PDA

View Full Version : Should cav get impact hits on the charge, how to make them worthwhile?



rocdocta
07-12-2012, 03:56
Seeing how cav traditionally operate and converting that to WHFB, it seems the only real bonus they give are slightly better move speed, slightly better armour save and a generally average attack. But with step up etc this bonus is generally worthless. what i would like to see is a uniform S4 impact hit from cav and a S5 impact hit for monstrous cav. would really convey the shock power of a cav charge and the need for them to charge to be more effective. Presently there is no bonus outside of the 1st round lance if equiped.

What would be really great is for them to cause fear on the charge.

Any thoughts on making cav better for the points?

Moss
07-12-2012, 04:07
What kind of bonus would you give chariots?

TsukeFox
07-12-2012, 04:12
All Calvary should get devastating charge. Including mounts, chariots, & robo ponies.

Lord Solar Plexus
07-12-2012, 04:24
Seeing how Knights - which to some like Delbrück are something entirely else than cavalry, and are certainly something entirely else than bulldozers or wrecking machines - operated, impact hits would be folly. That would be as absurd as asking for lightning coming out of their nostrils. Both are a Hollywoodesque fantasy.

Tanks or men don't get impact hits in games either, you know, and both can and did crash into hard obstacles on purpose. It ususally did not end well for the former.

Both Cavalry and Knights are excellent value for their points and do not need any changes.

TheDungen
07-12-2012, 04:27
i'll agree to disagree

Charistoph
07-12-2012, 05:06
I can't agree with the unit type gaining Impact Hits, but allowing for the Lance and the Mounted Spear to do so would actually represent the crush a little better, I think.

Sexiest_hero
07-12-2012, 05:40
Cav are worthwhile, them being useless was a lie spread at the beginning of 8th edition for people to complain about. If knights get impact hits, dragons should use the Flying rules from 40k, where they flying around until shot down. Giants should be able to just stomp through units, and there should be a Phelddagrif model.

Lord Solar Plexus
07-12-2012, 06:06
If you want to represent cavalry or Knights more realistically, you should introduce an Ld test whenever they declare a charge. The psychological impact of a couple dozen horses charging you was what often broke infantry after all, and this was what together with the use of the lance makes up the so-called "shock", not some imaginary command of "Ramming Speed!" and its execution. That one belongs to the field of galleys I'm afraid.

A second realistic rule would be ASF for all lancers (it might even go some way to make lances worth taking over ensorcelled weapons). There was a reason why Knights carried a lance, one that makes no sense had they just hurled themselves and their horses (often worth a mid-sized mansion) into the foe, namely that it was to be used as their weapon (not the horse). Their also was a reason why the lance was long, longer than any sidearm, and, barring the sarissa and the Swiss pike, longer than almost every footman's pole-arm, namely to deliver the crushing blow before the other one could strike and to avoid the reach of the latter, armour or not.

From a gaming perspective, the first suggestion is of course pretty meh, but then I don't think Knights or cavalry need any help. My Pistoliers and Outriders are outstanding value. Inner Circle Knights make it into 90 percent of all Empire lists. Brets with their lance rules, ward, front rank characters and the realistic chance to multi-charge are fantastic. They need a new book but not new cavalry rules. Chaos and Blood Knights have and are defeating units left, right and centre. The Vamp cavalry that can move through units would be utterly devastating if they got impact hits and so on.

From a gaming perspective, you could as well give them stomps. I don't think it is more or less realistic than impact hits though.

Arijharn
07-12-2012, 06:20
I'd give Lances on the turn they charge ASF and that would be the only change I'd make to be as well. I wouldn't change Spears though.

The bearded one
07-12-2012, 06:41
From a purely gaming perspective I dont think there's that much wrong with an impact hit on the mount's strength ( so generally an extra str3 hit). Its nothing shocking, just a little booster. As far as realism goes its not really correct ( though the bodyweight of a mount on a lance charge probably did something. The entire point of a lance is to transfer the rider and mount's momentum to the tip, but that doesnt stop the mount itself dead in its tracks, nor do knights do 'drive by lancing' where they swoop past and jab with their lance.)

GrandmasterWang
07-12-2012, 08:17
Cav is already worthwhile. Units like boarboys got a lot cheaper in 8 th.

The movement increase is not small compared to most foot soldiers.

StygianBeach
07-12-2012, 08:32
I'd give Lances on the turn they charge ASF and that would be the only change I'd make to be as well. I wouldn't change Spears though.

This mostly...

I would give Lances ASF on the turn they charge and all Cavalry rerolls to wound on the turn they charge. Rubber lance syndrome is pretty annoying...

theunwantedbeing
07-12-2012, 08:37
Against infantry in open terrain, at the strength of the mount...sure, nothing particularly wrong or abusable about it.

Kayosiv
07-12-2012, 08:49
I would much rather lances and spears get initiative 10 (NOT always strike first) on the charge.

Fear Ghoul
07-12-2012, 09:22
I would give cavalry armed with lances +2 initiative, since I despise absolute rules such as Always Strikes First. That way your average Knight is still going before an average Elf but not before a Chaos or Vampire Lord.

Krish
07-12-2012, 09:55
Definitely cavalry should get impact hits, but only against foot units and only if cavalry unit is charging. And strength should be determined by mounts strength + armor ( barding ). For example mount str 3 + to strength as much as it gives armor to the rider. So barded steed would give +2. It would add some realism and make them useful at charge. And thats what cavalry should do charge!

Snake1311
07-12-2012, 09:59
Seeing how cav traditionally operate and converting that to WHFB, it seems the only real bonus they give are slightly better move speed, slightly better armour save and a generally average attack

They have double the movement speed, are twice as tough due to the etxra armour, and have a nice little supporting attack from the mount. The first two points also make cavalry the preferred unti type for characters.

Cavalry is widely used competitively and doesn't need a boost in the slightest.

Solonor
07-12-2012, 10:32
In a game where ogres cause impact hits on a charge i think it wouldn't be that unrealistic to give Heavy Cavalry a single impact hit at the strength of the steed against infantry.

Snake1311
07-12-2012, 10:34
Ogres are squishy, cav is not....
And that is an army-specific rule. MFang do impacts consistently with other units.

Solonor
07-12-2012, 10:44
Ogres are squishy, cav is not....
And that is an army-specific rule. MFang do impacts consistently with other units.

im not saying that Ogres don't deserve it, im just saying that applying the same principle, a cavalry model could have a single impact hit at the strength of the model's steed, that would't change much, i think cavalry works fine, it should be a support unit giving them a single impact hit for model on the charge will only make them truly better agains light troops, which they should be. Historically Cavalry was great for dirupting flanks, and even at their peak, a Heavy Cavalry charge to the front only worked against light infantry.

logan054
07-12-2012, 10:55
I've always thought the lances should be that you exchange one attack on the charge for a +2 strength impact hit, if your a blood dragon/chaos knights/dragon prince/etc then the rest of your attacks are made at base strength.

Vipoid
07-12-2012, 11:10
I've always thought the lances should be that you exchange one attack on the charge for a +2 strength impact hit, if your a blood dragon/chaos knights/dragon prince/etc then the rest of your attacks are made at base strength.

That seems very reasonable.

Juicy21
07-12-2012, 11:22
Lances give devestating charge special rule would solve a lot.

Vipoid
07-12-2012, 11:43
Lances give devestating charge special rule would solve a lot.

But, when you think about it, that makes very little sense:

Surely the purpose of a lance is to concentrate the momentum of the horse and rider into one very strong attack, rather than giving them more attacks.

cptcosmic
07-12-2012, 12:02
If you want to represent cavalry or Knights more realistically, you should introduce an Ld test whenever they declare a charge. The psychological impact of a couple dozen horses charging you was what often broke infantry after all, and this was what together with the use of the lance makes up the so-called "shock", not some imaginary command of "Ramming Speed!" and its execution. That one belongs to the field of galleys I'm afraid.

a LD test would be apropriate, polish hussars won battles against armies several times their size this way. there is nothing more intimidating than disciplined chargin cavarly not bothering what happens around them, with 6 meter long lances, expensive shiny heavy armor (they polished their armor to be more intimidating) and big wings.

BUT impact hits are not far off. I know comparing games to real world is a bad idea but trained war horses had weights up to 800kg and were able to run at 35mph with all the stuff on them at the point of impact, basically small cars crashing into you. if the horse would bull rush you it would for sure produce enough of impact to knock you out. impact hits at the strength of the horse against human sized units are not that off at all.

Vipoid
07-12-2012, 12:03
If you want to represent cavalry or Knights more realistically, you should introduce an Ld test whenever they declare a charge. The psychological impact of a couple dozen horses charging you was what often broke infantry after all, and this was what together with the use of the lance makes up the so-called "shock", not some imaginary command of "Ramming Speed!" and its execution. That one belongs to the field of galleys I'm afraid.

Would giving Knights the 'Terror' rule on any turn in which they charge be reasonable then?

tmarichards
07-12-2012, 12:26
Cavalry really don't need impact hits to be worthwhile, and to be honest it'd be really bad for the game- we've already seen what happens when you give heavily armoured fast moving models impact hits, and it doesn't make for a tactical game.

danny-d-b
07-12-2012, 12:31
Terror is a bit over the top considering terror is only granted huge targets- I think reducing attacks to one to gain an impact hit might be good and changing the lance rules (+2S +2 initiative only 1 attack in first turn) as unless you had the skill and strength to spear one guy right through and then the guy behind him, your never going to kill more than one guy on the charge)

logan054
07-12-2012, 12:44
Cavalry really don't need impact hits to be worthwhile, and to be honest it'd be really bad for the game- we've already seen what happens when you give heavily armoured fast moving models impact hits, and it doesn't make for a tactical game.

Not really, we've seen what happens when you give mutiple high strength impact hits to models which already have bucket loads of attacks per model, it would have to be replace either all attacks or one attack and then be limited to the front rank otherwise horde units would be rather silly.

Vipoid
07-12-2012, 12:45
Cavalry really don't need impact hits to be worthwhile, and to be honest it'd be really bad for the game- we've already seen what happens when you give heavily armoured fast moving models impact hits, and it doesn't make for a tactical game.

Whilst I think it's an interesting discussion, I'd agree that cavalry don't really need a boost.

Although, what unit(s) are you thinking of when you talk about impact hits being given to heavily-armoured, fast-moving models?


Terror is a bit over the top considering terror is only granted huge targets

Well, aside from:

- Cairn Wraiths
- Banshees
- Hexwraiths
- Vampires with the Supernatural Horror power
- Anything with the Terror banner

They'd hardly be the first non-large unit to cause terror, and would only do so on the charge. Just saying.


I think reducing attacks to one to gain an impact hit might be good and changing the lance rules (+2S +2 initiative only 1 attack in first turn) as unless you had the skill and strength to spear one guy right through and then the guy behind him, your never going to kill more than one guy on the charge)

Surely it would be either one of the above - not both. The impact hit would be the impact of the lance, so the model wouldn't then get to attack with the lance again in his initiative step. I thought the whole idea was that instead of granting +2 strength, but striking at initiative, the lance would instead give the squad impact hits, at +2 strength.

Snake1311
07-12-2012, 13:13
Surely it would be either one of the above - not both. The impact hit would be the impact of the lance, so the model wouldn't then get to attack with the lance again in his initiative step. I thought the whole idea was that instead of granting +2 strength, but striking at initiative, the lance would instead give the squad impact hits, at +2 strength.

Essentially making lances auto-hit on the charge, and before any other attacks are resolved. Like infinity ASF. For one attack, and then no lance bonus - so big nerf for lanced characters.

This would mean small cavalry units will absolutely wreck chaff (even more than now); not sure if this is really that great.

I really don't see the root of this discussion. Cavalry already get a solid boost on the charge, in the form of lance/spear bonus; additionally, the psychological impact is reflected in the +1 combat res - in an additional where combat results are meant to be based mostly on casualties, thats plenty.

Blinder
07-12-2012, 13:17
The "+2 S impact hit instead of a regular attack when armed with a lance" idea actually sounds interesting- cav *in general* are far from terrible, but low attacks-per-model lance-weilding heavy cav do feel remarkably underwhelming even when you do put 2+ units of them into a target... making it so you at least *know* you're going to be getting the to-wound rolls you're interested in would be nice even if not strictly "needed." For multi-wound models the only addition I'd make is that the "regular I, regular S" attacks are using whatever not-lance weapon (which I think may have been logan's intent anyway) unless some other rule allowed/forced the model to keep on poking away. This way models with options for mundane lances and magic weapons have a reason to take both (Mainly thinking characters, I don't know that I'd give things like Chaos Knights Enscorcelled Weps *and* a lance, but it might end up better that way for them, too) without having to wait a whole round to get the benefit from their expensive weapon. Any characters that can take a magic lance which *doesn't* keep working after that impact hit should still be allowed to use any special rules from it the turn they charge, the further attacks just don't get the S bonus.

Terror and Ld checks in general have too many problems as it is, I don't see much point in handing them out further until they're made effectively relevant again (and also, Terror would let cav charge into models they would normally Fear, something I'm not sure is good to do even if only for heavy cav).

The bearded one
07-12-2012, 13:18
Well, aside from:

- Cairn Wraiths
- Banshees
- Hexwraiths
- Vampires with the Supernatural Horror power
- Anything with the Terror banner

They'd hardly be the first non-large unit to cause terror, and would only do so on the charge. Just saying..

So basically 'huge targets', 'scary ethereal ghosts for whom it seems appropriate' and 'anyone buying magic items/powers granting it'. Tbh average knight units dont really feel like they are on par with monsters, ghosts and magic in terms of scariness.

Also terror only works on the charge for everyone. It only causes fear in all other rounds.

Vipoid
07-12-2012, 13:26
Essentially making lances auto-hit on the charge, and before any other attacks are resolved. Like infinity ASF. For one attack, and then no lance bonus - so big nerf for lanced characters.

I guess. But then, there's no reason why a character should be able to make 4 or 5 attacks with a lance. :p




Also terror only works on the charge for everyone. It only causes fear in all other rounds.

But it also gives immunity to fear and terror all the time. If knights had terror only on the turn they charged, they'd have no protection from fear in subsequent turns, nor any protection from terror if they themselves are charged.

IcedCrow
07-12-2012, 13:35
Cavalry not being the "I WIN" button that it used to be does not make them "not worthwhile".

Cavalry is more than adequate at what it is supposed to do in the game. It won't bust down and sweep your opponent like it used to anymore. It will when supported swing combats over in your favor, which is what its role is now.

The Low King
07-12-2012, 13:59
cavalry are fine

logan054
07-12-2012, 14:03
The "+2 S impact hit instead of a regular attack when armed with a lance" idea actually sounds interesting- cav *in general* are far from terrible, but low attacks-per-model lance-weilding heavy cav do feel remarkably underwhelming even when you do put 2+ units of them into a target... making it so you at least *know* you're going to be getting the to-wound rolls you're interested in would be nice even if not strictly "needed." For multi-wound models the only addition I'd make is that the "regular I, regular S" attacks are using whatever not-lance weapon (which I think may have been logan's intent anyway)

Basically yes, while knights are generally ok, lances just don't feel right, the problem with ASF or high I value is the effect it has on the enemy unit, just because you charging in with lance, this doesn't mean a HE or vampire lord is going to be less deadly in combat, so no snake, it isn't the same as infinite ASF.

TBH, with magical lances I think they would need to be reworked with the new rules in mind, cost and so on.

Vipoid
07-12-2012, 14:17
Basically yes, while knights are generally ok, lances just don't feel right, the problem with ASF or high I value is the effect it has on the enemy unit, just because you charging in with lance, this doesn't mean a HE or vampire lord is going to be less deadly in combat, so no snake, it isn't the same as infinite ASF.

Yeah, ASF doesn't really feel right for lances.



TBH, with magical lances I think they would need to be reworked with the new rules in mind, cost and so on.

Indeed.

Honestly, I feel that lances (especially when bought on things like lords and heroes) should be along the lines of a secondary weapon - something to be used only during the charge, after which you switch to your primary weapon.

Lord Solar Plexus
07-12-2012, 14:18
a LD test would be apropriate, polish hussars won battles against armies several times their size this way. there is nothing more intimidating than disciplined chargin cavarly not bothering what happens around them, with 6 meter long lances, expensive shiny heavy armor (they polished their armor to be more intimidating) and big wings.


Exactly. Polish Hussars are a very good example of lancers not ramming stuff but turning nearly on a dime to fetch a second weapon should the enemy still retain formation.



BUT impact hits are not far off. I know comparing games to real world is a bad idea but trained war horses had weights up to 800kg and were able to run at 35mph with all the stuff on them at the point of impact, basically small cars crashing into you.

Yes, of course. A modern MBT weighs even more and can go faster. I'm sure the impact on another MBT would be terrific.

That doesn't mean it is actually used in this way, and the same principle applies to the horse. It is quite easy to run over and trample individuals in loose formation; opposite a dense and disciplined one, be it a phalanx to the front, a testudo, tercio or square, things look very different. Yes, you can hurt, kill or incapacitate soldiers this way but the risk that the horse stumbles and breaks a leg, or the rider or both fall, or get mired with little room for maneouver becomes very great, and a rider even in full body armour can a) only defend himself to one side at a time, b) is bound to have some chink, somewhere.

There's also no recorded incident of lancers (Knights and cavalry) breaking well-formed infantry on its own on the charge. Napoleon's cavalry at Eylau and Churchill's 21st Lancers at Omdurman are probably as close as it gets. Either said infantry was occupied already, or, as was standard procedure in the Middle Ages, had dispersed a bit due to continuous missile fire, or it broke upon seeing the Knights approach, or it was surprised or flanked.

Vipoid
07-12-2012, 14:22
With regard to this topic, could I just clarify something:

When we talk about impact hits for cavalry, are we talking about the impact of the horse, or of the rider's lance?

I'd assumed it was the latter (hence my suggestions above), but I'm starting to get the impression that some people think that the horse should get the impact hit, whilst the lance does something completely different.

Xerkics
07-12-2012, 14:30
Cavalry is already very good , if something like Juggernaut an unstoppable mountain of hellforged brass and steel doesnt cause impact hits i dont see why the puny ponies that other races ride should cause impact hits either. I do like the idea of LD test while being charged by cav. Although in the age of reroll with bsb this is not likely to do much good. ASF wouldnt be right for lances +1 init on the charge would be nice i guess.

theunwantedbeing
07-12-2012, 14:35
When we talk about impact hits for cavalry, are we talking about the impact of the horse, or of the rider's lance?

Lances already have rules.
Why wouldn't the mount get an impact hit?
To further the train of thought, why don't all big things deal impact hits?

In anycase, if we want realism, chariots shouldn't be slamming into the enemy as historically that wasn't how they were used.

Xerkics
07-12-2012, 14:39
Lances already have rules.
Why wouldn't the mount get an impact hit?
To further the train of thought, why don't all big things deal impact hits?

In anycase, if we want realism, chariots shouldn't be slamming into the enemy as historically that wasn't how they were used.

Ogres are the reason why cavalry dont get impact hits. They decided to make it their shtick just to make them remotely different from other stuff even though it makes less sense for them to have it than for cavalry.

Vipoid
07-12-2012, 14:43
Lances already have rules.
Why wouldn't the mount get an impact hit?

Well, for a start, if lances stay the same but mounts get impact hits, then we get the truly bizarre situation where the lance somehow strikes after the mount.

Also, the fact that something has rules doesn't necessarily mean that they are good rules. :p



To further the train of thought, why don't all big things deal impact hits?


A fair question. It's a little strange that an ogre deals damage when it charges, but an immense dragon doesn't. Guess those horns are just for decoration. :shifty:



In anycase, if we want realism, chariots shouldn't be slamming into the enemy as historically that wasn't how they were used.

I remember a while ago bringing up the oddity of chariots being able to charge, horse-first, into ranks of spearmen, but sustaining no damage in return.

You are right though, very few (if any) chariots were designed for that sort of task.

Xerkics
07-12-2012, 14:51
Well, for a start, if lances stay the same but mounts get impact hits, then we get the truly bizarre situation where the lance somehow strikes after the mount.

Also, the fact that something has rules doesn't necessarily mean that they are good rules. :p



A fair question. It's a little strange that an ogre deals damage when it charges, but an immense dragon doesn't. Guess those horns are just for decoration. :shifty:



I remember a while ago bringing up the oddity of chariots being able to charge, horse-first, into ranks of spearmen, but sustaining no damage in return.

You are right though, very few (if any) chariots were designed for that sort of task.

I think its sort of implied that models actually move around in combat when they are based to base . SO i assume chariot rides past and hits the unit with the scythes on the wheels and dudes on it take swipes at the unit and then it rides around it at less speed.

Vipoid
07-12-2012, 15:24
I think its sort of implied that models actually move around in combat when they are based to base . SO i assume chariot rides past and hits the unit with the scythes on the wheels and dudes on it take swipes at the unit and then it rides around it at less speed.

But that doesn't really work:

Firstly, it's not easy to just push through troops that are in formation - even in a chariot.

Second, the point of impact hits is that the attacker is using sheer mass and momentum to damage the enemy. If a chariot is instead manoeuvring around to attack with scythes then a) it will have depleted its momentum by turning, so impact hits are no longer suitable, b) it will be attacking with very short weapons, meaning there's no reason why such hits should be resolved before the enemy attacks - especially if the enemy are using longer weapons like spears.

Gaargod
07-12-2012, 16:01
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?355293-How-much-should-Cavalry-cost-against-Infantry
Might be relevant to this.


Chariots make approximately no sense in warhammer. About the best use for chariots is as fast and relatively stable missile platforms, who are also reasonable at running down broken troops (if anyone wants to see evidence, I can link god alone knows how many articles and books on the subject - I wrote a dissertation heavily concerning chariots in the Iliad). To be honest, no cavalry (excepting magical ones like Juggernauts) should really be front-charging ranked infantry - that way lies death. It's not easy to even get the horse to even do it, as oddly enough they're not overly keen on ramming into a wall of metal and people.


Lances (and spears, to a lesser extent) being ASF, or even converting 1 attack into an impact hit, would be fine. Impact hits for the horsey is a bad idea.

If you want to improve cavalry, there's better ways to do it. Not to turn it into another one of those threads, but if combat was a little more caring about manoeuvring (i.e. disruption), you'd find them more popular.

Lord Dan
07-12-2012, 16:10
I'm starting to get the impression that some people think that the horse should get the impact hit, whilst the lance does something completely different.

I think that this is the intent of most people suggesting impact hits. This is primarily because many people are under the misguided assumption that knights aimed their horses at people on the charge, which is somewhat understandable:

159238

Of course aiming a horse for the person in front of you would make him impossible to hit with your lance, would slow you down, would risk knocking you out of the saddle, and would hurt your horse.

Tuttivillus
07-12-2012, 16:12
Cavalry is ok. I don't see need for making it more powerfull - it hits hard and is well designed for protracted combats due to high Armour Save.

IF I would want to powerplay them though, I would give lancers Rank piercing rule like boltthrowers - now that would be glorious and fairly realistic :D
From the other hand spears would also have to gain bonus against cavalry, because hte whole point of spear/pike was to turn riders and horse momentum againt him LOL so +2 S for the spearmen being charged by cavalry in first round of combat would be more than appropriate, ain it? And so on and on.
8th is not perfect, but it is still the best edition ever and cavalry is nicely tuned and held in it's place. I do play all cav army and belive me speed, armour and strength is enough, You push it more You will destroy the fine balance between different arms in the game IMO.

Xerkics
07-12-2012, 16:26
I think that this is the intent of most people suggesting impact hits. This is primarily because many people are under the misguided assumption that knights aimed their horses at people on the charge, which is somewhat understandable:

159238

Of course aiming a horse for the person in front of you would make him impossible to hit with your lance, would slow you down, would risk knocking you out of the saddle, and would hurt your horse.

While i agree for normal cavalry it works like that , it would make sense for non standard one to get impact hits from the steed. Have you seen the size of barded chaos steeds ? They wouldnt bat an eye lid of trampling something. And juggernauts are like rhinos on psp they dont even care where they going as long as they can smush smth. Also undead horses? They dont feel fear or anything and when heavily barded you can get a massive impact with them too.

Engineer
07-12-2012, 16:44
Initiative needs to be a little more fluid.

Charging gives +2I or each weapon type has an Initiative component such as ...
GW +2S -3I
AWH +1A
Choppa +1S on charge
Flail +1S on charge +1A on charge
Halberd +1S -1I
Lance +2S on charge +2I on charge

The idea is a normal human will attack at the same time has an elf if the human charges, and great weapons should drop most core troops to initiative 1.

theunwantedbeing
07-12-2012, 16:55
While i agree for normal cavalry it works like that , it would make sense for non standard one to get impact hits from the steed. Have you seen the size of barded chaos steeds ? They wouldnt bat an eye lid of trampling something. And juggernauts are like rhinos on psp they dont even care where they going as long as they can smush smth. Also undead horses? They dont feel fear or anything and when heavily barded you can get a massive impact with them too.

To be honest, any cavalry unit charging an infantry unit is going to end out doing "impact hits".
A lance isn't so long that you can kebab somebody and have lots of time to turn the horse away from the unit for another go, same for spears.
Your weapon likely hits the enemy maybe 1/10th second before your horse does, at which point it doesn't matter whether or not you were intending to run the horse into a specific opponent....somebody is going to get clobbered by it and it is going to be pretty brutal.

Ogres manage this just fine afterall, same for chariots and other things that deal impact hits (like stegadons).
They aren't doing it by running past the opposing unit, they're doing it by smashing into them with their bulk.

There's little reason a cavalry unit can't be doing an impact hit per model in the front rank at the strength of the mount.
There's also little reason why a dragon or similar won't cause a bunch of impact hits on the charge, they do thunderstomp damage afterall which is just hefting their bulk about in the unit...impact hits would be no different.
Although game balance obviously comes into effect if a dragon can inflict an extra 2D6 St6 hits on an opposing infantry unit as that can be hugely powerful.

Cavalry dealing 1-10 St3-4 hits a turn isn't a huge difference though.

Clockwork
07-12-2012, 17:03
I tend to agree with Lord Solar Plexus on this one: the best representation of cavalry in the game would be to give them some sort of 'Causes Terror against infantry units on the turn they charge' rule. This excepts monsters of all kinds, which makes sense, being monsters. It also stops them getting Fear in every round, unless they would already get it, because that's a push too much I feel. Then again, Terror and other leadership-based tests aren't too much of a problem these days (plethora of LD10s, BSBs and other mitigating items), so I don't think it would be gamebreaking. I'd probably go a step further and eliminate Fast Cavalry from this rule, also.

Impact hits really don't work for reasons mentioned, either thematically or practically (looking at you, Ogres).

Then again, I'm not entirely convinced Cavalry in general need a buff. Monstrous cavalry is clearly doing very well; as are Chaos Knights, Empire Knights, Cold One Knights and - surprisingly, perhaps - Bretonnian Knights. Specifically, however, some cavalry units need help.

And by specifically, I mean Cold One Cavalry. 35 points for a model that's going to go last unless its fighting Zombies, Saurus Warriors or anything with great weapons is going to lose whether it charges a flank or not.

Blinder
07-12-2012, 17:12
While i agree for normal cavalry it works like that , it would make sense for non standard one to get impact hits from the steed. Have you seen the size of barded chaos steeds ? They wouldnt bat an eye lid of trampling something. And juggernauts are like rhinos on psp they dont even care where they going as long as they can smush smth. Also undead horses? They dont feel fear or anything and when heavily barded you can get a massive impact with them too.

All of that is in the mount attacks/stomps, though, and they already work pretty well. Meanwhile, an option that's supposed to help the riders out is, in a lot of cases, not entirely living up to peoples' hopes, hence the suggestions for turning the lance's charge bonus into an impact hit so units that rely on that aren't so often left out in the cold (if you ever want to see something depressing, throw a couple units of silverhelms or something together and assume the defender sticks after the first round. "protracted combat" indeed).

The Low King
07-12-2012, 17:39
While i agree for normal cavalry it works like that , it would make sense for non standard one to get impact hits from the steed. Have you seen the size of barded chaos steeds ? They wouldnt bat an eye lid of trampling something. And juggernauts are like rhinos on psp they dont even care where they going as long as they can smush smth. Also undead horses? They dont feel fear or anything and when heavily barded you can get a massive impact with them too.

Is the trampling horses do not represented by their attack characteristic? Chaos steeds are S4 and Juggernauts are S5 with two attacks, that seems pretty well representative of their trampling.

I think a cool rule would be something the the TK bone giants unstopable charge....if heavy cavalry got extra attacks for each wound/hit on the charge it would be pretty cool.
Alternatively lances giving impact hits on the charge would be ok.

However, obviously it would make cavalry stronger, so they would need a price increase. Plus, if you are going that way i think you would have to define a difference between light cav (fast cav) and heavy cav, with only heavy cav getting the coost.

AntaresCD
07-12-2012, 17:56
Initiative needs to be a little more fluid.

Charging gives +2I.
GW +2S -3I
AWH +1A
Choppa +1S on charge
Flail +1S on charge +1A on charge
Halberd +1S -1I
Lance +2S on charge +2I on charge

The idea is a normal human will attack at the same time has an elf if the human charges, and great weapons should drop most core troops to initiative 1.
Something along these lines is always how I've felt.

Taking it further (only referring to Initiative changes) it would be more like:
Charging gives +1 (or +2, would need to play test) to Initiative.
Lance gives +2 Init on the charge.
Spear (mounted) gives +1 Init on the charge.
Spear (foot) gives +3 Init (or +4, would need to play test) when recieving a charge from the front.

The idea being to try and and take into account the reach/weapon advantages of longer weapons (or your formation in the case of spears recieving a charge).

Charging gives you some momentum and a small Init bonus (in addition to CR) could help make charging more tactical in general. Lances getting +2 Init on the charge in addition to their normal effects would help them strike first (except against exceedingly fast/special things) - keep in mind this would stack with the flat bonus from charging. Spears would have a lesser version of the Lance bonus (shorter reach, less impact, etc.). Then letting the infantry with long weapons (might be able to justify it with Halberds too, but that's not really what they were designed for, if I remember correctly) counter a charge if they set properly (maybe require a Leadership check to have them hold formation properly to get the bonus).

I further agree with the idea that various other weapons affect Init as well but I would, in general, have any weapon that adds to Str take a penalty to Init (but it would depend on the weapon). This would make weapons and charging more tactical overall, and more interesting I think. I also like the idea of making GWs -3 Init, but with the idea of other weapons lower Init too, I would maybe make it -4 (with a minimum of 1) and have it replace ASL (which I assume was the intention).

Numbers would need tweaking, but I would ultimately want to see the following interactions (assume equal speed troops base):
-With HWs, the charging unit goes first.
-With Spears (mounted), when charging, go first even over slightly faster.
-With Lances, when charging, go first even over very fast troops.
-With GWs, the target generally goes last even when charging.
-With Spears (foot), if recieving a charge from the front, should beat charging spears and beat or match charging Lances.

Or perhaps a different system with only the following:
-Charging gives +1 Init (doesn't stack with other weapon effects).
-Spears (mounted) on the charge give Init equal to 1.5x their profile Init, round up (so an Init 1 could go to 2, Init 2 could go up to 3, Init 3 up to 5, etc.).
-Lances on the charge give Init equal to 2x their profile Init (so Init 1 up to 2, Init 2 up to 4, Init 3 up to 6, etc.).
-Spears (foot) recieving a charge from the front gain Init equal to 1.5x their profile, round up.

This would cause:
-Charges to go first when base equal speed (if there are no Spears or Lances involved).
-Spears (mounted) on the charge would usually go first, unless the target is fast (i.e. a characters and some elite units) and/or the charger is slow (slow armies like Lizardman, Undead, etc. Core, for instance).
-Lances on the charge would be even more likely to go first, unless the target is exceptionally fast (i.e. characters) and/or the charger is very slow.
-Spears (foot) recieving a charge from the front would usually go first against weapons other than Spears (mounted) and Lances.
-Spears (foot) recieving a charge from the front would match Spears (mounted) and it would return to who is faster base.
-Spears (foot) recieving a charge from the front would go after Lances unless the are exceptionally fast base and/or the chargers are exceptionally slow base.

I don't know if people would consider this system more or less complex. It would make all chargers at least +1 Init with longer weapons under certain circumstances getting a significant boost. Also slower models/armies would get less use out of long weapons so they can't use them to completely undo thier speed shortfall, but it would still help and add to the tactical choices.

Thoughts?

Gradek
07-12-2012, 18:03
I think the cavalry rules are fine as is and that giving heavy cavalry impact hits would dramatically increase their points cost (or potentially break them). Getting a guaranteed say 5 S6 hits (which usually means wounding on a 2+ with a -3 to save) would almost guarantee the charging knights win combat by a significant margin, thus breaking everything not steadfast and/or crumbling a ton of unstable troops.

Xerkics
07-12-2012, 18:10
I think the cavalry rules are fine as is and that giving heavy cavalry impact hits would dramatically increase their points cost (or potentially break them). Getting a guaranteed say 5 S6 hits (which usually means wounding on a 2+ with a -3 to save) would almost guarantee the charging knights win combat by a significant margin, thus breaking everything not steadfast and/or crumbling a ton of unstable troops.

And yet Ogres do exactly same thing and it doesnt guarantee auto win.

Lord Dan
07-12-2012, 18:29
thus breaking everything not steadfast and/or crumbling a ton of unstable troops.

Which is what knights already do...

popisdead
07-12-2012, 19:08
I wondered about Cav getting impact hits vs Infantry then I realized units that currently get Impact would need a boost.

Lord Inquisitor
07-12-2012, 19:27
I think it isn't a bad idea but it would really need a rethink as to how impact hits work. As it is, they're a bit weird anyway. A lot of big things, even some monsters, get impacts and many unit types now, including monstrous cav, monstrous infantry and soforth. Given that these units also stomp, it seems a bit odd. Why is it that an always-striking-first elf with a spear doesn't strike before a unit like ogres literally belly-flops them? Isn't the spear going to hit the belly before the belly hits the spearman?

While we're on the subject, the automatic-hitting part of impacts is a bit problematic, as is the auto-hitting nature of stomps. Stomps make a massive difference especially thunderstomps - for a monster like a thundertusk, D6 stomps is the equivalent of between 2 and 12 normal attacks, since you'll lose half your conventional attacks to misses.

Impact hits used to be a rare form of auto-hitting reserved just for chariots. Now whole armies have the rule as well as stomps, I think it is worth readdressing. Impacts shouldn't be first, or even ASF. They really ought to be ASL but happen regardless if the charger lives or dies. Impacts are okay hitting automatically for the most part (no matter what your reflexes are, you can't dodge if you're stuck in a phalanx) but stomps should really roll to hit. Possibly against the enemy's I instead of WS?

As for the original point, I think it would make sense for cavalry to inflict impact hits at the horse's strength and given that most cavalry are pretty poor even in the 8th ed books still, I don't think it would be a problematic change at all. But with the current mechanics it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense that the horse hits before the lance!

Lord Solar Plexus
07-12-2012, 19:36
About the best use for chariots is as fast and relatively stable missile platforms, who are also reasonable at running down broken troops (if anyone wants to see evidence, I can link god alone knows how many articles and books on the subject


Very true (unwantedbeing mentioned this as well). One good description of them one can find in John Keegan's History of Warfare.

Clockwork
07-12-2012, 19:43
Very true (unwantedbeing mentioned this as well). One good description of them one can find in John Keegan's History of Warfare.

I wish that GW would do more like this with chariots, but its extremely difficult for them to do so within the limits of their ranged mechanics and points costs.

Lord Solar Plexus
07-12-2012, 20:01
Well, looking at their historical use, I'm sure something could be done to turn them into fast and stable missile platforms. Give them Fast Cavalry rules, let them march, with more than one archer on top, perhaps two guys each with d6 or something, quick to fire with a musician included...dunno, I'm no game designer but with proper pricing, it could perhaps be made useful in it's historical role...on the other hand, there are reasons why chariots were dropped at one point.

I've written this before but to conclude what I said before: Just one clarification: I do think that cavalry was intended and used to charge, break and defeat infantry in antiquity and the European MA and there are examples besides Kirchholm (which took place much later). Alexander's companions did that I believe at Chaironeia, at Granikos, Issos and elsewhere, and Charlemagne's armies were mainly vassal cavalry according to Verbruggen. The Vikings started fighting on foot but somewhere in the 870's fought more and more mounted. Even the Roman legions - disciplined soldiers if there ever were any - had huge problems against the Sassanid heavy cavalry. The Flemish footmen defeated the French knights at Courtrai but the tables were reversed later at Cassel. Let's not forget that a rider, knight or cavalryman can fight on foot as well. That wasn't uncommon, especially when the opposing cavalry forces were much larger and/or the footmen needed encouragement and leadership from noblemen (the few Flemish nobles at Courtrai fought dismounted for example), so he can fulfill a dual role. Also, there was very rarely any formal training for footmen. Only in 1473 did Charles the Bold issue a written ordnance. (Of course there wasn't any formal training in the modern sense for knights either but at least they had the orders' regulations such as the Regles du Temple). William the Bastard (before he became the Conqueror) may have tried to apply Vegetius in the summer of 1066 but such preparations were often short-lived and could just as well have been intended to keep the men occupied.

I just don't believe that most cavalry charges were carried out by hurling the destrier and rider into the ranks of the infantry. While horses just like men can be expected to die in war, it was simply too valuable to hurl it into a wall of lances or spears. Even one that would cost only something like 20 pounds was a considerable investment, easily a year's pay for a man-at-arms in Edwardian service, and that would have been a rouncey, not a destrier, which could cost as much as 80 pounds, and that's considerable even if sometimes the men were reimbursed (see the "restauro equorum"). The Polish hussars, to jump to another point in the timeline again, would canter and then slow down and even start to turn at the last possible moment, impaling the pikeman or unlucky arqebusier on their lance and thereby create a gap. They would then turn around and pick up another lance. I understand that most other shock cavalry used a very similar method, be they Frankish vassals or Cataphractoi.

The Low King
07-12-2012, 20:33
Werent chariots mainly used before horses had been bred large enough to carry a man in armour? many of the ancient civilisations used them extensively, but they died out as cavalry became more widespread. Their oddness is more a product of having steam engines, airships and gunpowder in the same world as chariots and slings....

Xerkics
07-12-2012, 20:42
Werent chariots mainly used before horses had been bred large enough to carry a man in armour? many of the ancient civilisations used them extensively, but they died out as cavalry became more widespread. Their oddness is more a product of having steam engines, airships and gunpowder in the same world as chariots and slings....

Why have to choose why not have both ? I.E a deathroller :)

BattleofLund
07-12-2012, 22:14
Why have to choose why not have both ? I.E a deathroller :)

Strapped to a Juggernaut! Or is that verging on 'silly'?

On topic, I don't think 'cavalry' should get blanket type rules of the suggested types (ie, impact hits, terror) but rather that they should be used to customize certain units or unit types. Maybe in 9th?

Also, who generally gets the impact hit chariots? The brutal, uncaring, psychopathic armies - and High Elves. Besides HE, the image of someone damaged/crazy enough to force a chariot into a ranked enemy fits O&G, DE, Beastmen and Warriors perfectly. For cavalry, IF impacts hits should be considered, it should be for the most single-minded of creatures. Not, for example, living wolves or horses. Hardly for Cold Ones or even Chaos Steeds either, they are more self-preserving predators rather than torpedoes.

Now pigs on the other hand...

Charistoph
08-12-2012, 01:49
Hence one of the suggestions brought up a few times to limit it to the weapon that many Cavalry carry. It accounts for the reach of the weapon and gets past the wierdness of ASF running up the lance/spear, smacking the cavalryman, and then running back down to be speared by it, somehow. It also accounts for what a mounted lance and spear is for, pressing home the impact of the charge.

And yes, I think it's weird that chariots have them, but the Tomb Kings rather need it.

Jind_Singh
08-12-2012, 05:51
+3 initiative for mounted units armed with lances
Impact hit at strength of the mount
+ 1 strength if the mount is barded

DONE!

Dark Aly
08-12-2012, 09:35
I don't really want my cavalry to get better I like them cheap pointswise and many of the above suggestions would nessecitate (I'm crap at spelling) a points increase.

theunwantedbeing
08-12-2012, 11:23
+3 initiative for mounted units armed with lances
Impact hit at strength of the mount
+ 1 strength if the mount is barded

DONE!

Would things like Boars, Cold Ones & Juggernaughts count as being barded?

Also, the inititative thing...is this replacing the +2 strength bonus? or do we get that as well as the initiative thing?

Clockwork
08-12-2012, 11:58
That's why I prefer Terror when charging infantry units. Its a lot simpler.

Lord Inquisitor
08-12-2012, 14:07
+3 initiative for mounted units armed with lances
Impact hit at strength of the mount
+ 1 strength if the mount is barded

DONE!
Then the horse hits before the lance. Isn't that a bit weird?

Gradek
08-12-2012, 14:17
I think Cavalry is fine (and I play a lot of Cav, Empire and Chaos Warriors). More importantly, to address the original question, I cannot see GW giving cav impact hits. I think they realized the huge mistake they made with Mournfangs and aren't going to repeat it (if any other unit should have gotten impact hits it would have been the skullcrushers). I would rather have my cavalry priced as is than gain some minor benefit at an increased cost.

The only possible rule i could see giving cavalry with lances would be that on the charge they gain an additional attack at base strength (ie one attack with the lance and then one with their normal weapon to reflect them dropping the lance as they get into direct combat).

Xerkics
08-12-2012, 14:37
I think Cavalry is fine (and I play a lot of Cav, Empire and Chaos Warriors). More importantly, to address the original question, I cannot see GW giving cav impact hits. I think they realized the huge mistake they made with Mournfangs and aren't going to repeat it (if any other unit should have gotten impact hits it would have been the skullcrushers). I would rather have my cavalry priced as is than gain some minor benefit at an increased cost.

The only possible rule i could see giving cavalry with lances would be that on the charge they gain an additional attack at base strength (ie one attack with the lance and then one with their normal weapon to reflect them dropping the lance as they get into direct combat).

The only reason why mournfangs got impact hits is because they are in ogres list, for some reason GW decided all ogres should have impact hits as well as stomps, whether it makes sense or not. Trolls are even larger than ogres do you see them doing impact hits? same with juggernauts fluff wise they should have impact hits by their very name. In a way impact hits can be better than thunderstomps on say a dragon since monsters cant thunderstomps things above certain size yet impact hits work on everything. Why does it work against spears for example? The ogres should get impaled on a wall of ASF elven spearmen not impact them to death with their fat bellies. I think GW just couldnt think of any other way to make ogres special other than giving them impact hits and to keep them special other stuff that should have impact hits doesnt get them because its an ogre thing now.

P.S : Mechanically i dont mind ogres having impact hits as their shtick but fluff wise i find the fact that they got and say juggernauts and a lot of other stuff dont mind boggling.

The Low King
08-12-2012, 16:25
Impact hits are not just about being large, they are the way you fight. An ogre just plows through an enemy unit (bit like a chariot), hence the impact hits.

Xerkics
08-12-2012, 16:58
Impact hits are not just about being large, they are the way you fight. An ogre just plows through an enemy unit (bit like a chariot), hence the impact hits.

I really dont see how that would work against a unit of spearmen for example ready to receive the charge.

Lath-rael
08-12-2012, 17:53
I think lance armed horseman could and should 1 attack per model on charge, striking first. THEN their normal attacks, without lance bonuses.

But that should require they move more than their base move(meaning they are actually charging) when they charge.

Vipoid
08-12-2012, 18:02
I think lance armed horseman could and should 1 attack per model on charge, striking first. THEN their normal attacks, without lance bonuses.

But that should require they move more than their base move(meaning they are actually charging) when they charge.

I suggested something similar earlier - essentially, instead of providing +2 strength, lances grant impact hits at the model's strength +2.

theunwantedbeing
08-12-2012, 21:14
I suggested something similar earlier - essentially, instead of providing +2 strength, lances grant impact hits at the model's strength +2.

That makes my cold one knights much better :)
No worry with their ws5 and re-rolls to hit of missing their single St6 attack...guaranteed St6 auto-hits instead :)
And they don't even have to worry about high elves with their pesky ASF either as impact hits go before those!

A hoarde of them would truly be something to fear.
30 St6 auto-hits...nothing broken about that at all :)

Lance formation?
75mm wide pumping out a bunch of St5 autohits.

Less reason to bother with Lances for Chaos Knights :)
Blood Knights laughably get worse when charging vs almost everything.
Empire Knights get wayyyy better
etc etc

Basically I hate the idea :evilgrin:

Vipoid
08-12-2012, 21:23
That makes my cold one knights much better :)
No worry with their ws5 and re-rolls to hit of missing their single St6 attack...guaranteed St6 auto-hits instead :)
And they don't even have to worry about high elves with their pesky ASF either as impact hits go before those!

A hoarde of them would truly be something to fear.
30 St6 auto-hits...nothing broken about that at all :)


That would also cost a minimum of 810pts... :p

theunwantedbeing
08-12-2012, 22:02
That would also cost a minimum of 810pts... :p

:eyebrows: so?

decker_cky
08-12-2012, 22:27
Too many of the ideas in this thread would really just encourage more small units of cavalry. Small units of cavalry are still very good right now. I think something like charging units of cavalry (except fast cavalry) counting as double the number of ranks (not rank bonus) for the purposes of steadfast in the first round would go a long way to making bigger units of cavalry worthwhile.

Vipoid
08-12-2012, 22:31
:eyebrows: so?

I was just pointing out that it wasn't exactly cheap - you're hardly turning a 200pt unit into a deathstar. :p

Regardless, I do see your point.

Do you think it would be better to say that only the front models get impact hits with their lances, with secondary ranks making single attacks at +2 strength and normal initiative?

Or is this just a bad idea?

theunwantedbeing
08-12-2012, 23:03
Do you think it would be better to say that only the front models get impact hits with their lances, with secondary ranks making single attacks at +2 strength and normal initiative?
Yes, that would be better
However.....


Or is this just a bad idea?
It's a bad idea for lances to give impact hits.

Perhaps only barded steeds generate impact hits on enemies in base contact with themselves while charging?

Beastlord
08-12-2012, 23:04
Have to say I cant quite see how a charging line of Knights can canter towards a close packed line of men and stop and turn round just before hitting them while at the same time skewering the enemy with their lances - regardless of reality anyway, I imagine a lot of peoples fantasy image of a cavalry charge would involve horses ploughin through enemy units...

Something that has always bothered me about cavalry in Warhammer is that most of the horses have the same strength as a human... Now if you've ever had a fight with a horse, or even just looked at the size of ones muscles for a second you'll know this isn't the case. Then again I think GW are too stingy with strength stats on a lot of their monsters (kroxigors? WTF?)

Col. Dash
08-12-2012, 23:23
I would say yes without reading the entire thread. Realistically getting hit with cavalry is more than just getting hit with the lance and a trained warhorse. A heavy cavalry charge is like getting hit by a one ton train. In addition to the actual attacks by the rider and horse(warhorses were heavily trained to attack and bred for really bad attitudes to the point, cavalrymen almost always had an actual riding horse in addition to the warhorse to get from place to place due to the attitude and cost). A barded horse will trample infantry, they will swing around and use their entire body as a weapon which is really bad when unlike in our game, in real life a charge would often end with the horseman and horse in the middle of a group of infantry. Generally speaking only a well disciplined spear or halberd unit had a chance in hell in melee. A close quarter weapon unit would get spanked and even missile units likely would get crushed if they didnt break the cav with their fire on the charge. Experienced cavalry units were notorious for taking on foot units triple or quadruple their size and crushing them. Look no further than the exploits of the Polish Hussars against the Swedes in the 1600s and that was even in the age of gunpowder.

So yes, for realism alone, I would say they should get impact hits along with chariots. That or a stomp attack versus infantry representing them trampling the guys that got knocked over. Unlike our game board display the knights will be inside the enemy formation and ranks really shouldnt mean anything.

King Arthur
09-12-2012, 11:04
Too many of the ideas in this thread would really just encourage more small units of cavalry. Small units of cavalry are still very good right now. I think something like charging units of cavalry (except fast cavalry) counting as double the number of ranks (not rank bonus) for the purposes of steadfast in the first round would go a long way to making bigger units of cavalry worthwhile. yes this makes a whole lot of sense also +1 strength for horses if barded and +like 2 initiative for lances would also be nice but then again it would make people in my store complain about how Brets are overpowered, and I do try to tell them they are a lower to middle tier army but they don t believe me!

Urgat
09-12-2012, 11:31
Something that has always bothered me about cavalry in Warhammer is that most of the horses have the same strength as a human... Now if you've ever had a fight with a horse, or even just looked at the size of ones muscles for a second you'll know this isn't the case.

It shouldn't bother you: your horse has the same attack strength as a man with a weapon.

On topic, all the cavarly I see used around here, bretonnian knights, my wolf, spider and boar riders, chaos knights and mounted marauders, black knights and stuff, always perform exactly as expected. For me they're fine and don't need anything to make them worthwhile as they certainly perform their role well in my games. My wolf riders don't need more rules to harass flanks, and my pal's chaos warriors are certainly strong enough to still pounce my units from the front. They're chaos knights so that's fine, but I don't want to see every other damned cavalry being able to do that again as they did during 7th ed.
Only "fix" I want to see that is somewhat related is to bring back unit strength, that would certainly help cavalry in quite a few situations. But they need no direct boost or anything.

Vipoid
09-12-2012, 11:38
Something that has always bothered me about cavalry in Warhammer is that most of the horses have the same strength as a human... Now if you've ever had a fight with a horse, or even just looked at the size of ones muscles for a second you'll know this isn't the case. Then again I think GW are too stingy with strength stats on a lot of their monsters (kroxigors? WTF?)

Whilst it's certainly true that a horse is stronger then a (normal) man, that doesn't necessarily mean that they can make use of their full strength during combat.

A man is weaker, but he's also armed, and will have been trained to use his full strength in combat.

On the other hand, a horse's muscles are generally used either to achieve considerable speed, or to achieve pulling power - neither of which are useful in combat. It could perhaps rear up, but I doubt that most riders would approve of that. So, once its momentum has been lost, it'll generally be reduced to using its head/bulk to shove into enemies, or trampling down the fallen.

King Arthur
09-12-2012, 12:29
Actually I reckon they should bring back (7th) the striking before initiative and after ASF when charging but just for cavalry with lances

sninsch
09-12-2012, 12:40
If cav get something like impact hits than spears form infantry units should get a rule: +1 S against cav, monstrous cav in the first round of combat

Tuttivillus
09-12-2012, 14:00
If cav get something like impact hits than spears form infantry units should get a rule: +1 S against cav, monstrous cav in the first round of combat

+2 S would seem more appropriate as if.


Actually I reckon they should bring back (7th) the striking before initiative and after ASF when charging but just for cavalry with lances

Yeah, bring back 7th!!! Cavalry was soooo fantastically OP back then that You didnæt have to think back than!!! :p And back to what You've wrote ofc, but except spearmen and pikeman. In my oppinion spears should work like brettonian archers defensive stakes, take away charge bonuses. With that You can start writing cavalry uberpower rules.

kramplarv
09-12-2012, 18:36
I would say yes without reading the entire thread.

But then I also have to confess I have little to no knowledge of how heavy cavalry were used in reality ...



Sir Colonel! I fixed your post for youy so it made sense! :) No need to thank me.

If you insist my corrections are wrong; I'd have to ask you for source material for almost everything you wrote. As an historian my sources tell me
almost exclusivly the opposite; That cavalry almost never made full body contact with infantry unless it were broken/in disorder.

Col. Dash
09-12-2012, 22:35
Not sure of your background in history but I have done extensive research as well especially in the era of the Polish Hussar up to and including building the armor and garb(and no I dont subscribe to the wing thing), and they quite regularly engaged in melee combat with enemy troops thus the incredibly large collection of close and short range weapons they carried, the extra horses, the severe liability of untrained horses, etc. True they tended to use their horses as shields at times against muskets, thus the constant shortage of trained horses, but they wouldnt carry 6 foot stabbing swords, short warhammers and pistols if they didnt expect to get involved after their expensive long lances broke. There's a reason their lances were longer than pikes. Get past the front rank and get in close where the pikes are about useless, and the hussars have all the advantages then its all over but the screaming and they mop up while the enemy runs. Tactic worked well until powder weapons got too good in the late 1600s- and into the mid 1700s.

pirateoftaiwan
10-12-2012, 03:29
I think col. Dash is right on this. Heavy cavalry often got into melee with foot soldiers. Thier weapon designs are a good proof of this. The Hellenistic Greek Kataphraktoi used lances that were longer than the sarissa so that they could actually fight them without being turned into shishkebabs. The biggest problem with this is that our sources for any military tactics before the renaissance (sp?) are limited. We don't have any surviving combat manuals (correct me if I'm wrong) from before the High Middle Ages. Although, even heavy cavalry could be repulsed by disciplined infantry (read up on the Battle of Legnano). Heavy cavalry were used in frontal assaults (Battle of Hastings). Anna Komemna stated that the Frankish knights could bore through city walls. Lord Dan made an excellent diagram a few posts back that shows how heavy cavalry lined up during the charge.

Lord Solar Plexus
10-12-2012, 07:45
Impact hits are not just about being large, they are the way you fight. An ogre just plows through an enemy unit (bit like a chariot), hence the impact hits.

Chariots did not plow through units. They stayed far away from them.


Have to say I cant quite see how a charging line of Knights can canter towards a close packed line of men and stop and turn round just before hitting them while at the same time skewering the enemy with their lances - regardless of reality anyway, I imagine a lot of peoples fantasy image of a cavalry charge would involve horses ploughin through enemy units...


Gandalf's charge at Helm's Klamm, yes, that's the popular image but in reality those horses and riders would be kamikazes. There's no way such a mass of fighters could dodge, and after the fourth or fifth row, the horses would fall (or come to a stop). However, knights did stop and turn, way before any point of impact, if the opponent acted as a unit, not a group of random people.


I would say yes without reading the entire thread. Realistically getting hit with cavalry is more than just getting hit with the lance and a trained warhorse.


Then go back and read at least the pertinent passages before you make these claims, please. Realistically, "getting hit with cavalry" is just a convenient phrase. Realistically, a cavalry charge does not involve the hurling of horse-sized missiles, at least not against anything but loose formations, be it skirmishers or routed troops. That's like putting men on solid projectiles, and I'm sure we all know that Munchhausen story.



A heavy cavalry charge is like getting hit by a one ton train. In addition to the actual attacks by the rider and horse(warhorses were heavily trained to attack and bred for really bad attitudes to the point


Trained to attack, on command, like a dog? Were they also trained to buck and do whatever they could to disrupt their own formation?

Medieval destriers were small. Of course they could throw a man to the ground; they shouldn't be imagined as 20 hand-monsters.

Sorry for the vitriole but biting and kicking, while it certainly happened, can be very very dangerous for the rider. You do not want to fall off your horse because the strain on some leather strips was to great and face half a dozen goedendags on foot. What's more, at the point a destrier kicks and bites we are well past any charge, so the connection with a phrase like "hit by a train" is highly misleading.



A close quarter weapon unit would get spanked and even missile units likely would get crushed if they didnt break the cav with their fire on the charge. Experienced cavalry units were notorious for taking on foot units triple or quadruple their size and crushing them. Look no further than the exploits of the Polish Hussars against the Swedes in the 1600s and that was even in the age of gunpowder.


That's nothing but a myth. Close-quarter infantry was the reason for the decline of the value of Knights as a military arm. They only ceased to appear on the battlefield much later because knighthood had a high social importance. It's like abandoning B-52's or battleships in favour of CV's, old habits and stuff.

The time period you speak about demonstrates perfectly that your theory is wrong because during this period, the trend to discard armour for both man and beast carries on, Knights and gens d'armes become lighter and lighter cavalry. If physical contact between horse and foe had been a major tactic, then making the former lighter makes little sense. Even if that alleged shock did not come from armour, and speed was more important and the kinetic energy of the supposed horse-ram enough without barding, the trend towards lighter and lighter cavalry, sabres and pistols in favour of lances (they were discarded all over Western Europe), and the increasing role in recon, skirmish, foraging, vanguard, picket, and pursuit roles proves the dominance of infantry - and that had been the case in antiquity, too.

The Polish Hussars were famed for being able to turn on a dime. Whenever cavalry successfully charged infantry, the opposing unit either broke and turned before contact was made, was defeated by the use of the longer lance - the Hussars' lances were up to 5.5 metres, so the opposing pikemen would not impale the horse before the lance hit them - or was made up of too thin a line to pose a solid physical barrier.


Not sure of your background in history but I have done extensive research as well especially in the era of the Polish Hussar up to and including building the armor and garb(and no I dont subscribe to the wing thing), and they quite regularly engaged in melee combat with enemy troops


Of course they engaged in melee. Nobody doubts that cavalry did that. They did however use their weapons for that, not the horse.



Get past the front rank and get in close where the pikes are about useless, and the hussars have all the advantages then its all over but the screaming and they mop up while the enemy runs. Tactic worked well until powder weapons got too good in the late 1600s- and into the mid 1700s.

No, they did not. They worked sometimes, and often they worked not at all. First of all, a phalanx (and a Swiss Gewalthaufen or Spanish tercio isn't that different) had more than a single rank of pikes. Getting past the front one isn't enough. Secondly, with the Infantry Revolution - and I'm surprised you did not come across this term during your studies - and the decline of cavalry, lances were discarded almost everywhere, not completely of course but they were far from the most important weapon. The Hussars were a very special case, successful but not representative.


I think col. Dash is right on this. Heavy cavalry often got into melee with foot soldiers.

And that has what to do with this debate...? I gather they can get into melee in-game already?

Oogie boogie boss
10-12-2012, 11:03
I don't think cavalry really need impact hits, as I reckon they're about as good as they should be right now. I used to hate the way back in 6th and 7th ed. a unit of 5 basic Empire knights could break 40 clanrats on the charge. Now they don't really have that 'steamroller' ability (for the most part), but if used in conjunction with other units or getting in a flank or rear they can still be devastating. That being said, 1 IH at the ST of the mount wouldn't be too broken....Certainly, it'd be interesting to see how well it worked.

Lord Solar Plexus
10-12-2012, 12:42
If cavalry ever were to get impact hits, then they should also have to pass a dangerous terrain test. Every rider knows that even the ground can be treacherous. Now imagine there's people with pikes standing there, 10, 12, 30 deep. They're not onlookers at a race, they have a suspicion that you're trying to hurt them, they stand fast, it's their job, and running might have ugly consequences...

The dangers of coming too close, of collisions and losing the main advantage of the rider, mobility, are relatively well documented, too:

In the general melee Apskal charged into the middle of the Persians and was killed there when his horse trampled on a corpse. John Malalas, Battle of Kallinikos between Romans and Persians, ca. 530

[...] the great horses of the English charged the pikes of the Scots, as it were into a dense forest, there arose a great and terrible crash of spears broken and of destriers wounded to the death; and so they remained without movement for a while…In the leading division were killed the Earl of Gloucester, Sir John Comyn, Sir Pagan de Typtoft, Sir Edmund de Mauley and many other nobles, Lanercost Chronicles about Bannockburn

Of course there's more from all ages and epochs. What do you think happens in a formation when a leading horse falls? Some can jump and clear this obstacle, others will trip and fall. Now a man is evidently smaller than a horse and easier to push aside or trample but a formation - not just a crowd, not just wavering townsfolk with pitchforks - spears braced to the ground, shields locked...now that is even more formidable.

Lord Dan drew some sketches; those of Ann Hyland (http://garyb.0catch.com/cavalry_charging_infantry/cavalry_charging_infantry.html) convey a similar message but are more clear (and have a lot more information in the text).

Finally, this source demonstrates pretty well when cavalry should rush in and when it was wiser to proceed more cautiously:

It was their fear, however, when they discussed matters among themselves, that if they had Theoderic with them in the battle the renown of the victory would be transferred to his name, and they therefore resolved to engage the Saxons without him. Each individual seized his weapons and charged with as much speed as he could muster, just as fast as his horse would carry him, upon the place where the Saxons were drawn up in battle-array in front of their camp; they acted as if their task was to pursue a fleeing foe and seize booty rather than to take on an enemy standing marshalled to face them. Since the approach had gone badly, badly also went the battle; for when this was joined they were surrounded by the Saxons and killed almost to a man…The loss to the Franks was greater than numbers alone, however, for two of the legates, Adalgis and Cailo, four counts and as many as twenty other men of distinction and nobility were killed. Annales regni Frankorum, Battle of Suntel Mountain (?) (Weser), 782

Xerkics
10-12-2012, 13:01
5.5 meter lances really? How were they supposed to reasonably being able to hold that?

Shadow_Steed
10-12-2012, 13:11
TS- Good idea: Would be well if it only affected larger units (10+).

theunwantedbeing
10-12-2012, 13:31
If cavalry ever were to get impact hits, then they should also have to pass a dangerous terrain test. Every rider knows that even the ground can be treacherous. Now imagine there's people with pikes standing there, 10, 12, 30 deep.
The issue here is that Pikes don't exist in warhammer anymore.
So saying cavalry can't generate impact hits because of infantry with pikes isn't the least bit relevant.
Even spears aren't hugely commonplace.


Lord Dan drew some sketches; those of Ann Hyland (http://garyb.0catch.com/cavalry_charging_infantry/cavalry_charging_infantry.html) convey a similar message but are more clear (and have a lot more information in the text).
That page does illustrate nicely how cavalry can charge a unit of men without needing that charge to be head on and result in each horse ending out several ranks into the enemy unit.
It makes a lot more sense to charge across the front of the enemy unit especially with lance armed troops than to charge into them, that said...warhammer doesn't really follow the real world examples and there are plenty of physiological differences between real world cavalry and warhammer cavalry.

I don't think Cavalry need Impact hits to be made worthwhile though, they're fine as they are at the moment.

Lord Solar Plexus
10-12-2012, 14:12
5.5 meter lances really? How were they supposed to reasonably being able to hold that?

They were partly hollowed-out and actually lighter than contemporary or preceding Western examples.


The issue here is that Pikes don't exist in warhammer anymore.
So saying cavalry can't generate impact hits because of infantry with pikes isn't the least bit relevant.
Even spears aren't hugely commonplace.


Then leave that word out of my argument, it's not pertinent to it. Yes, historically pikes were better against Knights than, say, swords, but at Cologne in 1114, Henry V. did not dare attack disciplined bowmen. Why didn't his knights just crash into them? How could Saxon infantry attack the French King at Bouvines? The important thing is discipline, not weapon or length thereof. A Spanish formation of roughly 4,000 men could not defeat, but extricate itself from continous attacks by some 15,000 Moorish horsemen in Algier in the early 16th ct., while inflicting more casualties on them than in reverse; the very same story played itself out when Caesar fought in North Africa. My point is that while nobody likes to get run over by an armoured or non-armoured horse, actual collisions were almost always accidents, not a tactic.



That page does illustrate nicely how cavalry can charge a unit of men without needing that charge to be head on and result in each horse ending out several ranks into the enemy unit.


Precisely.

Charistoph
10-12-2012, 15:18
All the more reason to leave any Impact Hit rules to the weapons involved instead of the unit type, wouldn't you say? Of course, they would lose any other significant rules along with the weapon type.

Horses are not predatory creatures, they avoid conflict as much as they can, especially when presented with obvious sharp, pointy conflict presented as a wall. Of course, in Warhammer, that only affects the horse-bound cavalry. I could see mounts like Juggernauts and Cold Ones wanting to get in to the crush of melee, but these would only provide Impact Hits on a case by case basis.

pirateoftaiwan
10-12-2012, 15:39
While I don't think cavalry should get impact hits (I brought up this question in another thread), I think it would be interesting to see how it played out in a game. I suggest someone try in-game and report back. Tell us if it seems broken or any other info. This doesn't answer the actual question, but it will show us how impact hits would interact in the game.

Fieos
10-12-2012, 15:47
I prefer 'Lances grant +2 Str and + 2 Init on the turn in which they charge. The init portion of this bonus is negated if the unit they charged is armed with spears or halberds. Additionally if the target of their charge is not obliterated or overrun in the first round of combat the lance is lost for the rest of the game and the model reverts back to handweapon and shield' ASF is too much for charging knights (Brets would lose their minds to get that kind of buff). It would also give a defensive element to halberds and spears to offset their inability to use shields in close combat.

Beastlord
10-12-2012, 17:55
Horses are not predatory creatures, they avoid conflict as much as they can, especially when presented with obvious sharp, pointy conflict presented as a wall. Of course, in Warhammer, that only affects the horse-bound cavalry. I could see mounts like Juggernauts and Cold Ones wanting to get in to the crush of melee, but these would only provide Impact Hits on a case by case basis.

While I'll agree that horses aren't predatory :) , I think people underestimate their potential to be vicious and dangerous... And their willingness to happily plough through sharp things, eg barbed wire (not quite the same as a block of spears I'll admit). Getting kicked by a horse is not a pleasant experience.

yabbadabba
10-12-2012, 18:08
Sounds good ...

...as long as you change the rest of the game similarly. Otherwise they are fine as they are.

kramplarv
10-12-2012, 19:20
While I'll agree that horses aren't predatory :) , I think people underestimate their potential to be vicious and dangerous... And their willingness to happily plough through sharp things, eg barbed wire (not quite the same as a block of spears I'll admit). Getting kicked by a horse is not a pleasant experience.


One girlfriend I had once had a real nasty piece of work. The most evil and vicious murderous horse... It was really evil! terrifying in it malevolent behavior. It would stand doing nothing until you turned your eyes away, then it would trample or kick or bite you... I had to break up with said girlfriend because she loved that killerbeast more than me. :(

otherwise I agree with Lord Solar Plexus in everything historical.

Lord Solar Plexus
11-12-2012, 08:04
I prefer 'Lances grant +2 Str and + 2 Init on the turn in which they charge. The init portion of this bonus is negated if the unit they charged is armed with spears or halberds. Additionally if the target of their charge is not obliterated or overrun in the first round of combat the lance is lost for the rest of the game and the model reverts back to handweapon and shield'


Too complicated, and why would halberds have such an effect? They're usually considerably shorter than lances, and if you lose your lance, people just buy Great Weapons because you've invalidated another unit. S3 Knights for 22 points are rather useless after all, and if we go to such a level of detail, we could roll for all shields to see whether they break from a successful parry, too.

Gaargod
11-12-2012, 13:16
I don't think cavalry really need impact hits, as I reckon they're about as good as they should be right now. I used to hate the way back in 6th and 7th ed. a unit of 5 basic Empire knights could break 40 clanrats on the charge. Now they don't really have that 'steamroller' ability (for the most part), but if used in conjunction with other units or getting in a flank or rear they can still be devastating. That being said, 1 IH at the ST of the mount wouldn't be too broken....Certainly, it'd be interesting to see how well it worked.

Now that is an example of the exaggeration people place on cavalry in 7th. 5 basic Empire knights would have almost certainly bounced off the clanrats - on average, they'd only do 3.41 wounds in total (if they had a champion versus shield wielding clanrats. Against clanrats with spears and shields, they'd do a bit more). With a standard, that'd get them to 4 or 5 combat resolution - which the clanrats would have had just from 3 ranks, standard & outnumber and that's ignoring possibilities of doing wounds back. Next turn the knights would have done a lot less wounds, striking second.
Hell, even dragon princes would only do 5 or 6 wounds - they'd win combat by 1 or maybe 2, and again would really suffer if they failed to break the skaven (who, if they had grey seer and/or BSB in range, would have had very solid odds of staying around).

Really, the only cavalry unit of 5 (taking 7 and having them all survive could just about allow dragon princes to try it) who could front charge and break that unit would be chaos knights of khorne (who got more like 9 wounds) or their like - winning combat by 5 or so (and of course, chaos knights didn't especially care if they failed to break their target on the charge).



Personally, I'd suggest they need to break cavalry (and chariots) into 2 unit types each - Light and Heavy. Light cavalry are faster and more manoeuvrable (indeed, 'fast cavalry' rule), whilst Heavy cavalry get some sort of combat related boost (possibly, as someone else suggested, double ranks on the turn they charge). Light chariots only get 1 (maybe D3) impact hit but can march, whilst heavy chariots have D6. Just as an example of possible rules.
I also like the suggestion of impact hits at ASL but regardless of whether or not you're alive. This does make it step on the toes of Stomp a little too much (pun unintended), as you'd have 2 methods of ASL base strength hits. Maybe Stomp should just get you an extra attack (/D6 for thunderstomp)?
There should also be a new mechanic for attacking first (before ASF) with hits - specifically, there's a couple of spells (Shield of Thorns, for example) that could use this.

Oh, and yeah, the more I think of it, weapons need to have I bonuses. I don't quite like the idea of everything having a possi/negative modifier though. Just giving a modifier to lances, spears and great weapons would probably do it, with other specialist weapons in army books getting their own.

decker_cky
12-12-2012, 01:17
which the clanrats would have had just from 3 ranks, standard & outnumber

No outnumber. I also count 3.47 wounds for charging knights with champ against clanrats w/ HW&S but that's basically nothing.

Lord Solar Plexus
12-12-2012, 07:38
Why no outnumber? 5 knights were US 10 I think, so the rats needed what, 21 models?

I get 3.39 wounds btw. but I suppose that's all quite irrelevant.

Gaargod
12-12-2012, 17:03
Why no outnumber? 5 knights were US 10 I think, so the rats needed what, 21 models?

I get 3.39 wounds btw. but I suppose that's all quite irrelevant.

Indeed, why no outnumber? We were using 7th ed scenarios, so clearly outnumber should be used. Oh, and I think my maths is ok...

6 (5+ champ) knightly attacks hitting on 3s = 4 hits, wounding on 2s (S5 with lances) = 20/6 wounds, after 6+ save (4+ from L.Armour, shield + parry) = 100/36 = 25/9 (or 2.78)
5 horsey attacks hitting on 4s = 2.5 hits, wounding on 4s = 1.25 wounds, after 4+ armour = 5/8 (or 0.625)

Adds up to 3.40278 (if you don't round at any step), unless my maths has gone screwy somewhere. As I say, I was using entirely 7th ed rules (hence 4+ save, rather than 5+/6++).

The rats would have only needed 10 models left not to be outnumbered. And as ranks were done at the start of combat, 20 would have sufficed for the 1st turn. Not a good idea of course, but there we are.

Lord Solar Plexus
13-12-2012, 14:36
Well, Empire knights were probably not the best example to prove the power of heavy cavalry in 7th. Although if they got into the flank...

IcedCrow
13-12-2012, 14:55
Most heavy cavalry units were also had at least one character in it, if not a bus loaded down with several characters in the front rank.

Five plain empire knights by themselves weren't ever really an issue. If anything that was just one of the four or five cavalry units the empire player had and definitely not a main cavalry unit, that would have been wide on a flank to swoop in from the side while another dedicated cavalry unit loaded to the gills with characters and killy items engaged in the front.