PDA

View Full Version : All-Heavy-Cavalry Armies?



RGB
19-03-2006, 23:45
Well, since the ************* thread got shut down, I will ask the same question but word it different.

Just because it interests me,

Should we be able to have all-cav armies? Especially larger all-cav armies. At 500 pts I can envision a patrol or something, at 2000 pts all knights is a bit silly.

The costs of equipping and maintaining a knight were staggering, historically. Restricting them in some way would bring the matter more in line with precedent. Moreover, it is a good place to start if one wants to fix elite infantry or other troop types which are not good value currently since heavy cavalry does their job and does it better.

I'd like to hear good arguments for yes or no, and see if a any kind of conclusion is reachable.

Anyone reaching for the sarcasm will be put on teh ign0re list. This is a serious question.

Konrad_Curze II
19-03-2006, 23:56
well at least this is a sensible way about it.

i think that cavalry armies are alright, sure the historical prospects of having that many knights at the same time would be immense. but i think the idea of it is sound. it is still beatable and gives a good flavour to the game. i mean having just all infantry armies can get boring if there wasnt that all cavalry army lurking about. i do admit that some things in the brettonian list can be considered a tad ott such as the amount of pegasus knights you can have and the lords can be a bit nasty but heh, any lord is rock hard really. but the idea of the lance formation i think is a very good idea (i personally prefered it when it looked like the arrow and not the way it is nowadays but meh) i can deal with all cavalry armies as they have a little amount of models for the army (as cavalry is expensive after all) and that tactics wise surviving the charge is the ultimate thing against them.
well thats my opinion anyway.

Trunks
20-03-2006, 03:37
I've never had a problem with someone taking an all heavy cavalry army (I couldn't care less about how historically accurate it is). It makes the army more one dimensional so it is easier to take down with a more balanced army list for the most part.

Donnie Darko
20-03-2006, 04:51
All calvary armies historically were not viable, not just because of cost, but wars were never one off battles. So the disadvantages of calvary in terrain and over long marches became prohibitive more so than the actual cost.

I persoanlly have no problem facing an all cav army, since for the most part I don't like to abstract the game into what i'm facing is the whole of their amry (since 100-300 men is quite small for even a raiding force) but instead the enemy i'm tasked to destroy. Therefore an all cav army does represent your patrol nicely ringing in at around 50 models.

Griefbringer
20-03-2006, 10:12
All calvary armies historically were not viable, not just because of cost, but wars were never one off battles. So the disadvantages of calvary in terrain and over long marches became prohibitive more so than the actual cost.


Actually, the nomad nations of the central Asian steppes fielded all-cavalry armies (with plenty of spare mounts per warrior).

As for difficulties of fighting mounted in certain conditions, cavalry could always dismount and fight on foot.

As for Warhammer - it is supposed to be fantasy, so the knights can sometimes be shinier, peasants dirtier and merchants even more corrupted than in our world. As for all heavy cavalry on the tabletop, perhaps the army also has peasants, but they have been left to he back to watch over the baggage and cheer, while the knights all go to the front. Of course, havinf a more mixed force on the table would make for a more varied game.

Pravus
20-03-2006, 10:22
I like to see cavalry armies - Brettonians in particular make for an interesting game of cat and mouse. They're tough to beat (with my army) but I like a challenge. Next time you're reading the Orc and Goblins army book read the rules for wolf riders - it just screams wolf rider horde to me - wolf archers supporting goblin medium cavalry. A project for post-lottery win I think.

Flypaper
20-03-2006, 11:39
Historically, the cost of feeding, educating, and supplying one wizard would have been staggering. The expense in bulk Eyes of Newt alone would bankrupt a village!

...Nah, I have no problems with all-cavalry armies; even all-heavy-cavalry armies don't bother me much in the abstract. Now whether any given army list should allow for all-cavalry armies in terms of the background is another argument entirely. :cool:

Courting Dotanuki
20-03-2006, 11:58
I think there is one thing that many people miss when they start playing warhammer, and that it is not a historical game. I mean, sure, there are certain likenesses, but historically no one was ever affected my magic, or ogres and monsters, and so, being able to deal with these threats armies would be built to very different specifications.

If what you mean by historcal accuracy is more like common sense then I can see where you are coming from, but you have to remember that this is a fantasy game.

oma
20-03-2006, 12:07
bretonnia isn't that easy to play with either, if you charge with a 9 men strong unit without chars, you'll probably win cc, but break them? almost all armies out there has Ld 9 with their lord within reach, and some even got Bsb, so if i get 4 kills, i'll stil have 1 rank less than the opponent, and he might have US, so i win by 2, i CAN break them but i wouldent bet on it... this leads me to my point: you probably need to charge with 2 units (wether bouth are knights? doesn't matter, it's still crippeling for my sake) then i probably kill more/have the same rank bonus, or may be flank bonus (pegasi), i'll run them down but then its your turn: i have 2 units within chargerange of your units and you'll maybe get flank or rare if your lucky (or if youre good)...

all-calv armies are not cheesy, or broken; ok, bretonnia has a few advantages, but still they have huge dissadvatages aswell, i'd say "yeah they are heavy, but i pay for it" it all comes for a price...

Adept
20-03-2006, 12:23
Should we be able to have all-cav armies? Especially larger all-cav armies. At 500 pts I can envision a patrol or something, at 2000 pts all knights is a bit silly.

The costs of equipping and maintaining a knight were staggering, historically. Restricting them in some way would bring the matter more in line with precedent.

I just knocked up a 2,000 point Bretonnian all knight army in Army Builder. Taking a Lord, and four paladins, and the rest of the points in Knights, you get about 70 models.

Even using a ten-to-one ratio, you're only looking at 700 knights. Some armies in history had thousands. Some accounts put the numbers at Agincourt over 10,000 knights. Seeing 70, 700, or even 7,000 knights on the battlefield at once should not be considered unrealistic or ridiculous.

Added to that, the medieval knight was self supporting. He had his own lands, and paid for his own armour, horses and arms.


Moreover, it is a good place to start if one wants to fix elite infantry or other troop types which are not good value currently since heavy cavalry does their job and does it better.

I believe the best way to stop people taking all-cav armies is to make the historically viable choices viable on the table top. Allow people to dig in, throw up defences and hope for the best.

Satan
20-03-2006, 12:31
I just knocked up a 2,000 point Bretonnian all knight army in Army Builder. Taking a Lord, and four paladins, and the rest of the points in Knights, you get about 70 models.

Even using a ten-to-one ratio, you're only looking at 700 knights. Some armies in history had thousands. Some accounts put the numbers at Agincourt over 10,000 knights. Seeing 70, 700, or even 7,000 knights on the battlefield at once should not be considered unrealistic or ridiculous.

Added to that, the medieval knight was self supporting. He had his own lands, and paid for his own armour, horses and arms.



I believe the best way to stop people taking all-cav armies is to make the historically viable choices viable on the table top. Allow people to dig in, throw up defences and hope for the best.

You're forgetting that if the King wanted his Lords and their respective retinues to fight for him he often had to cough up a bit more land or gold to make it worthwhile. Sure enough, a noble was guaranteed land in return for his feyalty(sp?), but could not always be relied upon in the long run, and so, had to be succesively bribed in order not to betray his King to the enemy, which happened more than once during the medieval times.

And 70 models?! Could you post a quick run-down of that list? I thought bretonnians were so expensive you couldn't possibly fit that many knights into the same force. Although one-sided in tactic possibilities, it does seem rather... unbalanced somehow. Maybe that's just my psychological fear of Bretonnians talking.

And, as someone pointed out, this is not a historically correct game, I believe it's not the ambition of the designers to make it completely so either. As long as they add character, historical background may be useful. But I don't think the historical aspect really belongs in this discussion.

As stated in the first post: Should we be able to have all-cav armies?

Adept
20-03-2006, 12:49
The list was pretty much bare bones just to see how many knights you could squeeze into 2,00 points.

Lord
Battle Standard Bearer
Paladin
Paladin
Paladin

6 x 10 knights of the realm, with champions.

1 x 5 knights errant, with champion.


Sure enough, a noble was guaranteed land in return for his feyalty(sp?), but could not always be relied upon in the long run, and so, had to be succesively bribed in order not to betray his King to the enemy, which happened more than once during the medieval times.

Yep. And despite longbow and blackpowder fanboys assertations, this, more than anything, was the reason the armoured knight fell from favour as the pre-eminent force on the battlefield. Kings, and other lords, preferred more and more to have paid soldiers under their command, rather than knights with feudal obligations.

Satan
20-03-2006, 12:54
Hm. Ok, seems fair, an army that hits a bit nasty, but lacks combat resolution and banners. Drop a Paladin and include a few banners though, and I think you could make a potentially lethal list. I won't vouch for anything however.

And The Good, the bad and the ugly is one of the best films ever made.

Adept
20-03-2006, 13:02
And The Good, the bad and the ugly is one of the best films ever made.

True, although the pic and the quote are from 'A Fistfull of Dollars', but given the close relations between the films and the fact that Clint plays the same character in all three of them, the mistake is forgiveable.

Satan
20-03-2006, 13:04
Well, since I'm yet to pick up "A fistfull of dollars" and "For a few dollars more"... :D

Griefbringer
20-03-2006, 14:10
And 70 models?! Could you post a quick run-down of that list? I thought bretonnians were so expensive you couldn't possibly fit that many knights into the same force.


Well, the basic knights (realm/errant) are not that highly priced.

However, many Bretonnian armies stonk a boatload of points on virtues and magic widgets for the characters, magic banners, and pricy special knights (questing, grail, pegasus), leaving rather little points left for other purposes.

Also Empire could field similar force, say Grandmaster, three captains with knightly gear and six units of ten knights each.

Princess Yuffie
20-03-2006, 15:38
most people fild lots of grail and questies which does not work real good imho ... MSU Brets are teh win! lots of 6pack Brets and one bigger unit working as a breaker ...

mageith
20-03-2006, 18:27
Well, since the ************* thread got shut down, I will ask the same question but word it different.

Just because it interests me,

Should we be able to have all-cav armies? Especially larger all-cav armies. At 500 pts I can envision a patrol or something, at 2000 pts all knights is a bit silly.

The costs of equipping and maintaining a knight were staggering, historically. Restricting them in some way would bring the matter more in line with precedent.

Some of my recent reading indicates these were more common than I would like to believe. I think they were rarer than the rules or play indicates however.




Moreover, it is a good place to start if one wants to fix elite infantry or other troop types which are not good value currently since heavy cavalry does their job and does it better.

I think this is really the issue. Subjectively these armies are not as much fun to play and play against. Also since they do their job more cost-effectively loading up on them is probably building an army with an above average power level.

For tournaments, this is probably bad but for normal play it's OK since we can choose our opponents and whine them into more balanced play.



I'd like to hear good arguments for yes or no, and see if a any kind of conclusion is reachable.

GW can make any rule they want to.

ZomboCom
20-03-2006, 19:00
I dislike playing against all cav armies, since I just don't find the games fun. I don't think they're neccesarily unbalanced, and I wouldn't want to take away the possibility of making them, but I certainly enjoy games more where combat infantry is the main focus, with cavalry, war machines and shooting in support roles.

Unballanced? No. Unenjoyable? Certainly.

ROCKY
20-03-2006, 19:16
I do not mind facing any army, after all its a game. Plus you learn the weknesses of your enemy and yourself. I do not see any unbalance (I see more unbalance when I got 70 guns farting at me!). I also like the idea how noble knights ride in and try to fend off the worshippers of chaos!

RGB
20-03-2006, 20:38
Thank you everyone, it's been interesting.

I personally do care about historical precedent as it makes for a more believable not-too-high-fantasy world. Moreover the knight would become much shinier if he wasn't so dirt common, hence restricting knights is also good from a fantasy meta-plot perspective.

I don't personally think that all heavy cav is that overpowering but I do feel that it detracts from my experience of the game a tiny bit due to expectation disconnect and the dynamics of the battle (point-click-chaaaarge! repeat until out of lances).

And Mage- yeah, GW can do whatever they please, it's true. They certainly never seem to listen, otherwise Archie's have been spawned/replaced long ago :p.

This was just a talking head excercise really.

Starbane
20-03-2006, 22:43
Well, the knights themselves didn't really pay for it all, it were more their own subjects..

Warhammer is still a fantasy game, so IMHO it shouldn't be all about in how much they're historically correct. Although, as in another thread was mentioned, if you link an army with an historical background, do it fight from the first time.

I don't mind playing all cav armies, gives me lots of cc (and I like cc a lot :D )
I just take two stubborn units or so and I'll have a rather good chance of standing my ground...so I don't believe they are overpowered either.

Flypaper
21-03-2006, 08:55
I don't find playing against all-cavalry particularly unenjoyable, and to be honest don't see why so many people take it as a given that it is.

...More to the point, advancing two armies that both consist of virtually nothing but static infantry bores me to tears. "Will he charge?" " Nah, he wants to get the benefit of his spears!" :cool:

(of course, there's fun things to be done with manouvering and support units. I'm just pointing out that the opposite of our current slightly-overpowered cavalry isn't a Utopia either :angel: )

mageith
21-03-2006, 14:59
(of course, there's fun things to be done with manouvering and support units. I'm just pointing out that the opposite of our current slightly-overpowered cavalry isn't a Utopia either :angel: )
I'd imagine at any army that maximizes with any ONE thing would soon be boring.

Mixed arms. Mixed Troops. Let's just mix it up.

Real generals would take ALL the Heavy Cav they could. They couldn't make their armies ALL Heavy Cav generally because there wasn't enough of it available. Why there wasn't enough of it available was because the society could only afford to maintain so much of it. (Essentially a class of people produced nothing but existed to train for fighting and actually fighting.)

WFB does not suffer from any such economic problems. These have to be simulated in the rules or ignored (Knights are cheaper in Fantasyland). Solutions include raising the cost of Knights to the point where they become unrealistically ineffective (or equally effective to ordinary infantry) or changing their class from Core to Special/Rare or raising/lowering everything else around them.

Personally I want some units to be better than merely cost-effective, but then I want these units to be limited in availability. With Heavy Cav we have the best of all worlds*. The only thing they are missing is Rank Bonus (and the Brets figured out how to even get that!).

*(Heavy cav have movement, Hit hard and have the great defensive armor.)

IMO, Knights are fine except for one thing. There are too many of them. Even in Bretonnia.

Mage Ith

Gisoreux de Ponthieu
21-03-2006, 15:11
Mostly I choose to play a (not all but still many) cavalry army of Bretonnia. It was what attracted me towards the noble knights in the first place. Personally I don't think cav armies are too powerful: of the last few battles I've played I only won a handful, my last was even a massacre against an Empyrean gun line.

What people tend to neglect when they see a battle line of Knights is how few models and units there are in comparision with other armies. I often compare my tactics to the Blitzkrieg tactic: fast shocktroops breaking the line with weaker forces for the mop-up. The way German army was defeated in Russia is the same way of defeating a knight army: a tactic called "blunting the axe". Throw every missile and magic the Knight's way, severly wounding the unit, and making a charge of a hammered unit less powerful so normal infantry units stand firm. A charge with 5 knights is a huge difference with still 9. In the second round of cc, the weakness of the lance develops as only three models can fight. The unit (with or without casualties) will be outnumbered and outranked, possibly (if troops are positioned well) outflanked and believe me, the unit will break.

Latro
21-03-2006, 15:40
What exactly is meant by All-Heavy-Cavalry Armies in this context?

Is Heavy Cavalry anything one a horse with a 2+ save? ... or is it the type of knight that has a good chance of slamming through the defending infantry without any support needed?

Because if you crunch some numbers, you will find that the "instant-victory" knightly unit is very rare indeed and usually limited already.

So, is this thread and the responses aimed at:

- lists that only have high-movement units (knights, fast cavalry, flyers, chariots)

- lists that have too much (or only) knights

- lists that have too much uber-knights

:confused:

RGB
21-03-2006, 17:25
To answer the question, lists that have a lot more 2+ or better AS cavarly than infantry would be sort of part of what I'm talking about.

Certainly all-knight lists with support from flyers/light cav/war machines would also qualify.

Kahadras
21-03-2006, 17:46
An all heavy cavalry army is alright with me as long as it is the exception and not the rule. I don't want to see another army like Bretonnia running around. Each army should be unique and the Bret list lives and dies by its mounted heavy cavalry. I'm not saying that every Bret army should have loads of knights in it but they should have a fair number.
************* would soon complain if his massed artillery was taken away so give and take is an important part of Warhammer. OK heavy cavalry do present a problem but it one that has to be overcome not complained about. Same for beating an Empire gunline etc.

Kahadras

RGB
21-03-2006, 18:06
Ironically a gunline is a realistic battle set-up, while an all-knight army isn't. But I agree that a gunline doesn't make for a fun game.

Still, cannons are Special or Rare depending on the army, knights are almost universally Core.

Kahadras
21-03-2006, 18:19
Ironically a gunline is a realistic battle set-up, while an all-knight army isn't.

Tell that to the French. In actual fact a gunline army does not appear untill Napoleonic times. For a FANTASY based setting a gunline army seems even more unrealistic while an Arthurian based idea seems more plausable. Again thats just my opinion but I reckon a lot of people would agree with me on this.

Kahadras

RGB
21-03-2006, 18:41
What do you mean, tell it to the French? They almost never ran all-knight armies, the closest I've ever seen anything come to an all-knight army was an Italian Mercenary army, something like 2000 knights and squires and 400 infantry. They were the most extreme case I know of.

The French won the 100 year's war with cannons, not with knights.

Most often heavy cavalry was outnumbered by other troop types 1:8 or more. Cannons at the most extreme case (Charles the Bold's Ordonnance) were 1:27 men, and rarely less than one per 200 men if you take anything past the year 1500.

I'm sorry, people may agree with you but they will still be incorrect.

However, the question of total historical accuracy is not paramount, we've established that early on. I was just saying it's ironic that Gunlines are more plausible than all-knight armies, but it doesn't have to be the same way in the game for various reasons.

oma
21-03-2006, 20:45
even if you have 70 knights (bretts) how many clanrats can you have? mixed with slaves? there is now way that those 70 knights would win against that horde, with so many units there had to be something to countercharge the overrun in the flank and so fourth..

GranFarfar
21-03-2006, 21:30
The French won the 100 year's war with cannons, not with knights.


Actually one might argue that the hundred years war wasnīt even won on the field of battle, but again - it has nothing to do with the question at hand. Sorry though, couldnīt resist :D

On topic - To me all cav should be viable, as should all infantry, BUT they should not be better than combined arms forces.

As it is now I find all heavy cav a bit to powerfull, and after playing brets for a year(God knows how I could keep it up for so long) I find games with especially Brets rahter dull. It feels like all you have to do is slam 2 lances into any given unit and that unit will fold.
Of course the games are more complex than that, but not far from it in some cases.

And I guess it is no coincidence that it is the HE all cav, and not the infantry based force that is viable.


Brets are overpowered, beardy scumbags. Anyone can play brets and win.

Actually I agree with you for once - but I must add that this is true with alot of lists.

Kahadras
21-03-2006, 22:41
What do you mean, tell it to the French? They almost never ran all-knight armies,

Yeah but they featured exceedingly heavily in the two most well know battles of the hundred years war while cannon did not. I find the idea of a gunline army implausable up untill the developement of the musket. I could be wrong if you care to point me to a reasonable example but I cannot think of one off the top of my head.
Both types of army may not hold president in a historical sense but we are talking about Fantasy here therefore we should direct our attention to film and books more than to history which you seem to be more concerned with. I raise the point that if you ask anybody they will say that mounted knights in armour are generic to trhe fantasy setting while gunlines are not.

Kahadras

mageith
21-03-2006, 23:26
What exactly is meant by All-Heavy-Cavalry Armies in this context?

...

Because if you crunch some numbers, you will find that the "instant-victory" knightly unit is very rare indeed and usually limited already.

Don't lose this point. Other than Bretonnians, Heavy Cav, by themselves, usually cannot overrun most full sized infantry units. The infantry unit goes in with a 4+ advantage. So it takes 5 wounds from the front lines to do it. Only Brets and Chosen and/or Khorne can do this.

However, add a fighting character and you add 3-5 more superior attacks. Also, of course, the Heavy Cav is more likely to have a magical banner for even more advantage.

Other knight units need help.



So, is this thread and the responses aimed at:

- lists that only have high-movement units (knights, fast cavalry, flyers, chariots)

- lists that have too much (or only) knights

- lists that have too much uber-knights

And Knight units with Characters.

Mage Ith

Adept
22-03-2006, 01:22
WFB does not suffer from any such economic problems. These have to be simulated in the rules or ignored (Knights are cheaper in Fantasyland).

IMO, Knights are fine except for one thing. There are too many of them. Even in Bretonnia.

Mage Ith

I disagree. Like I said above, 2,000 points of Bretonnian knights gives you about 70 models. At a ten to one ratio, or even one hundred to one, that only gives 700 - 7,000 knights on the battlefield. Which isn't that many, at all.

I prefer to think of my own force, not as the entire forces available to my general, but a small, perhaps tiny portion of them being used to fight in a particular location at a particular time. My seventy (or seven hundred, or seven thousand) knights could simply be an armoured spearhead designed to break enemy lines, or the vanguard of a much larger force, or whatever.

So long as they are balanced in the game, I have no problem at all with all knight armies, no matter how rare or elite they were in history. I'd even be happy with an all grail knight army.

mageith
22-03-2006, 03:22
I disagree. Like I said above, 2,000 points of Bretonnian knights gives you about 70 models. At a ten to one ratio, or even one hundred to one, that only gives 700 - 7,000 knights on the battlefield. Which isn't that many, at all.

Actually from my reading 7000 knights is a lot. Not unheard of, but a lot.

But I was actually I was assuming that the knight whiners are correct that kngihts are a problem and responding to the suggestions of them somehow reducing the individual knights by reducing armor save or US or the impact of lance or whatever.

I just rather limit their number and emphasize mixed arms.



I prefer to think of my own force, not as the entire forces available to my general, but a small, perhaps tiny portion of them being used to fight in a particular location at a particular time. My seventy (or seven hundred, or seven thousand) knights could simply be an armoured spearhead designed to break enemy lines, or the vanguard of a much larger force, or whatever.

That's convenient for you. I don't think that's really the design of the game.

"Fighting battles is what Warhammer is all about..." (10)

There are smaller forms of Warhammer, like Warbands and Skirmish if you want to fight partial battles.

But no matter, you have the rules on your side.



So long as they are balanced in the game, I have no problem at all with all knight armies, no matter how rare or elite they were in history. I'd even be happy with an all grail knight army.
I'd be one of those who would say they aren't balanced in the game. They're not invincible, either, not by a long shot.

GW attempts to balance things in a number of ways: Points. Each model is given a points value. Rarity. Each unit is given a rarity level. Where GW has screwed up is that while their pointage of individual models is probably OK, when a bunch of models get together into a unit, the unit values are skewed. Cheap models are MORE valuable in a unit but Expensive models are less valuable because the back rankers pay for lots of abilities they don't use. Knights are an exception because they usually fight in one line and ALL their skills and stats are utilized. Brets are even better because back rankers get to use BOTH their skills and count as ranks.


GW threw out the rarity levels for Chaos and the army still isn't overly strong. Why? Because they probably over compensated with the points side.

You ought to try an all Grail army if you can find an opponent who will play you. Maybe GW did all right with the points value of Grail Knights. With your philosophy, 50 Grail Knights wouldn't be out of line if they were assigned to hold a flank or a point someplace as part of a larger battle.

oma
22-03-2006, 08:13
12 grail knights is like 500 points, i dont see why someone wouldn't fight them, it's a "eggs in 1 basket" thing, and if they get charged (by screamers in the flank for instance) they are useless, and will break the next turn when you charge with something more..

Gorbad Ironclaw
22-03-2006, 08:50
even if you have 70 knights (bretts) how many clanrats can you have? mixed with slaves? there is now way that those 70 knights would win against that horde, with so many units there had to be something to countercharge the overrun in the flank and so fourth..


Actually, in a 2k army you could easily field 75 knights, in 10 units(5 each of 9 errents and 6 realm), and still have points left over for characters and such.

So thats at least 5 full block units you can most likely run over in turn 2. Maybe one or two more with characters. Or you can punch a hole in the skaven line, and hold a few in reserve.

So no, it's not even hard to get enough knights/knight units to fight a horde.

Simon23
22-03-2006, 19:01
Some people will complain about anything!

I play wood elves so my main pains in the ass are lots of heavily armoured cav or a gunline army. Whats the point in complaining about it? Its your choice whether to play the game or not.
TBH there are much better things to worry about in the world.

GranFarfar
22-03-2006, 20:47
12 grail knights is like 500 points, i dont see why someone wouldn't fight them, it's a "eggs in 1 basket" thing, and if they get charged (by screamers in the flank for instance) they are useless, and will break the next turn when you charge with something more..

Well, screamers are not a very good example. Cause probably they wonīt kill a single knight. Then they get magical str4 attacks back and will probably caus some wounds.

But otherwise it is quite true what you say. But it isnīt just to flank brets, it takes alot of effort. Alot more effort than just ramming those lances home.

Crazy Harborc
22-03-2006, 21:46
Most of our games are 2500 to 3500 points. IF my army has more than two 10 man units of heavy cav or knights, it's because my opponent will (for sure).

I do ALL infantry armies far more often than most. Not just Empire, Orcs/Gobbos, WEs, HEs too. Ohhhh, I throw in DoW/RoR units (pikes usually).

The thundering charge, the ground shaking from all those hooves......it CAN work. Likely more often, it will fail than it will succeed.

Flypaper
23-03-2006, 07:52
Let's not forget that all-knight armies are cheap in another, more financial sense.

While I'm not accusing anyone in this thread of suggesting as much, I have occasionally noticed that the we-should-all-play-combined-arms snobbery can go hand in hand with not wanting to play little Timmy with his $200 all-knight army. ;)

Personally, I think a greater preponderance of horde armies would radically change what we see as "cheesy" - in particular knights and magic. But what can one do about it? Short of every infantry box adopting the Skink 24-model precedent, a genuine horde army is going to be out of financial reach to most players. Oh, and painting 100 Skavenslaves is boring, too. :D

Bingo the Fun Monkey
23-03-2006, 10:50
I believe that we horde players are a different type. Successful ones (as I'd like to think of myself as) take their time and build their army over a period of years. You say painting 100 skavenslaves is boring? I enjoy painting every last mini I have with love and care: from the smallest snotling to the all too common goblins to the legions of orc boyz. Maybe I'm just insane and have a different sense of the flow of Time.

Not to get OT, my 10 year gaming experience has, for the most part, been spent playing against bretonnians...and it's fun! Now OGs are jaded in being one of the more balanced and competitive of the infantry armies out there, and so that might be why I don't mind facing heavy cav armies period. Despite the fact that not a single one of our units can stand to a combo charge...lemme rephrase...because not a single one of our units can stand to a combo lance charge, the game becomes that much more interesting against cavalry armies. Infantry battles are fun and tense, but facing a cavalry army really puts my mind on over-drive; as opposed to, say, Vampire Counts or skaven (balanced and SAD).

The point i'm driving at through all this garbage is: people should pull their heads from the gutter for just a moment and try to figure out a way to beat heavy cav armies instead of whining their way out playing against them.

I do agree that leet inf should get buffed in some way. It's been a while since I faced any white lions or black guard :(.

EDIT: some have said that flanking brets is a ton harder than the pointing and clicking they have to do. This is true only if you fail to break their battle line (not break break, but to harass, hold and make sure that ton of bricks doesn't hit home all at once). RAFs are a different story...

RGB
23-03-2006, 11:40
The point i'm driving at through all this garbage is: people should pull their heads from the gutter for just a moment and try to figure out a way to beat heavy cav armies instead of whining their way out playing against them.

That was rather uncalled for, no?

I have no real problems with all-knights in terms of power level, I just have my doubts about image/game dynamics. Not everyone's motivation for posting here is inability to beat knight outfits.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
23-03-2006, 11:44
Heavy Cavalry? Not scared. Not scared in the slightest. In fact, not even close to being scared. They tend to be quite small forces, with limited tactical options. They are relatively easy to avoid, and if you march block them, then they take a lot of punishment on the way across the board. If you can blag the charge, they are going to struggle, as they typically lack basic combat resolution.

Artillery can be useful, but is not the be all and end all of Anti-Cavalry tricks. I've found Chariots wonderful against them, especially if you can catch him in the flank (the Chariot being allowed to face any direction when it's finished moving is a great boon!).

And besides. Heavy Cavalry are expensive. If you can taunt him with cheap, throwaway units, in order to pull his line out and line up your counter attack, do it!

oma
23-03-2006, 15:50
Well, screamers are not a very good example. Cause probably they wonīt kill a single knight. Then they get magical str4 attacks back and will probably caus some wounds.

But otherwise it is quite true what you say. But it isnīt just to flank brets, it takes alot of effort. Alot more effort than just ramming those lances home.

screamers is the best example, cause they dont break (unless they popp) and if you have 5 of them they will hold those grailknights, and if his 500points unit gets caught up? well... thats 25% of his army, and if he has 25% in chars, it means that he'll onely have 50% of his army left..

GranFarfar
23-03-2006, 16:52
screamers is the best example, cause they dont break (unless they popp) and if you have 5 of them they will hold those grailknights, and if his 500points unit gets caught up? well... thats 25% of his army, and if he has 25% in chars, it means that he'll onely have 50% of his army left..

It is not very likely they will hold. Probably one knight dies, and probably 1-2 wounds are inflicted on the screamers. And add to that standard, 2 ranks and outnumber and I am quite confident those screamers wonīt be around for long.

Oh I am not saying a 9 man grail knight unit is a good idea on 2k, just saying it is that easy to outflank them.

ROCKY
23-03-2006, 19:25
By all means, Brets are not invincable. I could win with a load of infantry and using the anti-cav clipping tactic with my detachments. I have an infantry list that could crush brets, as one unit has rod of command and other other is stubborn on leadership 8 with a reroll thanks to BSB. Using the anti-cav clipping tactic they only get one knight into combat, so only 3 attacks. After we hold, I send my Steam Tank and 2 units of minimum knights into their flank, break them, run them down, and win the game. But to my standard gunline list, Brets are very, very difficult to beat. Ive only managed it twice, out of 5 attempts, so they must be broken (thats how I assess whether something is cheese- if it aint beaten easily, its broken!).

Thing is, I only got those 2 other victories as I was playing a player worse than the Bret that I was complaining about recently (they were not useless, but they liked using peasants and they went into handgun short range when they could just charge from long range...that sort of thing). The Bret ive been playing recently is a beardy git, with an RAF list and loads of Knights errant. Its broken and :cheese: .

So, yes, I hate Brettonia!
But if they use lance formation is it not easier for you to gun them down with cannons/hellblaster? plus you have mortars and a steam tank.

Gisoreux de Ponthieu
24-03-2006, 00:34
A gunline is so hard for a cav army: sure they are in charging range within a round but with the brets this mean two shooting and magic phases. Meanwhile you can exhaust the units so there charge ain't so powerful(normal units of 20 can take it) and in second turn of cc the lance is very bad: only three men striking back.

Flypaper
24-03-2006, 00:37
You say painting 100 skavenslaves is boring? I enjoy painting every last mini I have with love and care: from the smallest snotling to the all too common goblins to the legions of orc boyz. Maybe I'm just insane and have a different sense of the flow of Time.
I certainly understand the appeal - and I'm not going to call you a freak over it or anything! - it's just that I'm personally the wrong kind of obsessive to paint hordes. Perfectionism combined with impatience! :p

ROCKY
24-03-2006, 00:47
Why the heck do they keep banning the poor guy? While he can be annoying at times, I did not see him asy anything vulger or inapropriet this time? Well Its not my place to say anything....anyways back on topic, I do think that gunlines are now being used more than ever, especially in tourneys. Although I stick with my statement "all armies can be broken, for some it just takes a bigger hammer". peace.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
24-03-2006, 06:17
Why the heck do they keep banning the poor guy? While he can be annoying at times, I did not see him asy anything vulger or inapropriet this time? Well Its not my place to say anything....

I see a free thinker here, better call the Warseer Patriot Hotline.;)

I think a problem with all these so-called power armies these days is that the general warhammer community has taken the GT as the standard by which all things should be done by. GW has tried to encourage games at pts values above and below the standard 2k battles...but because the most noticeable group of players are the tourney players their standards and way of doing this has become dogma. All of a sudden the game itself (and to an extent it's mechanics) becomes a science as opposed to a "good time." I dunno, I don't think I should post after taking vitamins C, H and T.:chrome:

Starbane
24-03-2006, 07:39
It is not very likely they will hold. Probably one knight dies, and probably 1-2 wounds are inflicted on the screamers. And add to that standard, 2 ranks and outnumber and I am quite confident those screamers wonīt be around for long.

Oh I am not saying a 9 man grail knight unit is a good idea on 2k, just saying it is that easy to outflank them.

I don't know if you actually get yout ranks, and even then..screamers have a demonic ward save
and if you have the luck of my opponent, those screamers can remain standing there long enough for you to get into serious trouble.
(They sometimes even last against a unit of 20 dwarves, which is still rather better in cc than a unit of knight who didn't charge)

Gisoreux de Ponthieu
24-03-2006, 10:05
don't magical attacks ignore demonic ws? 'cause GK have them, bless them.

der_lex
24-03-2006, 12:50
and if you have the luck of my opponent, those screamers can remain standing there long enough for you to get into serious trouble.

Might as well call me by name, if you're going to complain about me, Starbane :D
You're kinda right about the luck factor though. In my last game, I managed to come out of a +6 instability test with a group of Horrors by rolling snake eyes...
And the sad part is, this kind of thing happens on a regular basis.

Gigi: Magical attacks do indeed ignore Demonic ward saves, unless the daemon has a daemonic gift that turns it into a regular ward save.

<offtopic> Neat, we have three out of four people in our little gaming group posting consecutively in this thread now. If only we could get Gisoreux' smelly brother to post on here, we'd be complete ;) </offtopic>

GranFarfar
24-03-2006, 14:38
I don't know if you actually get yout ranks, and even then..screamers have a demonic ward save
and if you have the luck of my opponent, those screamers can remain standing there long enough for you to get into serious trouble.
(They sometimes even last against a unit of 20 dwarves, which is still rather better in cc than a unit of knight who didn't charge)

Yes you get ranks, since screamers are skirmishers, and unless it is Demonic Legion(and just assumed it wasnīt which might be a mistake) the magical attacks of the grail knights will cancel that save.

And 3 Grail Knights are about the same as 5 dwarfs in CC, against screamers that is, even if they donīt charge.
Oh, counting on luck isnīt very constructive - it is called luck for a reason I guess.

Starbane
24-03-2006, 18:36
And 3 Grail Knights are about the same as 5 dwarfs in CC, against screamers that is, even if they donīt charge.
Oh, counting on luck isnīt very constructive - it is called luck for a reason I guess.

You sure? I don't really see grail knights as being particullarly stronger than for example ironbreakers...especially not when they're getting charged...
(statistics aren't that much different anyway)

samw
24-03-2006, 18:45
Grail knights have two attacks plus the horse attack. That's considerably stronger if it's all three of them hitting you back.

Gisoreux de Ponthieu
24-03-2006, 18:49
Starbane is confused for he plays against my brets most of the time. I believe he can vouch for me that my dice luck is so bad that 3 GK aren't able to take a dwarf unit in my side, let alone ironbreakers.

GranFarfar
25-03-2006, 21:30
As saw pointed out, 2 str4 and 1 str3 attack is a bit better than just 1 str4.
And I am very sure - played Brets a bit to long :p

Steel_Legion
25-03-2006, 21:34
grail knights are good, but i prefere pegasus knights, pretty much the exact same, but can fly, not rare and look cooler IMHO, plus grail knights just get shot to pieces as they cant hide as well as pegasus knights can, then spring into action, still fantastic warriors however

mousekiller
26-03-2006, 01:41
I have been known to field a cav heavy empire army, but never all cav. I do think that the core no restriction is a bit silly.

Crazy Harborc
26-03-2006, 02:05
Tomorrow, I'll be fielding a Marianburg Mercenary(trial) army. No knights, BUT units of heavy cav. One unit of Kislivite one winged bird lover lancers and a unit of ex-Empire knights (including a Silverhelm escapee and twodefrocked Bret knights). Then there's the pikes:D "Here horsey, horsey let me scratch your bellies for ya".

My opponent claims he'll have lots of Cold Ones and fast cav too:evilgrin:

GranFarfar
26-03-2006, 18:36
grail knights are good, but i prefere pegasus knights, pretty much the exact same, but can fly, not rare and look cooler IMHO, plus grail knights just get shot to pieces as they cant hide as well as pegasus knights can, then spring into action, still fantastic warriors however

Oh I agree. Never left home without my precious PKs, only ever fielded Grail Knights on random occasions.

gu.nlinetastic
26-03-2006, 21:10
Pegasus Knights are :cheese: !!!!!!

Okuto
26-03-2006, 21:17
Gotta love Peg knights, I hated them at first, cause the first time I played against Brets, my entire left flank fell to only three Peg knights, lol, then goodbye to my gunline and hello to med gunline/infantry.

But I have no prob with Cav heavy armies, I own two!, an empire one and a Bret one and I'm thinking of a High elf one. I just love the look of cav armies on the board and they get into the fight fast!

I haven't had much luck with Grail knights, they always tend to not get their pts back and for some reason they always end up chopping up reg rank and file troops. But I still sometimes take a unit for fluff though I prefer my questing knights.

Sir Charles
26-03-2006, 22:09
You know I don't think I have ever used PK should probably try them some time just for the fun of it.

Crazy Harborc
27-03-2006, 01:37
My pegs usually break even on points. I prefer taking more groundbound knights instead. 3000points worth of knights, bows, heroes and men-at-arms, with my buddie/hero of many battles......the green knight:D

sparky
27-03-2006, 13:33
To me, Warhammer is supposed to be about large numbers of massed infantry. Everything else should just be support. The original aim of 6th edition was to get back to this ideal (it even makes sense commercially, since it sells more models), but things have fallen apart since then.

This means that it's hard to get an actual game of Warhammer at a tournament. You tend to end up playing some kind of cavalry-skirmish game instead - one I do not care for.

Subscan
27-03-2006, 13:47
@sparky:

totally agree. for my part, i hate it to play all cav armies, and i know no-one who really enjoys it. itīs an all or nothing game, the one who charges wins.

while with infantry imho strategy plays a far greater role... a charge is no security to win a fight, which is great, cos the odds are even, both players enjoy the game and can hope to win...
thatīs why i started to play warhammer, cos i like the whole strategy issue. not because i want to massacre my opponents and win by all means...

GranFarfar
27-03-2006, 15:55
@sparky:
while with infantry imho strategy plays a far greater role... a charge is no security to win a fight, which is great, cos the odds are even, both players enjoy the game and can hope to win...
thatīs why i started to play warhammer, cos i like the whole strategy issue. not because i want to massacre my opponents and win by all means...

I canīt really fully agree on this part. In a all cav vs all cav the tactic involved will be just as advanced as the one in infantry vs infantry.

In all cav vs infantry on the other hand, I find that the infantry player will need to put alot more effort in the game to pull of a win - simply because I consider all-cav a bit to good.

Latro
27-03-2006, 16:22
In all cav vs infantry on the other hand, I find that the infantry player will need to put alot more effort in the game to pull of a win - simply because I consider all-cav a bit to good.

Playing all-cavalry, I always see an opponent playing a balanced infantry based army as having the advantage:

- He is the one that will be shooting my smaller units while I try to get into position.

- He is the one can use a small unit to divert my all-important charge ... making it a futile suicide.

- He is the one with his counter-attackers waiting for me to get into range for a charge.

- He is the one that can simply flee with his unit, stranding my chargers right in front of the rest of his army.

The main weapon I have against all this is speed and manouvrebility. Since the large majority of cavalry can not hope to win against a fully-ranked infantry unit head-on, manouvring yourself into a winning charge can be quite hard ... against a competent opponent.

People that sit in a corner, shoot a bit and hope they will survive the charge deserve to get massacred.

:cool:

Trunks
27-03-2006, 19:19
These "all infantry" armies would tend to do a bit better if they weren't as "unbalanced" as the "all cavalry armies". You deserve to have troubles against certain armies if your army is allowed to take cavalry and skirmishers to help them against various opponents, and you blatantly refuse to take them just to have an "all infantry" army due to some notion that "that is what warhammer is all about". A unit or two or three of light cavalry or skirmishers can turn the situation around pretty well (dwarves can't get them, but they have other equalizers).

Gisoreux de Ponthieu
27-03-2006, 20:17
To me, Warhammer is supposed to be about large numbers of massed infantry. Everything else should just be support. The original aim of 6th edition was to get back to this ideal (it even makes sense commercially, since it sells more models), but things have fallen apart since then.

This means that it's hard to get an actual game of Warhammer at a tournament. You tend to end up playing some kind of cavalry-skirmish game instead - one I do not care for.

I understand completly what you mean, but what to do with brets? Four different knight groups, varying between core, special and rare. Have to take one Kotr group and a BSB that has to be mounted. For the remainder our heroes and lords can't choose to be one foot unless with the virtue of empathy, which if used more then once is a complete waste of the virtue. Unless I have to throw every lord and paladin in the same unit, I'm either forced to take more cav or let the rest be loners (never wise). I've used all-cav armies (and they've burned horribly) yet mostly -in a 2000 pts army- I choose to take of all knight kinds one unit, either six or nine (never larger) and fill the remainder of my points with the socalled lowborn (maa, bowmen and treb) and a unit of 3 PK and some heroes and a duke.

Flypaper
28-03-2006, 00:52
I echo Trunks and Latro - learn the Checkerboard formation, invest in enough support troops that your opponent can't pick and choose his battles, and the cavalry vs. massed infantry matchup becomes pretty fair.

Theoryhammer-wise, an all-cavalry army is best suited to wiping out an all-skirmishing army on an open field (and we don't want to encourage all-skirmishing armies, do we boys and girls? ;) ), or for advancing under massed S3-S4 fire.

...Note that I still think cavalry is slightly too good for what it does. Not enormously so, though.

Redvampire7
28-03-2006, 18:35
I have no problem with it as long as its Brets. All others should be penalised in a way (special choice?). What irks me is the ability to choose inner circle and chosen as core. You can have cav armies in VC too (full of wolves and BKnights) with a BD theme but at least you cannot take other juicy stuff like spirit hosts.
At the moment though cav is undercosted (or elite infantry is overcosted). If everything was fare and square I don't think anyone would have a problem. Realism aside a full cav force is a fantasy staple and we shouldn't be without it.

Latro
28-03-2006, 19:58
All others should be penalised in a way (special choice?). What irks me is the ability to choose inner circle and chosen as core.

... Chosen are limited to one unit per army and a small unit of five with command comes at a cost of 275 pts. How could they possibly be more restricted than that?

:confused: