PDA

View Full Version : How much should Cavalry cost against Infantry?



Gaargod
17-10-2012, 03:30
Warning: Text!


It goes to say that in 7th ed, cavalry were better than they are now. 8th ed brought a whole host of nerfs - random charges removed a lot of the bonus from their speed, attacks in initiative means charging is less important, step-up means they can no longer simply kill the front rank and be impervious, and steadfast means they can't then run that unit over easily.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Cavalry were too strong. When cavalry, even super-heavy cavalry, could reliably charge and break infantry to the front, something probably isn't right.


However, this has led to an interesting problem. Namely, cavalry are still being costed like we are in 7th ed, I think. A few examples of heavy cavalry:

Chaos Warriors to Chaos Knights - a barded steed and a sword of might raises a chaos warrior an enormous 24pts from 16 (shield) to 40. That's 150% of initial cost added on top of their original price! (although compared to others, something of a steal still considering).
Saurus Warriors to Saurus Cavalry - a barded steed and +1WS and +1I means an equally huge raise of 23pts from 12 to 35! That's 192%!
High Elf Spearman to Silver Helm - a barded steed (and swapping spear for lance, and light armour+shield for heavy armour) raises costs 11pts from 9pts to 21pts. That's 122%.

Light cavalry were similarly afflicted:
Dark Elf Spearmen to Dark Riders - a steed means a raise of 11pts from 6 to 17! That's 183%!
Glade Guard to Glade Riders - a steed and a spear means a raise of 12pts from 12to 24. That's 100%!

Also note that often these price increases come with a change of slot from core to special, (especially where heavy cavalry are concerned) effectively increasing their 'worth' further!

Now, unfortunately, the new books aren't fixing this really. Compare heavy cavalry:

Empire Swordsman to Knight - a barded steed, lance, +1LD and light>full plate armour means a price raise of 15pts from 7 to 22. 214% of initial (although not as bad due to the vastly better gear! Note that this is core to core)
Orc Boy to Boar Boy - a barded steed means a raise of 10pts from 6 to 16. That's a colossal 167% (a particularly offensive price rise).
Grave Guard to Black Knight - a barded steed (with ethereal movement) means a raise of 10pts from 11 to 21. 90% (Notably, this is special to special though, not core to special).
Greatswords to Reiksguard - a barded steed and +1S raises the price 16pts, from 11 to 27. 145% (special to special)

Or light cavalry:
Goblin to Goblin Wolf Rider - a steed raises the price 7pts from 3 to 10. That's a crazy233% (core to core).
Tomb King Archer to Horse Archer - a steed raises the price 8pts from 6 to 14. 133%. (core to core)



Again, I feel it is clearly demonstrable that GW rules devs put a huge premium on being on a horse. I'd like to argue there's something going on with core being automatically 'worse' priced than special units too, but let's leave that for another time. So the question I pose you is - Are they right? Is being on a horse worth such a price hike?Let us consider what it gets you:

> +1/2 armour save. Great.
> +attack(s). Not bad, although the attack is often weak and second+ ranks cannot attack. (yes, we all know horses hit harder than knights, shh).
> +speed (usually, but not always, about +3Mv for heavy cav) and swiftstride.
> +no being stomped.

> -space. Cavalry models take up extra room on the battlefield, which is not a good thing
> -access. Cavalry models can't occupy buildings, and can't ride horses when assaulting them.
> -misc (i.e. fear of flaming attacks for cavalry, no dual wielding, etc)

The speed is of course the big 'bonus'. But is it such a big deal? It will absolutely help you get the charge - but having the charge isn't actually that big a deal anymore. The additional movement is very, very useful, but realistically is it worth literally more than double the model's actual cost?


So I ask you Warseer, how should cavalry be priced?


Edit: I deliberately left out Monstrous Cavalry. They're really a different issue - the extra wounds and stomps (and usually much better cavalry attacks) means they're a whole different ballgame to what is basically faster and slightly tougher/hittier infantry.

Edit 2: The poll may be slightly confusing. The question is how much should the price of cavalry be to infantry, not the additional cost compared to initial cost as above.

-Totenkopf-
17-10-2012, 05:12
I feel that most of the cav in the game, if used correctly are very much worth their points.. The speed is of course the biggest bonus, but the armour saves of heavy knights need a very specific counter.. That being said, some cav units in the game need to be recosted - some more and some less, eg chaos knights need to be up closer to the price of blood knights and cold ones could drop a couple... the problem with lowering the cost of cav across the board is the huge impact it will have on the meta game.. players with access to lore of metal will be forced to bring it and those that don't will have to restructure lists.. im not a fan of anything that messes with the balance of the game..
Should GW ever tweak the rules for steadfast and flank charges, cav will no longer be a total write off..

Kayosiv
17-10-2012, 05:36
I think about a 150% increase or regular guy X 2.5 is about right, but it depends on many factors.

Is the horse barded? Part of the reason that black knights are so cheap is because the horse isn't barded, barding costs extra points.

How fast is it? Goblin wolf riders are so expensive in part because they are movement 9 instead of 7 or 8.

Do the mounts have special rules or stats. Chaos knight steeds are strength 4, which is a pretty big deal. Cold ones are as well, but they are also stupid, which should drastically decrease their cost. Boars are far better than horses on the charge because the get +2 strength, which could account for why they are so expensive, etc etc etc.

Don't forget swift stride in your analysis. Increased moving is nice and getting charges or flanks is more combat result, but the increased liklihood to effectively run away when defeated or destroy fleeing units is huge.

m1acca1551
17-10-2012, 06:26
I think knights are appropriatly costed for what they actually do, there are some some that are not Silver helms, saurus warriors etc and most knights are simply excluded from lists based purely on there are cheaper foot infantry that can do a better job vs cost. I dont think you can place a X% cost on how much cav shold cost in relation to an army.

The only army that really needs to have cheaper cav is Brettonia due to steadfast, stepping up etc. (basing argument on knights stats staying the same) Other armies have knights as special purpose roles in which they excel and are costed appropriatly.

In 8th edition infantry are king, to compare a knight/cav to another core/special/rare infantry unit is simply unrealistic due to role they actually perform.

So i'm ticking "i like polls" purely for the above, that cav should be costed to themselves role/equipment/rules etc.

Urgat
17-10-2012, 07:23
For the most part they're priced right. As a goblin player, I can tell you that even though I'd looooove my wolf riders to be cheaper, that would be terribad for my opponents. There's a couple units that strike me as very badly priced (saurus on cold ones too expensive, mournfangs way too cheap), probably a couple others I don't know about, other than that, they're fine.


The speed is of course the big 'bonus'. But is it such a big deal? It will absolutely help you get the charge - but having the charge isn't actually that big a deal anymore. The additional movement is very, very useful, but realistically is it worth literally more than double the model's actual cost?

Yes, definitely. On charging alone, the point isn't really to charge first, but to charge where you want. If you're half the battleboard away when you want to charge a unit, well, you can't, obviously :p But there's plenty of other matters than charge. For instance, my wolf riders never charge anything excepted other light cavalry or equivalent (hounds). Not their role.

So I voted "I like polls" because none of the other choices reflect my opinion.

Petey
17-10-2012, 07:33
the cost has been told to us in the first BRB, in like 3rd ed. Cavalry costs double the cost of the model on foot plus the cost of the mount. This is correct. Given that mounted you get excellent additional range and improved armor save, and an increased likelyhood of a charge, it seems correctly priced. The cost of monsterous infantry, cavalry and monsters on the other hand...

Urgat
17-10-2012, 07:42
Back in 3rd ed, they used a table to calculate point costs; it doesn't work like that anymore, they're clearly using an empiric way, you won't find that a boar boy costs two boyz+1 boar anymore. Now what reasons they use for price increases/decreases is up in the air.

The Low King
17-10-2012, 09:05
I think most cav are priced about right, though some could be a few points cheaper.

Petey
17-10-2012, 09:11
Back in 3rd ed, they used a table to calculate point costs; it doesn't work like that anymore, they're clearly using an empiric way, you won't find that a boar boy costs two boyz+1 boar anymore. Now what reasons they use for price increases/decreases is up in the air.

Actually, the formula still works for cavalry and infantry, but the cost of the mounts has decreased, as has the cost of champions, heroes and mages. The decrease in the cost of mounts happened some time in like 4th ed. and they even talked about it in WD. Horses may currently cost next to nothing.

Take for example, TK skeleton warriors and horsemen. If one adds a spear to the warrior (1point) this brings them to 5. Double that to a horseman 10, plus cost of the mount which in this case is 2. If you do the same math with skeleton archers v horsebow skellies, you ll find that it works out exactly the same. The same can be worked out (in almost every case) with every other cavalry in its own respective army book. This is especially true in 8th edition.

Urgat
17-10-2012, 09:34
Still the formula isn't applied, or at least provides some leeway: if we take the basic orc boy as the correct price, and apply the formula to get the price of a boar, we'd get boars at 4pts. So that should make savage orc boar boyz at 20pts (same default gears for each choice, on foot or mounted), which is not the case. Wolf riders went two pts cheaper than in the previous edition while common goblins stayed the same, no changes otherwise. If we accept that the formula does work for the regular boar boyz, that still makes two units out of 3 were the formula doesn't apply (I'm ignoring the spiders on purpose, there's no way to know the mount's price).

Kalandros
17-10-2012, 09:37
I'd give 2W to non-fast cavalry...
Problem solved!

TheDungen
17-10-2012, 10:33
oh sorry i voted equally i meant equally as to what they do today. I should've moved it up one then i guess. Well my point is that cavalry needs to be better not cheaper. First of flank charges needs to be able to break steadfast units. then we'll go one edition seeing how that goes and if that doesn't do enough for cavalry we need to address the matter again.

and historically speaking cavalry was used as sledgehammer to break infantry formations so why shouldn't heavy cavalry be usable to break the enemy front?
Pikes where to way to counter cavalry, or ditches or terrain but when a normal sized unit of infantry got caught out in the open by cavalry they died, simple as that...

maybe they could introduce a rule called heavy cavalry that gives certain cavalry units impact hits.drawing a greater distinction between the roles of light and heavy cavalry.

Oogie boogie boss
17-10-2012, 10:57
Again, they're pricing isn't just about how much more damage they can do than the infantry equivalent, but about how they can effect the game overall- restricting opposition movement, creating more wide-reaching tactical options, being able to more easily determine targets, etc.
Cavalry in 8th acts a lot more like it did historically, particularly from around 1650-1900; restricting the oppositions options and allowing battles to be fought on your terms.
So I think, with a few exceptions, cavalry are definitely still worth their points. They aren't the hammerblow they used to be, but they can still win battles.

Rake
17-10-2012, 12:02
I think a 50% mark up for weak (stats in the 3s region armor save 4+ tops also wargear) is enough. Problem comes up with wolf riders. Make them an exception.
For excellent stats (4 and 5 in the important stats and multiple attacks) 100% is enough. With the new spells, quantity of bodies counts... a lot.

IcedCrow
17-10-2012, 13:29
I have no problem with the current pricing of cavalry. A unit has more worth than simply what it can reliably kill. Once people can get over "making their points back", they will see that a unit has multiple uses.

Cavalry is a great support piece, as it should be. It should never be busting hordes of infantry from frontal charges. Ever. Chaos knights may be the exception but in 7th edition, one of the biggest complaints I had in that system was that everyone took nothing but cavalry because cavalry was simply too dominant due to its speed, guaranteed charge distance, strike first if you charge, and no step up. This made armies look nothing like armies and instead look like cav-lines, which is absurd unless you are a Bretonnian army.

Cavalry in 8th edition functions very well... provided you aren't trying to frontal charge a horde of infantry on your own with them. That's the big sticking point... you can't frontal charge a horde of infantry on your own with them. I've pulled off many flank charges with my chaos knights in this edition and annihilated infantry with it. Granted they won't always flee due to steadfast (a rule I feel is a bit too heavy handed in this edition when it comes to flanking and rear charging, to me it shouldn't exist during those incidents) but nothing short of great rolling on my opponents part can save whatever I decide to frontal charge them with.

Add them as a support piece with a dedicated infantry unit like chaos warriors and you have the makings of a powerful combination that supports itself and can destroy pretty much anything in the game. You just can't go charging off on your own with them.

Then there's their mobility. I can swing them to a flank and their mere PRESENCE on the extreme wing of the table makes my opponent have to deal with them, even if they do nothing but STAND THERE because of the POTENTIAL havoc that they can cause. They either have to dedicate shooting / magic to neutralize them (thus leaving my main battle line alone as it grinds toward them) OR they have to swing their own combat units to face them on the flank, turning and dividing their own battle line.

As such, I feel chaos knights are well worth their price tag, as is most cavalry units in the game. The only cav units I feel are relatively worthless are tomb kings cavalry.

Summary: knights aren't used as the blunt sledge hammer that they were in the previous edition. They are a support piece now, and function very well as a support piece. They are costed about what they need to be. Making them cheaper seems to be an attempt to be able to swarm the enemy with them with wave after wave of cavalry charge which starts creeping into the realm of the ludicrous again, where armies stop resembling armies and more like waves of cavalry lines.

NOTE: I used chaos knights as the OP referred to their price as "too much". Our empire player who is currently leading our league uses knights to support his charges and has dominated people with it, despite the intrawebz assuring us that cavalry is too expensive and worthless today.

logan054
17-10-2012, 14:57
Cavalry is a great support piece, as it should be. It should never be busting hordes of infantry from frontal charges. Ever. Chaos knights may be the exception but in 7th edition, one of the biggest complaints I had in that system was that everyone took nothing but cavalry because cavalry was simply too dominant due to its speed, guaranteed charge distance, strike first if you charge, and no step up. This made armies look nothing like armies and instead look like cav-lines, which is absurd unless you are a Bretonnian army.

I think with some of the older books cavalry is indeed overpriced, generally I do agree with you, the problem is the mindset of people who play the game, this is why you always see people going on about hordes and death, cavalry just don't fit into this points denial style of play that so many people online try and promote, basically anything that is deemed as requiring some thought to is deemed sub-optimal, that isn't to say certain books don't have units that are trash when compared to others (WoC has many units that perform the same role, some are just better at the job than others).

I do think Chaos knights should come down slightly and lose magical attacks, but then generally cavalry has been coming down in points anyways.

I also don't think you can have some magical formula for working out the points of cavalry, because it really depends on how many stat increases they get over standard infantry, what those stat increases are and if they are designed as heavy, medium or light cavalry.

Urgat
17-10-2012, 15:37
I've pulled off many flank charges with my chaos knights in this edition and annihilated infantry with it. Granted they won't always flee due to steadfast (a rule I feel is a bit too heavy handed in this edition when it comes to flanking and rear charging, to me it shouldn't exist during those incidents) but nothing short of great rolling on my opponents part can save whatever I decide to frontal charge them with.

God damned chaos knights, if my trolls don't get them paws on them, they make bloody work of my gobs, I hate them. Cavalry weak my *** :p

Petey
17-10-2012, 17:18
Still the formula isn't applied, or at least provides some leeway: if we take the basic orc boy as the correct price, and apply the formula to get the price of a boar, we'd get boars at 4pts. So that should make savage orc boar boyz at 20pts (same default gears for each choice, on foot or mounted), which is not the case. Wolf riders went two pts cheaper than in the previous edition while common goblins stayed the same, no changes otherwise. If we accept that the formula does work for the regular boar boyz, that still makes two units out of 3 were the formula doesn't apply (I'm ignoring the spiders on purpose, there's no way to know the mount's price).

I see your point. There may indeed be leeway, though I wonder if the price break on boar boys is due to their not getting either of the traditional advantages of cavalry (fast cav for lightly armored cavalry, and great armor save for heavy cavalry respectively). Certainly Reckless Abandon doesn't seem like it should give them a 2pt discount (which is the only difference between them and foot savages)

As to the cost of wolf riders going down, that could simply be an adjustment to the cost of wolves, the rest of the equation seems correct. Certainly, if we hold that horses are worth 2-3 points, then I can see wolves at move 9 being 4pts.

The place that I still don't understand the math is how they cost mounts for heroes

Urgat
17-10-2012, 17:31
Ah, you'll never find a proper formula for character mounts, especially if you take OnG into account: I don't remember which way it is, but between great cave squigs and gigantic spiders, one is more expensive for a warboss than a big boss, while the other one is more expensive for a big boss and less for a warboss. Go explain that one :p

IcedCrow
17-10-2012, 17:41
The devs have stated many times that there is no formula. They go with what feels right to them.

TheDungen
17-10-2012, 18:16
Again, they're pricing isn't just about how much more damage they can do than the infantry equivalent, but about how they can effect the game overall- restricting opposition movement, creating more wide-reaching tactical options, being able to more easily determine targets, etc.
Cavalry in 8th acts a lot more like it did historically, particularly from around 1650-1900; restricting the oppositions options and allowing battles to be fought on your terms.
So I think, with a few exceptions, cavalry are definitely still worth their points. They aren't the hammerblow they used to be, but they can still win battles.

yeah but warhammer isnt strictly based in 1650-1800, actually the only army that could possibly fit in that section is the empire.

And yes cavalry should be mowing down infantry in the front they should at least be able to go toe to toe with equal points in infantry. If you want to limit them give each army a pike or spearwall unit and you'll have a much more realistic battlefield.

on the other hand there should be clearer distinction between sledgehammer cavalry and flanking cavalry. Give heavy cavalry impact hits but make them harder to manoeuvre and then if needed make fast cavalry even more manoeuvrable and able to negate steadfast of flanking and rear charging (everything should do this on the other hand). This will mean defining their roles better and probably making both fast cavalry and heavy cavalry more viable. infantry is supposed to have its uses of course, they are meant to hold the enemy in place while you deliver the flank charge with either skirmishers or fast cavalry. heavy cavalry is either used in small units to hold of enemy fast cavalry from your flanks or to break hole in the enemies battleline for your infantry to pour though, divide and conquer.

The Low King
17-10-2012, 18:24
yeah but warhammer isnt strictly based in 1650-1800, actually the only army that could possibly fit in that section is the empire.

And yes cavalry should be mowing down infantry in the front they should at least be able to go toe to toe with equal points in infantry. If you want to limit them give each army a pike or spearwall unit and you'll have a much more realistic battlefield.

Realistic in what sense?

Petey
17-10-2012, 18:30
The devs have stated many times that there is no formula. They go with what feels right to them.

Lies and deceit. They admitted at Games Day Australia that they still use the formula from 40k Rogue Trader edition 1. And we see evidence that for the majority of units (if not characters and monsters) they use the same rules from fantasy BRB edition 3, that they always have. I don't think they use these strictly, I bet they play with the numbers a little after they come up with what it should be, like in the case of the savage boar boyz above, but by and large, the evidence points to them still using these rules for cost of model.

So by "what feels right" they mean, "we have a system we don't want criticized and mathed to death by our player base, who usually are better at this then we are."

Petey
17-10-2012, 18:38
yeah but warhammer isnt strictly based in 1650-1800, actually the only army that could possibly fit in that section is the empire.

And yes cavalry should be mowing down infantry in the front they should at least be able to go toe to toe with equal points in infantry. If you want to limit them give each army a pike or spearwall unit and you'll have a much more realistic battlefield.

on the other hand there should be clearer distinction between sledgehammer cavalry and flanking cavalry. Give heavy cavalry impact hits but make them harder to manoeuvre and then if needed make fast cavalry even more manoeuvrable and able to negate steadfast of flanking and rear charging (everything should do this on the other hand). This will mean defining their roles better and probably making both fast cavalry and heavy cavalry more viable. infantry is supposed to have its uses of course, they are meant to hold the enemy in place while you deliver the flank charge with either skirmishers or fast cavalry. heavy cavalry is either used in small units to hold of enemy fast cavalry from your flanks or to break hole in the enemies battleline for your infantry to pour though, divide and conquer.

In history, only very few military organizations used "sledgehammer cavalry." Alexander did, Frankish Knights post 1050, and crusader knights did. Perhaps one could argue that the Teutonic Knights did (though I certainly wouldn't). Cavalry rarely "mowed down infantry," generally they mowed down fleeing troops only. Heavy cavalry hit hard, but almost universally, in theaters other than the ones I listed above, infantry would beat them, unless they were disordered (due to terrain or being out maneuvered).

Also, spearmen in warhammer are terrible against cavalry. I agree with you that they Should be the answer, but honestly they aren't. The current rules, while not ideal, are the best they've ever come up with for real balance between infantry and cavalry. Giving Heavy cav impact hits screws up the balance that they've achieved.

logan054
17-10-2012, 20:08
The devs have stated many times that there is no formula. They go with what feels right to them.

or, what will sell the models...

Von Wibble
17-10-2012, 20:22
I'm guessing you meant "sell" rather than "see"?

I'd like to think they apply smoe kind of instinctual value then playtest it and adjust, then playtest some more etc. I do get the feeling they forget to playtest after adjusting rules though....

Personally I think most cavalry is priced fine, with a few exceptions. I can't think of any fast cavalry other than wolf riders that couldn't do with a bit of a price decrease, and Tomb King Heavy Horse are worth about 8-9 points each as stands! I also unlike the OP think special and rare should be better value for points than core - no point having a limit to how many are allowed if they aren't worth taking!

Urgat
17-10-2012, 20:46
or, what will see the models...

I can think of quite a few new models they really didn't want to sell, then... I only need to look at the beastmen rares for instance :p Too many instances where this doesn't apply for this silly paranoia Warseer loves to bath in to be true.

logan054
17-10-2012, 22:11
When they wrote the rules for the beastman rares they didn't have any models to sell ;)

Urgat
17-10-2012, 22:40
Harry has said countless times that release schedules were planned years in advance. They knew the plastics were coming and when, maybe they were even done. But fine. So they purposedly made the beast rares bad in order not to compete with the other, good, existing kits for rares that beastmen players would buy otherwise, which are...? The giant with teh rules they forgot to boost maybe? No seriously, tell me the point :p

Spiney Norman
17-10-2012, 22:48
Empire Swordsman to Knight - a barded steed, lance, +1LD and light>full plate armour means a price raise of 15pts from 7 to 22. 214% of initial (although not as bad due to the vastly better gear! Note that this is core to core)


Ok, hopefully we're not too surprised that books like chaos warriors, wood elves and dark elves were costed for 7th edition rules seeing as how they are 7th edition books, so I'll focus on the examples from 8E books

What does an Empire knight actually get for those 15pts?
Assuming we're comparing to a swordsman he gets +3 movement, +3/+4 to his armour save depending on his choice of weapon (but loses the change to parry), gains either a lance or great weapon and an additional str3 attack from his horse. It's not unlike comparing apples to oranges, but I'd suggest the stat increases alone warrant the difference in points cost.


Orc Boy to Boar Boy - a barded steed means a raise of 10pts from 6 to 16. That's a colossal 167% (a particularly offensive price rise).
An "offensive" price rise? Are you serious? Boars are str 5 on the charge, not to mention the +2 to AS and the movement bonus, 10pts seems a pretty good deal for that if you ask me.


Goblin to Goblin Wolf Rider - a steed raises the price 7pts from 3 to 10. That's a crazy233% (core to core).
It's less crazy when you consider what you get for the fast cavalry rule, the ability to vanguard yourself into a good position to shoot/harass, not to mention that in the case of goblins their steeds are often better at fighting than the rider is. Also wolf riders are M9, I don't think you get how fast that is.


Tomb King Archer to Horse Archer - a steed raises the price 8pts from 6 to 14. 133%. (core to core)
You won't catch me arguing that TK horsemen of both flavours don't suck, they do. Fast cavalry that can't march are a total waste of space, and if you want archers in your TK army you don't really gain much by taking them on riders. It's actually the lack of marching that turns TK horsemen into a irrelevance because it neuters so many of the advantages of being mounted.




> +1/2 armour save. Great.
> +attack(s). Not bad, although the attack is often weak and second+ ranks cannot attack. (yes, we all know horses hit harder than knights, shh).
> +speed (usually, but not always, about +3Mv for heavy cav) and swiftstride.
> +no being stomped.

> -space. Cavalry models take up extra room on the battlefield, which is not a good thing
> -access. Cavalry models can't occupy buildings, and can't ride horses when assaulting them.
> -misc (i.e. fear of flaming attacks for cavalry, no dual wielding, etc)

Space isn't that big a deal, at least in the case of 25mm infantry cavalry don't generally take up a great deal more space than infantry (given that cavalry units tend to be smaller than infantry ones anyway) and even compared to 20mm infantry their frontage isn't going to be that much bigger.
And honestly, fear is the biggest waste of space this edition, the fear rule is a complete irrelevance.

It's also worth noting that there are plenty of infantry that cannot dual-wield as well, Empire swordsmen for example, its also worth noting that savage Orc boar Boyz CAN dual-wield.


The speed is of course the big 'bonus'. But is it such a big deal? It will absolutely help you get the charge - but having the charge isn't actually that big a deal anymore. The additional movement is very, very useful, but realistically is it worth literally more than double the model's actual cost?
Well the speed isn't the only thing you're paying for, the extra attack is handy, and worth something at least, and the +2AS granted by a Barded/thick-skinned mount is very good indeed and the stomp immunity is brilliant too. As I said above fast cavalry are a different kettle of fish entirely but they have some very nifty special rules (esp their deployment shenanigans) which definitely deserve a higher cost.

However speed is good, being able to out-manouvre your opponent is still a significant advantage in warhammer, even if the steadfast-haters are trying to convince us all that steadfast makes flank/rear charges irrelevant.

I'd say as a rough guide cavalry costing about 2x the price of the same guy on foot would be fair, adding extra points for stuff like barding, and other special rules or equipment that comes as part of the package.

The Low King
18-10-2012, 03:08
I agree with spiney norman on this.


I would also like to add that increasing an armour save from a 3+ to a 2+ is worth more than increasing an armour save from a 6+ to a 5+.
Against strength 3 a 3+ save lets through 2/6 of wounds, a 2+ save lets through 1/6. That means by going from a 3+ to a 2+ you HALF the number of wounds the unit takes. On the other hand from a 6+ to a 5+ is going from 5/6 of the wounds to 4/6 of the wounds, a much smaller difference. Obviously the values are effected by other stats like toughness as well.
So, lets compare empire knights to say swordsmen. Swordsmen with a 5+ save (shields and light armour?) and knights with a 1+ save. I would say that the increase in armour there is about 10 points (assuming an increasing cost per step), maybe slightly less because of the weak human stats. Then you add the movement, lance and horse attack.

Snake1311
18-10-2012, 09:28
I wonder is people are aware that at the moment heavy cavalry is stronger than infantry...

Many of new books have some of their top builds based on cavalry deathstars - VC and Empire are certainly using knights a lot. TK and OK don't have heavy cav; so the only army where the heavy cavalry unit doesn't seem to be up to scratch is O&G boar boyz.

Lord Solar Plexus
18-10-2012, 09:36
I too think that the initial premise is rather flawed. Empirically, both Knights and cavalry are seen quite often, and especially with new books. Secondly, the point cost for a basic Empire Knight is only 21 points, not 22, so they in fact became cheaper, and the Swordsman used for comparison more expensive.

What's more, a boost of +2 to armour alone would cost some 15 points, if not more, except for the enchanted shield. Strength, range and mobility are most certainly enough to make up the difference, and then you often get better stats and an additional attack. Better speed means a lesser chance of impact hits, while being cavalry makes the unit immune to stomps.

It's really costed pretty well, after all is said and done.

Urgat
18-10-2012, 09:45
so the only army where the heavy cavalry unit doesn't seem to be up to scratch is O&G boar boyz.
And they're really not so bad. They may not be the best, but they do have quite a lot of uses, and if we compare them to how they were in the previous edition... The choppa rule combined to regular spears (effectively making those spears lances on the charge) do provide some welcome "hoomf!".

Vipoid
18-10-2012, 10:34
And yes cavalry should be mowing down infantry in the front they should at least be able to go toe to toe with equal points in infantry.

Not really, since the cavalry should also be paying for the extra speed, maneuverability, swiftstride. If they have lances, then they should certainly be able to perform a devastating charge against the infantry. However, if they don't break the infantry, then they should take heavier losses in subsequent turns, since they've lost the momentum. Obviously, the best way to mitigate this is to use their superior maneuverability to flank/rear-charge the infantry unit.

oldWitheredCorpse
18-10-2012, 11:08
You won't catch me arguing that TK horsemen of both flavours don't suck, they do. Fast cavalry that can't march are a total waste of space, and if you want archers in your TK army you don't really gain much by taking them on riders. It's actually the lack of marching that turns TK horsemen into a irrelevance because it neuters so many of the advantages of being mounted.

Horse archers are not so bad. Using three units of 5 is almost a trend. They can't march, but they can't be panicked either. And TK horsemen scout AND vanguard, so they should definitely be able to be in the right place the first 3 turns.

TK Horsemen, on the other hand ...

TheDungen
18-10-2012, 16:59
In history, only very few military organizations used "sledgehammer cavalry." Alexander did, Frankish Knights post 1050, and crusader knights did. Perhaps one could argue that the Teutonic Knights did (though I certainly wouldn't). Cavalry rarely "mowed down infantry," generally they mowed down fleeing troops only. Heavy cavalry hit hard, but almost universally, in theaters other than the ones I listed above, infantry would beat them, unless they were disordered (due to terrain or being out maneuvered).

Also, spearmen in warhammer are terrible against cavalry. I agree with you that they Should be the answer, but honestly they aren't. The current rules, while not ideal, are the best they've ever come up with for real balance between infantry and cavalry. Giving Heavy cav impact hits screws up the balance that they've achieved.

Very few heavy armoured knights were ever used for running down fleeing enemies, they were used to break the enemy where they seemed weakest, the Normans used this when they fought the English the English used this when fighting the Scottish. Its simple nobles could afford horses and armour and they didn't want to be assigned to running down fleeing peasants.

The parthians and the eastern roman empire both used heavy armoured catrapctii for breaking enemy formations. history have usually been periodic with reliance on spears infantry or horsemen, because spearwalls (and even more so pike walls but in ancient times they didn't make the distinction) make cavalry inefficient (it was efficient but not compared to the losses they took and the cost of replacing them. Trained infantry like with throwing spears and swords usually defeated spear men but got defeated by cavalry. its rock paper scissors. and warhammer would gain much tactical depths if it took this into account. Winning would be less about list building and more about making sure to use the right tool for the right job. also as i said earlier making a much clearer distinction between the role of heavy and light cavalry.

and the reasons that cavalry weren't used as sledgehamemrs more in history (and i still think you underestimate the amount it were used that way) is that the most common weapon in the history of mankind is the spear.

The Low King
18-10-2012, 17:03
Very few heavy armoured knights were ever used for running down fleeing enemies, they were used to break the enemy where they seemed weakest.

Thats the key thing, they attacked when the enemy was weak, not right into a full horde of infantry

Gurrfang
18-10-2012, 17:17
I'd say cavalry its just about right. When talking about the changes from 7th to 8th, one of the best things they did was add step up. All a chaos player had to do against 30 black orcs was charge his chosen knights of khorne into the front and feel really smart about it. Cavalry are still effective, you simply need to think about flanking your opponent now.

Phazael
18-10-2012, 17:39
Most cav units are fairly priced, people are just not adapting their unit sizes to the new edition. I think a couple of the fast cav units need to be reduced in cost and/or moved to core (Mounted yeoman, Pistoleers, HE Reavers, ect) and some heavy cavalry units might need a slight cost reduction (Questing Knights, Cold One Knights, Silver Helms, Wild Riders, Centigors) to bring them in line with the functional units. A couple of the Monsterous Cav units (Blood Crushers, Peg Knights, Demigryphs) could stand to be a little cheaper, too. Most knight units, though, are actually pretty good for what you pay, even the old out of date ones like Knights of the Realm.

T9nv3
18-10-2012, 18:16
Thats the key thing, they attacked when the enemy was weak, not right into a full horde of infantry

That's exactly how I use Blood Knights, and I've never had any problems. They do exactly what I want them to do. They hit a weak point and keep going. They are also really good at hitting certain targets that my infantry might struggle with. V.S. Lizardmen, for instance, they just eat any M.C. Overall I think that Cav is getting much better than it was at the start of 8th. I do, at least, see an attempt to move Warhammer towards a "rock paper scissors" style of gameplay..

IcedCrow
18-10-2012, 19:35
Most games I've played that I enjoy let cavalry have an advantage over heavy infantry but against spearmen or pikemen they get mowed over, whereas heavy infantry destroys spearmen / pikemen.

Petey
18-10-2012, 19:42
Very few heavy armoured knights were ever used for running down fleeing enemies, they were used to break the enemy where they seemed weakest, the Normans used this when they fought the English the English used this when fighting the Scottish. Its simple nobles could afford horses and armour and they didn't want to be assigned to running down fleeing peasants.

The parthians and the eastern roman empire both used heavy armoured catrapctii for breaking enemy formations. history have usually been periodic with reliance on spears infantry or horsemen, because spearwalls (and even more so pike walls but in ancient times they didn't make the distinction) make cavalry inefficient (it was efficient but not compared to the losses they took and the cost of replacing them. Trained infantry like with throwing spears and swords usually defeated spear men but got defeated by cavalry. its rock paper scissors. and warhammer would gain much tactical depths if it took this into account. Winning would be less about list building and more about making sure to use the right tool for the right job. also as i said earlier making a much clearer distinction between the role of heavy and light cavalry.

and the reasons that cavalry weren't used as sledgehamemrs more in history (and i still think you underestimate the amount it were used that way) is that the most common weapon in the history of mankind is the spear.

I counted the Normans in when I mentioned Frankish Knights, and crusader knights, very specifically they were in my point, however given the range of human experience on 2 continents and about 2.5 thousand years of horse use in military endeavors, very few cultures used them this way, and only for short (relatively) periods of time. And even in those armies, cavalry was not the majority of the fielded force (notable exceptions being the Huns, Mongols, and if I remember correctly the Hungarians)

I'd also argue that cataphracti broke enemy units because of their armor and staying power, not their charge, and heavy damage output (which paled in comparison to Western Equivalents).

I agree with your points entirely, for the rest of it, but I don't really think that the prior to 8th ed system was correct. Heavy cavalry could not, irl, break solid line infantry without support (with some few exceptions). I think giving them impact hits only serves to weaken infantry (which they don't need). Now if you were to suggest that spears and pikes be made stronger v cavalry, THEN give cavalry a boost against anyone who doesn't have spears, I'm all for it.

The Low King
18-10-2012, 20:05
From what i remember of my History, most cavalry were used on the flank. The Sassanids/Parithians, Ottomans and Macadonians all used Cavalry hugely as a flanking force, with infantry (or other specific units) holding the line.

Gurrfang
18-10-2012, 20:33
Exactly right, cavalry like empire knights, are excellent examples of tactical horse troops. You can't simply ram them down your opponents thought, as they will get slaughtered.
Their intended use its to make your opponent reposition himself to your main line, or suck it up and take a flank charge. There isn't too many horde units that could withstand 10+ knights in the side (no stead fast = bad news for anyone).
Of course, you can always go for massive point drops like the gut star, but that's not particularly inventive or fun.
Any rate, cavalry are priced about right, varying a few exceptions.

Spiney Norman
18-10-2012, 22:36
Horse archers are not so bad. Using three units of 5 is almost a trend. They can't march, but they can't be panicked either. And TK horsemen scout AND vanguard, so they should definitely be able to be in the right place the first 3 turns.

TK Horsemen, on the other hand ...

I know, it's just a case of learning to use them well. This probably a discussion for another thread but the thing is that horse archers, being unable to march or flee a charge do make pretty terrible light cavalry, but they do do harassment/speed bump quite well. I'm actually warming up to massed skeleton horsemen a lot more. They may be a lousy unit, but they are pretty cheap for what they do and vanguard brings a much-needed speed boost to an otherwise cripplingly slow army. At the end of the day TK work by ganging up on the enemy with a group of cheap units that bring different strengths to the table.

zak
18-10-2012, 23:17
I don't think cavalry as a whole are expensive. I voted for the 150-250 range as a feel this is about right for the abilities they bring. Monstrous cavalry are usually the bane of cavalry. Why use Knights when you can have demigryphs?

Antipathy
18-10-2012, 23:39
The problem is not with Heavy Cavalry. It is with infantry. Step Up, Initiative Striking, supporting attacks. An initiative 3 Knight Errant trained from birth to ride in the saddle; carrying a lance that is half again his body height, somehow strikes the same time as an Empire Swordsman equipped with a foot and a half of steel from the rank behind the guy he has chosen to send 10 foot of metal tipped wood into? Or hell, the Militia peasant who took up his pitchfork to defend his homeland?

Steadfast, to a lesser extent.

Random charge as well. Fast Cavalry FOV reduction. These are the cavalry limitations. I can move 10" on a charge with my Heavy Cavalry, but have those same dwarfs I was about to charge then move 15". What? However that I can deal with.

Cavalry do well, because Monstrous Infantry/Cavalry ran riot for a bit, because Infantry was doing so well in the new rules. Why did they do so well? Because of the above reasons, as well as the role that Unit wide buffs from magic (mindrazor, flesh to stone, speed of
light, wildform) performed.

Cavalry are popular, because Empire Knights is essentially the only (effective) pure Cav army, with decent numbers to make up for mediocre stat lines, and Wights, with their +1 to hit killing blow weapons, ethereal movement, and blender or unkillable vampire
lord (backed up by flying monstrous infantry, healable infantry hordes and mass chaff) are extremely effective.

If the game was more tactical than it is currently, such as including more 40k style reserves, with possibly deep striking flyers, or more access to outflanking, then some armies wont find the need to simply bunker up, cast their buff spell, and fire their 6 war machines a turn. As it is, tactical gameplay is only rewarding if both player do it. If one sets out to be an idiot and 'game the game' then it ruins it for you.

Kayosiv
18-10-2012, 23:42
Why use Knights when you can have demigryphs?

Because knights can be core or stubborn. You can also put characters in them who can get look-out-sir rolls.

Gaargod
18-10-2012, 23:49
Interesting. I don't think I've ever started such a large discussion :p

First off, I'm surprised at the general sentiment of players actually - as my first post probably indicates, I think cavalry are overpriced in the current rules set. If flank charges negated steadfast, you'd be hearing no complaints. Hell, if you couldn't just turn around when being flank charged if alone (especially using steadfast LD), I wouldn't mind so much. Yes, you can hit them in the front with another unit and pin them in place, but then a reasonable question arises: What is the rest of their army doing that you can dedicate two units to outmanoeuvring and outfighting one of theirs? Unless you're playing MSU with cheap units and your opponent is using a few big blocks... That's not easy to do. It is doable - I have done it myself, but generally only when my opponent has made a mistake.
It also encourages a deathstar mindset - If I know my big block can handle a flank charge, whilst two medium sized blocks might die to it, I'll just take the big block thanks, especially with the way magic buffs work. I do not like the current army designs at all.

Or I would, If I wasn't deliberately tactically perverse :P I love my army of multiple units of saurus cavalry with heroes (and a load of support, etc). It was difficult, but enjoyable in 7th ed. In 8th, I find no matter how much I adapt that army, it doesn't work, without totally breaking the idea, in competitive play.


Someone pointed out that some of the most effective deathstars going are cavalry. This is quite true - but then in that case, you're hardly actually using the fact they're cavalry. Reiksguard are way better than normal knights, for example, as Blood Knights are to Black Knights. If you could find a blood knight on foot, for like 33% (the current most popular option being 150-250% on top of base price) of the price... well, that would be tempting, wouldn't it?


I dunno. I was just thinking about potential units in my head, and was questioning how they should be priced, and this led me on to thinking cavalry are overpriced. Normally, I merely think of how to fix the rules, but in this case I was instead thinking of how to cure the symptom rather than the disease.

Phazael
19-10-2012, 00:17
You ARE using the fact that they are cavalry. They do have better armor saves and superior statlines to other things in your army, generally speaking.

I could care less about the historical role of cavaly, because its not really relavent to game balance, especially with magic, gunpowder, and dragons in the game. I see Cavarly as mobile flank support units that can give you some punch. In the case of Brett Cav, its durable fast combat resolution. Steadfast and a bunch of other rules in 8th do hurt cavalry, but the simple fact is that even with random charges, Cavalry still dominate the movement phase and you can see a big difference in an army with some and one without. In that respect, cavalry is mostly spot on in 8th. Brett Lances, Blood Knights, Chaos Knights, and even Dragon Princes are all still very viable units in the game, for example. Some of them could use some point reduction, but not a lot.

Nubl0
19-10-2012, 02:35
I can only speak for empire but in my experience knights are a viable alternative to state troops, I have been running a list mainly centered around a large block of inner circle knights and DGK with a few supporting troops and it's been going great so far. The halbs make a great bunker for my light wizard who enables my inner circle knights to go from going toe to toe with things to outright smashing them in combat, which alot of people in my area don't expect from empire.

T9nv3
19-10-2012, 02:44
I love my army of multiple units of saurus cavalry with heroes (and a load of support, etc). It was difficult, but enjoyable in 7th ed. In 8th, I find no matter how much I adapt that army, it doesn't work, without totally breaking the idea, in competitive play.

They dont play the way they used to. I find that Cav is the support unit in 8th. They are immune to stomp, and have high st. on the charge... so they can take on a lot of tasks that are a bit of a risk for infantry. A few high st. hits are good in situations where you are facing a small elite unit...or a something big. I still find uses for them in small units.



If you could find a blood knight on foot, for like 33% (the current most popular option being 150-250% on top of base price) of the price... well, that would be tempting, wouldn't it?

Not really, what you would end up with is a 33 pt per model unit that wont perform significantly better than the 11pt grave guard. And they would lose all the advantages of being mounted.

Kayosiv
19-10-2012, 03:13
Just pointing out that 33% of 50 is 16.5, not 33. At 17 points a piece, Blood knights on foot would be a very potent unit, on par with Khorne Marked Chaos warriors that wield halbreds, but would get the benefit of a parry save and causing fear.

I'd certainly consider taking them.

Spiney Norman
19-10-2012, 08:01
Interesting. I don't think I've ever started such a large discussion :p

First off, I'm surprised at the general sentiment of players actually - as my first post probably indicates, I think cavalry are overpriced in the current rules set. If flank charges negated steadfast, you'd be hearing no complaints. Hell, if you couldn't just turn around when being flank charged if alone (especially using steadfast LD), I wouldn't mind so much. Yes, you can hit them in the front with another unit and pin them in place, but then a reasonable question arises: What is the rest of their army doing that you can dedicate two units to outmanoeuvring and outfighting one of theirs? Unless you're playing MSU with cheap units and your opponent is using a few big blocks... That's not easy to do. It is doable - I have done it myself, but generally only when my opponent has made a mistake.
It also encourages a deathstar mindset - If I know my big block can handle a flank charge, whilst two medium sized blocks might die to it, I'll just take the big block thanks, especially with the way magic buffs work. I do not like the current army designs at all.

Or I would, If I wasn't deliberately tactically perverse :P I love my army of multiple units of saurus cavalry with heroes (and a load of support, etc). It was difficult, but enjoyable in 7th ed. In 8th, I find no matter how much I adapt that army, it doesn't work, without totally breaking the idea, in competitive play.


Someone pointed out that some of the most effective deathstars going are cavalry. This is quite true - but then in that case, you're hardly actually using the fact they're cavalry. Reiksguard are way better than normal knights, for example, as Blood Knights are to Black Knights. If you could find a blood knight on foot, for like 33% (the current most popular option being 150-250% on top of base price) of the price... well, that would be tempting, wouldn't it?


I dunno. I was just thinking about potential units in my head, and was questioning how they should be priced, and this led me on to thinking cavalry are overpriced. Normally, I merely think of how to fix the rules, but in this case I was instead thinking of how to cure the symptom rather than the disease.

I think we're having a little confusion over how percentages work
If your infantry model costs 10pts, 100% of his cost is 10pts, a cavalry model that costs 200% would be 20pts
So if you want to track a blood knight back to an unmounted version when the consensus is that cavalry should cost 150-250% the cost of infantry then you should be halving the cost, not dividing it by 3. Foot blood knights would look a lot less tasty for 25pts a pop I think.

Vipoid
19-10-2012, 10:13
I could care less about the historical role of cavaly, because its not really relavent to game balance, especially with magic, gunpowder, and dragons in the game.

I strongly suggest that you take a look at this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw)...

On topic, I think the historical role of cavalry is important. Yes, we're playing a Fantasy game, but that doesn't mean that all realism should be thrown out of the window. Surely the better thought is something like "Is there a good reason for this cavalry unit to function in a significantly different manner from the historical use?" For example, cavalry ridden by elves/humans is very unlikely to be that different from the historical cavalry. Maybe the Elf one will be a bit faster, but it will change very little in terms of what said cavalry can go toe-to-toe with.

On the other hand, it's conceivable that Mornfangs or Khorne turbo-cows (Bloodcrushers) would be able to charge into the front of a unit, and emerge victorious via sheer mass.

Essentially, I think that you shouldn't discount history purely because we're playing a Fantasy game.

cptcosmic
19-10-2012, 14:20
actually combined arms was much more common and the shift to this trend already started at ~10 century. cavarly focus was dead the moment pike weapons became common. Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was the only nation that was running heavy cavarly armies effectively, but only because they build almost 7 meter long lances with the same weight as regular lances with a very expensive procedure. those lances and superior training allowed them to charge pikewalls and win without getting harmed.

anyway, the problem of cavalry is the fact that alot of the cavarly units get stuck because they have no damage output after the charge. I am not saying that a unit of 6 knights should should be able to grind down big blocks on their own but they should atleast have a decent chance to break the unit when similar point costs are involved.