View Full Version : Homogenisation of armies

Lion El Jason
05-05-2005, 10:37
So Wood Elves are getting Heavy Infantry, Brettonians have war machines, Lizardmen have heavy cavalry...all things previously lacking in their respective lists, is there a trend towards making all WH armies have the same basic options? We know they have a set number of core/special/rare/hero choices to put in each army but does each army NEED to have a Heavy Cavalry unit? does each army NEED to have a war machine? I prefered armies to be lacking somewhere (I think Dwarfs are very characterful for example but how long can it be before they get dwarf shetland pony riders?)

I think all the armies are blurring into the same format and I would like to see more differences in future.

The boyz
05-05-2005, 10:44
I prefer an Army that lacks a certain troop type or movement. Because over a period of time you learn to adapt this weakness into a strength.And over come your particular armys weakness.

Three Headed Monkey
05-05-2005, 11:20
Not to mention Chaos getting a shooting option.

However, are you sure that WE are getting heavy infantry? The had the Glade Guard before, so a ranked up infantry unit is nothing particually new to them. But I will agree with you if WE are gettin heavy infantry. It just doesn't make sense. Although, I guess the inner glades would have some form a standing honour guard, ready to get stuck in in defense of their realm and leave the sneaking to the others.

Perhaps a nerfed rare choice like those available in the other Elf lists ;)

Delicious Soy
05-05-2005, 11:24
I guess it depends on if people use them much, personally I wouldn't field a trebuchet unless it was a siege, in which case Brettonians are still boned because they don't have heavy or elite infantry. My TK don't have any heavy cav option, well they do, but Medium cavalry doesn't sound as cool.

05-05-2005, 13:35
Just look at Chaos...very powerful against a beginner, just take loads of knights, which is why they are trying to balance out more armies so that there's less armies focused on one aspect, whic also means there's more ways to defeat cheesemongers.

05-05-2005, 13:46
Lizardmen have heavy cavalry.

Em...since when did a 3+ save=Heavy Cavalry, if it does what does that make chaos knights, Silver Helms, Empier knights, Super Heavy cavalry?

Medium Cavalry is what i would describe them as. Armies aren't being homogenised, its just that your perspective of what things are is changing so that every army looks the same and where exactly are you getting the definate info from someone who has seen the finished army book that shows a heavy infantry unit for wood elves. Glade Guard were medium infantry in the past anyway but i doubt they will be getting heavy armour any time soon, so no, they wont be heavy infantry.

Lion El Jason
05-05-2005, 13:52
I dont think there is medium cavalry. You have light cavalry or heavy cavalry theres no practical difference between the way you use 3+ save cavalry to 2+ save cavalry as long as they both have HtH weapons.

the eternal guard are heavy infantry according to the thread at the top of this page.

05-05-2005, 14:19
There is such a thing as medium cavalry:

no save to 5+= light cavalry
4+ to 3+ = medium cavalry
2+ or better = heavy cavalry

Medium cavalry is the one people don't complain about because they have twice the chance to fail their save against S3 that heavy cavalry does (3+ vs 2+). Ever heard anyone call Boar Riders or Saurus Cavalry cheesy?

And i don't think you're right, WFB has in fact become more diverse and not more homogenic. Dwarfs and Skaven don't have cavalry, CoU and CoS don't have much in the way or ranged weapons, Chaos has one warmachine that costs 270 points, can easily be distracted and takes up 2 Rare Slots, etc. It's not nearly as bad as you make it seem. :p

05-05-2005, 14:52
I must say that your view seems to be very negative towards the newest range, and while I agree it seems to be covering all bases it's not like there is a generic stat list to make models to for each army. I think that anarchistica has a point about how there are still weaknesses in the core of every army, just a there should be and that's the way it's going to stay. It's part of the charm of the game and changing that would be a loss for players of GW games and would become a loss for the company too, so I think it's in there best interests to keep the weaknesses around to keep it balanced and fun.

Maybe I'm reading to much into this topic but that's just my 2 cents


06-05-2005, 00:03
I guess it depends on if people use them much, personally I wouldn't field a trebuchet unless it was a siege, in which case Brettonians are still boned because they don't have heavy or elite infantry. My TK don't have any heavy cav option, well they do, but Medium cavalry doesn't sound as cool.

Great comment... We wouldn't even need this discussion if people always used armies that "fit" their race... of course we all know that this does always happen..

But on the flipside of that, it sure can be fun to spice up your army with a little something extra for a game...

But me personally, I like my armies to have an exact fit with the theme I have created (which probably has something to do with why I never win...)



06-05-2005, 00:19
I don't know if getting an infantry option in the wood elves neccessarily means they have a good infantry choice. Look at other Elven infantry... hardly awe inspiring. Then, it can be moved up or down the 'scale of desirability' within an army list by relative cost and ease of use.

So, in summary, I wouldn't get too worked up about WE infantry options until I saw them on the battlefield AND they made traditional WE strengths outdated (which I doubt will happen). If this doesn't happen, then all that has happened is that WE have got more army options, a good thing surely?

06-05-2005, 01:05
>>>>>I'm sorry, but how did Saurus Cavalry not count as heavy? They can have a 2+ with a spawning iirc, and they have 3 attacks total per model..all at S4 or higher, they may not come with a 2+ armor save standard, but there is nothing 'medium' about this unit at all; its a unit to be feared, and is more of a Heavy Cavalry unit as far as I can tell.

06-05-2005, 01:59
Saurus Cavalry can't take spawnings...I wish they could :(


Lion El Jason
06-05-2005, 10:15
Adding in a nebulous "Medium Cavalry" catagory based on saves is not a useful thing to do. These phantom "Medium Cavalry" will still function as light or heavy cavalry depending on role.

06-05-2005, 11:34
Well, I have to disagree with the homogenisation. Especially with the later army books releases, they are working hard to make each army fight in their own unique way. Take TK, who have a very unique way of fighting, much based on the magic phase to move and fight effectively. Lizzardmen are a unique army with lots of close range specialists, but limited power at long range. Plus they have limited armour all round. Beastmen mostly fight in skirmish formation, and have relatively low leadership. Brettonians might have gotten a war machine, but their army is still knights based, which makes it stand out (tough I'd rather have a little more viable man at arms). The new Ogre Knigdoms have a totally unique army composition, mainly build from large multi-wound creatures without ranks.

Of course, WE might be a little tweaked, but they were always way different from other races in fighting style. Thing they try to do now is to reduce the annoyment of people playing against WE by making the intercation of WE with the enemy more than just stand, avoid, and shoot. Sure, I've not seen the army book, so I can't really say much until I saw that, but, looking at the trend of the previous army books, I'm pretty sure WE will still have an unique fighting method.

06-05-2005, 16:36
Well, I consider more options actually a way to make the game more heterogenous.

If one had the options to play a Bretonnian Siege Encampment with only Peasants and Trebuchets or a Dwarfen Ranger/Outrider Expedition on Ponys or Mountain Goats, than more diversity is to be had by all. Or not?

If Army Lists are too restrictive, than every players army of the same race will look more or less alike (as is the case with Dwarfs at the moment). Thats what I'd call homogenous... not to mention boring.

06-05-2005, 16:53
Adding in a nebulous "Medium Cavalry" catagory based on saves is not a useful thing to do. These phantom "Medium Cavalry" will still function as light or heavy cavalry depending on role.
No, there is a category of cavalry who fights and relies on numbers and rank bonus. That's medium cavalry and typical examples are Khemri Heavy Cav, Boar Boyz and armoured Wolf Riders.

Placing Saurus COR in this category is a bit dubious, and they are not particularly more vulnerable to missile fire than Dark Elf COK (better save, less toughness).

06-05-2005, 17:04
It's often hard to draw a line, moreover since some cavalry units can be fielded in both ways. Especially fear causing cavalry is sometimes fielded in larger units to get rank bonus, and, more importantly, that outnumbering bonus, while they still have the toughness or save to classify as heavy cavalry when fielded in smaller units of say 5 or 6 models.

06-05-2005, 20:52
I field my Empire with no cav at all. 100% infantry (191models) and it's not a gunline. The vast majority of the force advances with about a quarter of the force providing support. It just fits the background for my army.

My Skaven are much the same. I prefer moulder and pestilens and include both more than i do skryre and eshin, though I do make sure to include each clan in the army. I figure a warlord would take anything he could get his paws on. This means that my army is quite varied, but I still don't have anything like a cavalry unit and I don't think my army is quite as similar to other Skaven armies as most people would at first assume.

I do like the idea that most armies will give options that appeal to most players. Let the players decide which themes they're going with.

09-05-2005, 10:15
In a similar vein, I like an all Dwarf Infantry force with no guns. Oh, I've got Thunderers, Xbows and War machines, but I like hitting things in HTH more, and is usually more effective as well.

Yesterday for example, I caused a Chaos Lord of Tzeentch with 5 Chosen Knights to flee my Ironbreakers. The big laugh was that they only caused one casualty between the lot of them, whilst I had 3 Ranks, Banner, +3CR bonus from Runes and +1 for outnumber - off the table they went. However, I did lose the game due to the fact that I had insufficient elite infantry to cause damage to the Chaos Warriors stomping around.

09-05-2005, 10:55
For what it's worth, Eternal Guard can hardly be called "Heavy infantry", being no heavier than Empire state troops...

09-05-2005, 13:14

There certainly is *medium* cavalry.

Light cavalry is more or less synonymous with fast cavalry, the guys who zap around the flanks and are generally annoying, but cannot tackle a fully ranked unit on their own.

Heavy Cav, or Linebreaker cav are units like Chaos Knights, DE Cold Ones, Imperial Knights... who rely on breaking an enemy in the charge, either as linebreaker or in a countercharge as an anchor for your own lines.

Medium cavalry is all that doesn't fit this roles IMO:
It is a continuum that stretches from fast cav who can tackle some units (Pistoliers come to mind, maybe stretching it here too far. Hobgoblin cav or Goblin non-fast cav are in this bracket definitively) through to harder cav units that have a worse save/toughness than heavies or dish out less damage. Those units often have no barding (believe me, my Kislev Cavalry cannot be classed as heavy, they don't survive any amount of shooting :( ) making them faster and more maneuvrable, but sacrificing either raw power or survivability for it.

IMO med cav is the hardest to use, as you have to pick your fights more wisely than with any other group, but they can be a real asset tactically.