects change on the battle, because they are low leadership and poorly trained infantry based on the middle ages, whereas the Empire is more Rennaisance, and better trained infantry.

Amnar
15-07-2010, 20:22
Ironically enough the peasants would be steadfast and an equal points unit of peasants would probably whittle down the empire cavalry :-P

Who wants to run the numbers?

Razhem
15-07-2010, 20:43
Nope - from the flank!

If you want to hit units from the front use your lineup of very powerful infantry.

You are a very dense man, his argument, is that the unit of cavalry was designed in 7th edition and the unit was more than capably of crating a bloody path trough the front. Now it has changed, now they do not do what was advertised, now they are flankers, the most competent of cavalry flankers, but still expensive as hell.

tw1386
15-07-2010, 22:06
One of the big misconceptions I am reading in this thread is that the majority if people are assuming that every infantry block you come across is going to be massive hordes. That is about as far from the truth, as the points aren't changing, and the points played aren't going to allow room for this. The steadfast and horde rules are meant for cheap blocks of slaves / goblins / what have you because now they may have a decent chance of surviving a round of combat so that the support stuff like cavalry / monsters etc. can get there to finish it off the next turn. Often these big blocks that you will see will have such crappy leadership stubborn wont mean a damn thing.

Yes army composition is going to change, like every edition. The majority of armies won't be able to logically field tons of cheap troops due to the points limitation. Yeah sure you may see some massive block of super infantry like chosen or black gaurd, but take a look at the rest of his army... it probably won't be there.

Cavalry will still have a very useful role in 8th edition, it's not going to be the point and kill as it was. Same as Chariots.

Venerable_Bede
15-07-2010, 23:12
Am I really asking too much for my 500 pt. knights to be able to dispatch 100 points of infantry in 1 turn? That is really the question. 50 skaven slaves will now hold up my knights for 4 full combat phases, allowing them to be flanked, and killed, no matter where i charge them.

.

I don't understand this.

The Knights will still win the combat.

The Slaves will have more ranks and be Steadfast.

But what's their Ld? Isn't it pretty low?

A unit can still fail a Breaktest even if it's Stubborn/ Steadfast.

alphamale
15-07-2010, 23:14
Cav needed a nerf, and in typical GW fashion, they've over nerfed it.

Combine attacks with Knights? Sure, but as some Heavy Cav were designed to break infantry and thus cost a lot, these are now useless in 8th. It is much more point efficient to buy med / light cav who now perform the same role of 'support' at a cheaper price(points value).

Venerable_Bede
15-07-2010, 23:15
One of the big misconceptions I am reading in this thread is that the majority if people are assuming that every infantry block you come across is going to be massive hordes. That is about as far from the truth, as the points aren't changing, and the points played aren't going to allow room for this. The steadfast and horde rules are meant for cheap blocks of slaves / goblins / what have you because now they may have a decent chance of surviving a round of combat so that the support stuff like cavalry / monsters etc. can get there to finish it off the next turn. Often these big blocks that you will see will have such crappy leadership stubborn wont mean a damn thing.



It's not the Hordes that are the big deal. Even a regular sized infantry unit should still have more ranks then the charging cavalry and so be Steadfast even after taking casualties from a Cavalry charge.

overlordofnobodies
15-07-2010, 23:24
I don't understand this.

The Knights will still win the combat.

The Slaves will have more ranks and be Steadfast.

But what's their Ld? Isn't it pretty low?

A unit can still fail a Breaktest even if it's Stubborn/ Steadfast.

True if you were going by the units Ld but you can use the Generals Ld if your close to him. Winch is most a 9. Plus you can reroll if by the BSB as well.

Amnar
15-07-2010, 23:25
I think at the end of the day, small units of heavy cavalry don't pack enough punch, and large units are just too expensive. Heavy cav paid a points premium for their abilities, and now that their abilities are relatively less powerful, they are now effectively overcosted in most cases. Ironically enough, Empire knights are probably one of the least nerfed cav units, since they're still relatively cheap and have a 1+ armour save.

My poor CoKs are still coming along for the ride because I love the models, but if it wasn't for fluff and awesomeness reasons, I'd probably just get more xbows instead.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
15-07-2010, 23:36
True if you were going by the units Ld but you can use the Generals Ld if your close to him. Winch is most a 9. Plus you can reroll if by the BSB as well.

But you can also use your general or mages [or even a hellcannon since a lot of this has been about Chaos knights] to whittle down the infantry before sending in your knights. You can't throw other units [such as the general] into the question about point costs, because there will always be synergies and trying to account for all the possibilities is too much. Going by the units, the 500 points of Chaos knights will reliably destroy the 100 points of skavenslaves. The slaves have about a 28% chance of surviving a single round which is a better than the 20% one would expect with the point costs, but ironically, the slaves do as well as a number of more expensive units [empire infantry come to mind as an empire player] so it doesn't seem like the knights are in any way unbalanced now [though they certainly were in 7th edition].

overlordofnobodies
15-07-2010, 23:56
I was not question about point costs. I was question{ A unit can still fail a Breaktest even if it's Stubborn/ Steadfast.} Winch is true but see as you play a army and not just a unit.So I like to add things that most people will do.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
16-07-2010, 00:05
I was not question about point costs. I was question{ A unit can still fail a Breaktest even if it's Stubborn/ Steadfast.} Winch is true but see as you play a army and not just a unit.So I like to add things that most people will do.

Then add in all the possible ways to damage said infantry unit before throwing your knights into the front of it and see if it still will be steadfast. If you want to consider one army, you must consider the other army as well. Basically, cavalry have finally been somewhat balanced against infantry and people are having trouble adjusting from cavalry being a juggernaught to merely worth its cost. Now, there are a couple cases where the 'nerf' might have gone too far [Cold Ones of both stripes, but DE moreso than Lizards, and Dragon Princes come to mind], but in the vast majority of cases, the balance now seems to be about where it should be.

Don Zeko
16-07-2010, 02:21
My poor CoKs are still coming along for the ride because I love the models, but if it wasn't for fluff and awesomeness reasons, I'd probably just get more xbows instead.

I think you're way off-base about Cold One Knights. Besides pure hitting power and speed, the big advantage of heavy cavalry is the armor, and CoK's are the only heavy CC unit in the army that doesn't crumple from attacks back (setting aside hydras, dragons, etc.). Attacks back from every combat with at least two ranks means that witch elves, executioners, and black guard will only be good for a couple of rounds of close combat before attacks back reduce the unit below a useful size.

CoK's, on the other hand, have little to fear from massed S3 counterattacks, and with S4 on the riders and the mounts they will continue to inflict casualties after the charge. Plus, they're now immune to psychology and incredibly unlikely to go stupid if they stay near the BSB. Particularly if you have a Cauldron, I think 8th edition might make CoK's a more attractive choice relative to the the other elite troops in the army. Now Dragon Princes, on the other hand...

chamelion 6
16-07-2010, 02:24
So following this wonderful discussion between chamelion6 and Amnar, a point arose. Do we define the overal technological advances of the Old World, or are we looking at the Empire in examples of the cavalry vs infantry debate?

If we were to put said cavalry against Bretonian peasants, would the effects change on the battle, because they are low leadership and poorly trained infantry based on the middle ages, whereas the Empire is more Rennaisance, and better trained infantry.

I think this is an important question in the debate. The game portrays several different and distinct historic periods as contemporary with each other. Add to that the individual cultural differences of the various armies GW added for flavor and you get some interesting a-historical things going on.

I think that's the reason for keeping things fairly generic in the mechanics. If you get too detailed then the differences between things like a pike a lance and a spear become more critical. Instead the general relationship of the various troop types is portrayed. Instead of rules for blocks of spearmen and rules for blocks of swordsmen we see rules for blocks of infantry and the weapon rules are simplified to give various units some distinct flavor.

Otherwise you'd need a heap of special rules to factually distinguish Britonia's pesants from the Empire's mercenary professionals. The similarities are emphasized over the differences. Operation on that leve of detail would really be a mess when you started to write all the special rules for things like Skaven, Orks that have even less in common that the human armies do.

What we end up with are units of infantry, cavalry, and missile troops with enough minor differences to give them a unique feel.

Amnar
16-07-2010, 19:56
I think you're way off-base about Cold One Knights. Besides pure hitting power and speed, the big advantage of heavy cavalry is the armor, and CoK's are the only heavy CC unit in the army that doesn't crumple from attacks back (setting aside hydras, dragons, etc.). Attacks back from every combat with at least two ranks means that witch elves, executioners, and black guard will only be good for a couple of rounds of close combat before attacks back reduce the unit below a useful size.

CoK's, on the other hand, have little to fear from massed S3 counterattacks, and with S4 on the riders and the mounts they will continue to inflict casualties after the charge. Plus, they're now immune to psychology and incredibly unlikely to go stupid if they stay near the BSB. Particularly if you have a Cauldron, I think 8th edition might make CoK's a more attractive choice relative to the the other elite troops in the army. Now Dragon Princes, on the other hand...

Massed S3 attacks still whittle down cav units. It's Space Marine syndrome :-P Any kind of frontal charge with cav is now in effect suicidal. For every 6 clanrats I kill, my opponent only needs to make me lose one COK to break even...

ColShaw
16-07-2010, 20:11
For every 6 clanrats I kill, my opponent only needs to make me lose one COK to break even...

Which, interestingly enough, is approximately equal points of casualties. It's almost like they're balanced. Wacky!

Amnar
16-07-2010, 21:18
Which, interestingly enough, is approximately equal points of casualties. It's almost like they're balanced. Wacky!

Yes, i know they're the same points, thats the point I was making. I'd put my money on the 30 clanrats rather than the 5 CoKs.. Assuming 5 wide with spears, you have to kill 15 rats before they lose a single attack.. That's theory though, anyone want to run the numbers?

Single attack cavalry will have trouble concentrating enough force.

yabbadabba
16-07-2010, 21:33
There have been too many myopic posts on this thread. In a swoop, GW have whittled down the idea of the one-trick-pony army fits all, at least not without taking a much bigger gamble.

If you don't know what opponent you will be facing, you are going to have to gamble on your army's strengths and hope your opponent doesn't luck out and bring the ideal counter. If you do, then you have to try and assess what your opponent might take.

In 7th, it was all about only having to know what your army could achieve. Now you have to take into account what your opponent might take.

Heavy Cavalry will still be able to take on infantry units to the front - provided they aren't hordes. So if your opponent is likely to take horde units then you have two choices - horde back and ignore the Cav, or the Cav is reduced to an important, but secondary, flanking and pursuit role.

In this respect Empire will be one of the hardest armies to face blind just because of their sheer variety and ability to now counter most army types except for the extreme one-trick-pony-vs-Empire armies. Every army will still have its must have's but its less of a cookie cutter world now.

Blackknight1239
16-07-2010, 21:35
So, you're saying charging a small number of men into a large number of men is going to end up badly for the smaller unit? Gasp, impossible! Inconceivable! :P

Gentlemen, cavalry are fine. Weaker? Slightly. But still playable by all means. Units like Cold One Knights or Chaos Knights can do a pretty good job at breaking units by themselves. Not a sure thing, but why should it be? Imperial Knights and the like still are weak to being stuck in, so it's better to use them in situations where this won't happen much. Bretonnians? Well, we got the best chance of all to break a horde on a charge. Definiately a good thing.

Yes, charging face first into a horde of 50 men is stupid. Deal with it. Instead of pointing and clicking, let's try some tactics, yes?

Amnar
16-07-2010, 23:50
So, you're saying charging a small number of men into a large number of men is going to end up badly for the smaller unit? Gasp, impossible! Inconceivable! :P



If that's how you feel, then why even bother with point values?

The point isn't that charging a horde to the front is dangerous for cavalry, the point I'm trying to make is that charging any sized infantry unit to the front is now dangerous for cavalry. I guess the main point here is that due to relative changes in power, cavalry is now a tad overcosted, and this edition is the age of infantry.

Cav did need to be toned down, no argument there, but I think they might have thrown the baby out with the bathwater here, especially with all the buffs to shooting that make that vaunted cavalry save relatively less useful.

My two cents.

Blackknight1239
17-07-2010, 06:08
If that's how you feel, then why even bother with point values?

If you feel that way, why can a warmachine easily destroy a similarly priced block of infantry? The fact is, points aren't used to tell which unit should be better than the other. It's what they can do.


The point isn't that charging a horde to the front is dangerous for cavalry, the point I'm trying to make is that charging any sized infantry unit to the front is now dangerous for cavalry. I guess the main point here is that due to relative changes in power, cavalry is now a tad overcosted, and this edition is the age of infantry.

It's true that it is dangerous to charge infantry now, but I think that's true for infantry themselves. I agree that they are a tad overcosted, but not enough to make them useless. The fact is, units need to be softened up now. Even for infantry, to a degree. All about combined arms.


Cav did need to be toned down, no argument there, but I think they might have thrown the baby out with the bathwater here, especially with all the buffs to shooting that make that vaunted cavalry save relatively less useful.

My two cents.

I honestly disagree. Maybe because I play Bretonnians, but a more combined arms Warhammer, seems like a much better warhammer. A cheap block of 25 troops seems to be the best foil for a 6 man unit in the flank.

ROCKY
17-07-2010, 08:35
I don't understand this.

The Knights will still win the combat.

The Slaves will have more ranks and be Steadfast.

But what's their Ld? Isn't it pretty low?

A unit can still fail a Breaktest even if it's Stubborn/ Steadfast.

not to mention that if knights are like inner circle or chaos knights they would enjoy killing more and more and dont underestimate 1+ armor save. and u will see most 1attack cav (cold one knights, empire, brettonia, and possibly saurus cold one riders) in at least 2 ranks.

norwegians
17-07-2010, 09:06
Cavalry isnt supposed to ride down and wipe the floor with infantry thats the way its supposed to be no more point and click choas knights combined arms is the way to go.

cavalry isn't supposed to have staying power evan heavy cavalry charged units at an angle peeled of and charged again if cavalry got sucked into charging a infantry unit to the front it would get bogged down and loose pretty much every time

just look at English knights vs Robert the Bruce's pike formations they got massacred

just use the cavalry's manoeuvrability to get around or behind the infantry and charge the flank or rear or even better the flank and the rear and you'l still do decent damage get less attacks back and most likely win.

Von Wibble
17-07-2010, 10:22
I think he's also missing the point that, if one 24 point cav model is supposed to be twice as good as a 12 point infantry model, or worse, a 5 or 7 point model, it shouldn't take 400 pts of cav to reliably beat 200 pts of infantry. It should take 200 pts.

Not true. Some of the points spent provide cavalry with the movement to determine when and how they fight, and in some cases even get them to the fight when needed. Not to mention why should 200 points of cavalry beat 200 poiints of infantry -surely they should be evenly matched?

Imo 200 points of core cavalry should be evenly matched to 200 points of core infantry if they engage in the flank. In the front, it shuld take more like 300 points.

This skews somewhat when you also consider that imo core units shuld not be as good value for points as special, who should not be as good value as rare, assuming all 3 are unit types that fulfill the same role. If all 3 categories were of equal value for points, you'd only rarely not take the core since you are limited in points for specials and rares.

Amnar
17-07-2010, 17:52
Given you scenario, I'm of the opinion they should win in the flank, and be slightly less than evenly matched in the front. It's all a very interesting discussion. I'm curious how the metagame will play out in the next 6 months or so.

Jericho
17-07-2010, 18:53
For every 6 clanrats I kill, my opponent only needs to make me lose one COK to break even...

Which, interestingly enough, is approximately equal points of casualties. It's almost like they're balanced. Wacky!
QFT :D

I've been saying it for weeks, cavalry are no longer as good against infantry as they were. So use them against other units like Monsters, Ogres, War Machines etc. and you're in business. It's not rocket surgery :p

Volker the Mad Fiddler
17-07-2010, 19:45
QFT :D

I've been saying it for weeks, cavalry are no longer as good against infantry as they were. So use them against other units like Monsters, Ogres, War Machines etc. and you're in business. It's not rocket surgery :p

Especially given that Stomp/Thunderstomp attacks don't work against cavalry.