PDA

View Full Version : combat resolution - fantasy style



Torga_DW
02-02-2010, 01:33
Hey all, i was just thinking about combat resolution in 5th edition. In the past, it was determined by things like out-numbering, whereas now its taken a little bit from fantasy and gone with casualties caused.

But in fantasy, casualties caused in combat is only one part of the equation, with other things such as rank bonuses, defending cover, etc coming into play. Do you think that 40k (maybe next edition) should borrow more heavily from fantasy in this respect? So like a 10 man squad gets +2 static res (+1 for every 5 men), and a 20 man squad gets +4 static res, before casualties are even determined?

Or are people happy with the assault phase as it stands now?

trigger
02-02-2010, 01:40
Nope , fantasy CR is pants at the best of times.
Picture if you will.

A 10 man assault squad charges 30 ork boys .... at best the SM will kill 6/8 say the orks kill 5 .. SM RUN AWAY :/

Eldoriath
02-02-2010, 01:51
I think that the old outnumbering system should be added to the current slaughter system. I e, if you outnumber your opponent you get zip and nothing, but if you outnumber 2:1 you get +1 to res, 3:1 +2, 4:1 +3 and at 5:1 (or above) +4. Or perhaps set the limit at 4:1, you can only be so much outnumbered.

mchmr6677
02-02-2010, 01:57
I think that the old outnumbering system should be added to the current slaughter system. I e, if you outnumber your opponent you get zip and nothing, but if you outnumber 2:1 you get +1 to res, 3:1 +2, 4:1 +3 and at 5:1 (or above) +4. Or perhaps set the limit at 4:1, you can only be so much outnumbered.

I think that instead of adding to res, outnumbering should effect the leadership role. For example, if you have 20 guardsmen lose to 5 marines by 4, normally the guard would use leadership -4. But since they outnumber their opponent 4 to 1, their leadership is increased by 3 so they only test at -1.

For no retreat, it would be the same thing. The fearless unit would only take a wound for each point by which their leadership would be lowered.

This would ensure that the silliness of fantasy res when no wounds are suffered by either side and the "loser" runs away because of not having enough ranks.

Eldoriath
02-02-2010, 09:48
Yeah, I like your idea. But I think a cap of 4:1 should suffice. However it all remains to be concluded about what they will do. But I do agree that it's silly that a hydra, a fearsome monster, charges a unit, kills 3 persons and then wishes to flee because the other guys either has 3 full ranks and a musician or just 4 full ranks. I mean, sure the other guys are many. But he will just go through and slaughter them like a kid running through a field of flowers. some minor bruises might occur, but nothing more scary then that.

Thud
02-02-2010, 10:48
So, what you want is endless combats where the super cheap infantry of the horde armies always win the day and bringing elite units becomes even less viable?

I'm gonna have to go and disagree with that.

Also; shouldn't this be in Rules Development?

Bunnahabhain
02-02-2010, 10:56
Use the proportion of unit killed, instead of raw numbers.

30 Orks boys vs 10 wolf guard terminators.

15 orks die, 5 terminators die- 50% of both units. Tie or crushing victory for the terminators?

5 Orks die, 5 terminators die- 5 of each unit. Tie, or crushing victory for the Orks?

Combat resolution is one of the mechanics that ignores the actual unit cost ( like KPs) so throws up these odd situations. If there is a relatively quick and easy way to factor in unit cost, it avoids the worst of this.

Occulto
02-02-2010, 11:06
But in fantasy, casualties caused in combat is only one part of the equation, with other things such as rank bonuses, defending cover, etc coming into play. Do you think that 40k (maybe next edition) should borrow more heavily from fantasy in this respect? So like a 10 man squad gets +2 static res (+1 for every 5 men), and a 20 man squad gets +4 static res, before casualties are even determined?

No, because in 40K it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to replicate the things in WHFB that negate those bonuses.

WinglessVT2
02-02-2010, 11:39
Never in a million years.
If I want to play blockhammer, I play fantasy.

Vaktathi
02-02-2010, 12:31
Nope , fantasy CR is pants at the best of times.
Picture if you will.

A 10 man assault squad charges 30 ork boys .... at best the SM will kill 6/8 say the orks kill 5 .. SM RUN AWAY :/Actually, to be fair, in that situation, the SM's have killed about 1/5th to about 1/4th of the Orks, while the SM's lost 50% of their numbers, not looking good for the marines.


I agree however, that Fantasy CR is pants. A better illustration is that the SM's could go in, inflict those casualties, take *nothing* back, and lose and then break and run.

Seriously, had a combat last month with my Chaos Knights, killed 9 spearmen, took no casualties, but because they had 5 ranks, outnumbered, had a unit in the side with a rank, and two standards, my Chaos Knights lost, despite that they took no casualties and would have killed everything had they simply stayed there for a couple more turns.

N810
02-02-2010, 12:35
Combat resolution is suposed to be a mix or morale and units shoving each outher with their shields and cauualites. If you have a lot more ranked troops than the other guy you can literaly push them back, knock them down or trample them.
http://qa.perl.org/phalanx/history.html


As the lines neared each other, both sides broke into a run. The challenge for the general was to maintain cohesion (and the shield wall) while still gaining enough momentum for the initial crash. When the armies did crash, among the literal rain of spear splinters as the spears shattered, the battle became a scrum of each army trying to push through the other's line. The forward ranks did what hacking and spearing they could, while the rear ranks drove the enemy forward by pressing their shields into the backs of the men in front of them. The pressure, the noise, the confusion, the gore at the front of the line were immense.

the Goat
02-02-2010, 12:53
Seriously, had a combat last month with my Chaos Knights, killed 9 spearmen, took no casualties, but because they had 5 ranks, outnumbered, had a unit in the side with a rank, and two standards, my Chaos Knights lost, despite that they took no casualties
You did it wrong. With what you describe there is no way the other side could get 9-10 static combat bonus.



+3 for ranks (max)
+1 for outnumber
+1 for standard (max, unless 2nd standard was battle standard)
+1 for flanking (and your knights don't get any rank bonus)


+6 total for your opponent. Your knights won the combat.
________
Ffm stockings (http://www.****tube.com/categories/556/stockings/videos/1)

Vaktathi
02-02-2010, 13:13
I thought it was a +5 rank bonus per unit? Maybe I read the rules wrong? I've only played about a dozen games of fantasy.

Either way, it's still possible to win a combat basically doing nothing to an enemy.

Falkman
02-02-2010, 13:32
It's a total of +3 for ranks TOTAL, regardless of how many units are in the fight.
And you only count the highest unit, so to get +3 you actually need a unit with 3 extra ranks, you can't add +1 and +2 from two different units.
Anyway, this is 40k rules forums.

On topic: I think bringing back something like the outnumber system from 4th ed and combining it with what we have today would be interesting and still fitting in the 40k ruleset.

fluffstalker
02-02-2010, 14:20
Nope, Fantasy rules is Fantasy rules. Fantasy combat represents the push and shove of an old fashioned melee, which usually goes to the side with more guts and numbers. 40k Combats are skirmishes with more focus on quick, one on one fights, which go to the side that can strike harder and faster than the other.

Lord Damocles
02-02-2010, 14:58
I'd like to see the outnumbering bonus make a return in addition to the current system where combat is determined by wounds caused. For example:

5 Grey Knights charge 20 Orks
The Knights kill five for no losses in return.
The Knights score 5 for wounds caused. The Orks score 3 for outnumbering their opponants 3:1.
The Orks therefore lose combat by 2.

Xelloss
02-02-2010, 15:33
As transposing directly WHFB rules into 40K directly would be silly, as 5th ed's combat resolution system is dumb and hugely favor elite armies. The system really needs to be redone (but should stay simple if you want people to adopt it).

What do we need ?
- Number should be advantageous.
- Vehicles with WS and Monstrous Creature should be equivalent to multiple small targets.
- Number of wounds should has a role in the resolution.
- a draw should stay as a draw.

IMO, the rule could be : "treat force superiority as modifiers in the wound count. 2:1 give +1, 3:1 give +2, 4:1 give +3 ; a vehicle with WS or a monstrous creature count as 5 models. Then proceed as normal to determine who won the combat." - the rest stay as written in the 5th BRB

This way if 30 IG assault 5 terminators :
5 IG die while 1 terminator dies, you have 1+3 = 4 vs 5 : terminators win
2 IG die while 1 terminator dies : 1+3 = 4 vs 2 : IG wins
The outcome of the fight represent more accurately the real loss of the armies

The same way, a dreadnought will manage to kill 2 orks per turn, but would win the fight against 10 orks because 2 > 1 (10:5 = 2:1), but would tie against 15 orks or more.

Pink Horror
02-02-2010, 16:16
So, what you want is endless combats where the super cheap infantry of the horde armies always win the day and bringing elite units becomes even less viable?

That doesn't sound like Warhammer Fantasy, where the complaint is typically the opposite.

I'd rather have a system where combat isn't decided by wounds, but kills - a little more abstract. Each model would need a number to know how many assault resolution points he gives up when he dies: a regular infantryman would be 1, a MEQ would be 2, and really specialized assault things could be more. The game should solve this little problem of having 1 tyranid warrior's death mean the same as 3 terminators.

SPYDER68
02-02-2010, 16:50
Anything but fantasy combat bonuses..

But.. cant you imagine.. a Space marine player with drums incase they tie for +1 ??

as we all know.. drums or flutes win combats..

N810
02-02-2010, 16:56
Anything but fantasy combat bonuses..

But.. cant you imagine.. a Space marine player with drums incase they tie for +1 ??

as we all know.. drums or flutes win combats..

Sound marines ?

oops I mean ...
noise marines ?

SPYDER68
02-02-2010, 16:59
Who would of thought those crazy noise marines had that for an advantage...

Rydmend
02-02-2010, 17:08
I think that instead of adding to res, outnumbering should effect the leadership role. For example, if you have 20 guardsmen lose to 5 marines by 4, normally the guard would use leadership -4. But since they outnumber their opponent 4 to 1, their leadership is increased by 3 so they only test at -1.

For no retreat, it would be the same thing. The fearless unit would only take a wound for each point by which their leadership would be lowered.

This would ensure that the silliness of fantasy res when no wounds are suffered by either side and the "loser" runs away because of not having enough ranks.

This seems like it would be a decent idea.

Bloodknight
02-02-2010, 17:14
as we all know.. drums or flutes win combats..

Daemons do that already ;)

Lord Inquisitor
02-02-2010, 17:27
I think something needs to happen. Right now small units have a distinct advantage. As an example I charge 5 assault marines into 40 guardsmen mega unit. I kill 5 and lose 4 marines, the guardsmen fail the Ld test and are run down by the remaining marine. But the guard won that combat in any realistic terms.

Worse than this, if one unit is really small, a unit of 1 say, then they have the intrinstic advantage that unless they're killed, the enemy simply can't rack up combat resolution required to break them. It took a while for me to twig this, but I frequently send characters into combat against hordes of enemies because they stand a very good chance of beating and running down the whole enemy unit because they can inflict more casualties on the enemy than they can on the character.

There needs to be SOMETHING that can even the scales in combat in favour of large units (and not Kill Points!)

Inquisitor_Tolheim
02-02-2010, 18:27
As has already been stated, the only thing the current CR system needs (IMHO) is an outnumbering bonus. There have been several viable ideas of how to make this work already presented.

Badger[Fr]
02-02-2010, 19:37
The issue is, weren't it for combat resolution and No Retreat wounds, the current ruleset would heavily favour large units. One must keep in mind WFB's battles are fought one rank at a time, whereas each and every model counts in 40k. An Ogryn or Khorne Berzerker squad should be able to kill an entire Ork mob on its own, and wouldn't be able to do so without CR.

Anyway, horde armies are either Stubborn or Fearless, so Combat Resolution isn't much of an issue...

mchmr6677
02-02-2010, 20:15
;4358825']Anyway, horde armies are either Stubborn or Fearless, so Combat Resolution isn't much of an issue...

Unless No Retreat wounds kill more then combat does. Happens all the time with Nids MCs that dare try to add their strength to a combat involving their smaller kin.

stroller
02-02-2010, 20:29
It ain't broke.

Don't fix it.

Jackmojo
02-02-2010, 20:30
The only thing suggested I'd like to see is perhaps the bonus for defending cover. I've always felt that could be a little bit better.

re: outnumbering etc... numerous model count units are already generally superior to small units of super elite troops in an assault as they net more bonus attacks for charging. That I think is enough of an advantage for the supposedly 'cheaper' units. There is a reason why Deathwing and Grey Knights are not considered super competitive.

Jack

Malorian
02-02-2010, 20:33
Well they already have banners (like chapter banner) but I don't think musicians have a place in 40k.

Rank bonus also doesn't work with a system that is all about skirmishing.

The only obviously way to change it then is in outnumbering which I think would be great.

Xelloss
02-02-2010, 21:27
It ain't broke.
Don't fix it.

This is strongly a matter of perspective. Of course, from the SM's one this is perfectly good, as that favours them greatly.

stroller
02-02-2010, 21:50
Re: Xellos
Originally Posted by stroller
It ain't broke.
Don't fix it.

Xellos: This is strongly a matter of perspective. Of course, from the SM's one this is perfectly good, as that favours them greatly.

Of course it is. My perspective is that I'm quite happy with the existing system. The fantasy system works for the different style play there. As for any SM bias or favour, my xenos seem to eat those crunchy shell humans quite well, favour or no favour...

Lord Inquisitor
02-02-2010, 21:55
As has already been stated, the only thing the current CR system needs (IMHO) is an outnumbering bonus. There have been several viable ideas of how to make this work already presented.
My point was partially that this needs to be in the combat resolution step, otherwise it just mitigates the problem without fixing it.


It ain't broke.

Don't fix it.
That's a matter of opinion. If a 5 man assault squad is considered to have "won" the combat against guardsmen when they lose 4 marines for 5 dead guardsmen, I reckon that's "broke" personally. Additionally, there is a herohammer problem of individual characters rampaging through hordes of lesser troops because they can dish out more wounds than they could possibly suffer in return (unless they die, of course).

WinglessVT2
02-02-2010, 23:12
5 assault-marines will butcher 7 guardsmen easily, and if they incapacitate 2 in return, they've still lost, and more likely than not has no wishes to stay that close to the remaining marines, even for one more minute.

The problem, if you ask me, is fantasy's retarded 'combat resolution,' which is kept for god know's why.

nsok
02-02-2010, 23:33
5 assault-marines will butcher 7 guardsmen easily, and if they incapacitate 2 in return, they've still lost, and more likely than not has no wishes to stay that close to the remaining marines, even for one more minute.

The problem, if you ask me, is fantasy's retarded 'combat resolution,' which is kept for god know's why.

Why is fantasy's combat resolution system retarded? It actually works very well IMO.

Keep in mind that you cant really tell in a huge melee how many people on each side is going down; artillery explosions going on, half covered in blood and gore, and a pile of buddies at your back, id say a large IG squad should have an advantage, and I agree with inquisitor and his example that the system needs to be modified

petribird
03-02-2010, 00:06
I have to go with bring some sort of outnumber back, even if its just for fluffiness. Yes marines should smash up hordes, but if its five marines against a giant horde at some point maybe they should disappear under a wave of bodies.

My bigger issue is I really feel it hurts multi charging (note, not the same as combined arms). If I charge with two units and loose combat it is going to really hurt for a number of armies with no retreat. So two 5 man marines squads or two 15 gaunt broods are worse than a 10 man squad or 30 gaunt brood (I lose combat by 2, each unit takes 2 wounds). As was mentioned earlier this really impacts the Nids and there MCs. Now you may not want to swarm with little guys and then slam home the bigger bugs (Stealers and up) because if the enemy can inflict enough casualties on the gaunts its actually more effective than hitting the big ones due to no retreat.

I personally like the CR from fantasy, its not what I would use for 40k as is, but something like what was mentioned about change the Ld roll I think could be made to work.

Redscare
03-02-2010, 02:44
I thought it was a +5 rank bonus per unit? Maybe I read the rules wrong? I've only played about a dozen games of fantasy.

Either way, it's still possible to win a combat basically doing nothing to an enemy.

The rank bonus actually caps at +3, and the unit only get rank bonuses if the unit is at least 5 wide.

While it is true that winning a combat by basically doing nothing is a possibility, I think it just makes the combat all the more realistic. IMO, this is more realistic in regard to psychology. An elite unit will usually always kill more then they lose, but if you only rely on their combat prowess and don't support them, they can still get over runned by hordes of cheaper troops. It forces you to have a nice balance in your army, and to consider not only the killing power, but also the staying power.

IMO, CR in fantasy also makes the combat much more exciting. It is much more about going back and forth- as long as the battle is not too lopsided, you never know which side will come out on top. 40k on the other hand doesn't really have this. We both play guard, so think about this. How often do you have combats and assaults that are some-what equal? How often did you have to wonder who will win? How often was working out combat engaging and exciting?

Even with mechanized guard, you don't really have a chance once you get hit in close combat. It's usually so one-sided that a different outcome is usually unthinkable unless you're fighting a mirror unit. It was always one side completely wiping the floor with the other. CC Termies, banshees, genestealers, orks, etc. The units that get charged by them usually don't have a prayer of getting a tie, let alone a win. Even TEQs and MEQs are sometimes no where near "safe" when they get hit. Many 40k units are so specialized that the turn in which they excel are often so devastating that nothing can recover. It's even reached a point when specialist assault units can totally annihilate even other specialist assault units, like CC termies vs. Banshees, regardless of who charged.

I'm not saying fantasy combats are perfect, but IMO they are much more engaging compared to 40k. A lot of problems that peopled have argued against fantasy usually have a lot more to do with specific armies, items, or units rather then the mechanics as a whole.

Balragore
03-02-2010, 03:20
1st: Wrong forum.

2nd: No, even more convoluted rules when we're finally beginning to shave down to fit and trim level is NOT the way 40k should go.

Hellebore
03-02-2010, 04:19
At the moment you get ridiculous situations where one model kills 2 out of 30 enemies, takes no wounds and runs the whole lot down.

Whether people want to admit it or not, weight of numbers will have a massive effect in melee.

Even if you killed twice the number I did, the guys at the back can't tell that and the proportion is so small that it doesn't matter.

hEllebore

KingNova3000
03-02-2010, 04:28
Fantasy's close combat system is like watching paint dry. It comes down to who can by the trickiest. 40k's no fuss system is way better, far more brutal just like anything from the 40k universe should be.

Lord Inquisitor
03-02-2010, 04:30
2nd: No, even more convoluted rules when we're finally beginning to shave down to fit and trim level is NOT the way 40k should go.
Ha! Have you read any of the recent codecies? Convolution is the way forward... Each codex seems to want to outdo the last in sheer weight of special rules and exceptions. 40K has been moving away from "fit and trim" for some time now. 5th ed has never been that simple anyway - hit allocation has slowed the game down considerably as players need to allocate hits every time a unit is attacked rather than just throwing some dice to save. There's so much that could be done to simplify 40K - vehicle shooting rules, for example. Move 6", fire one weapon, move 12" fire one. Apply that to all vehicles, fast or not. Job done.

However, you do have a point. The current system does have it going for it that there is no calculation and counting up wounds or models is a pain, particularly in large combats. I don't relish going back to that, but it seems to me a necessary evil as I don't see how else you can do it.

Lord Raneus
03-02-2010, 05:09
At the moment you get ridiculous situations where one model kills 2 out of 30 enemies, takes no wounds and runs the whole lot down.

Whether people want to admit it or not, weight of numbers will have a massive effect in melee.

Even if you killed twice the number I did, the guys at the back can't tell that and the proportion is so small that it doesn't matter.

hEllebore

I don't personally view a 40k close combat as people lining up and sprinting at each other Fantasy-style, though. That'd be suicide given the incredibly advanced firearms available in 40k.

Numbers wouldn't be as critical in 40k close combats, in my opinion, because the combatants are much less likely to be packed in close together.

Plus, as noted, if you're a Guard platoon taking a vicious beating from Marines, you're not going to care if you've proportionally killed more of them; you're just going to see your squad getting blown apart around you.

Balragore
03-02-2010, 05:17
Ha! Have you read any of the recent codecies? Convolution is the way forward... Each codex seems to want to outdo the last in sheer weight of special rules and exceptions. 40K has been moving away from "fit and trim" for some time now. 5th ed has never been that simple anyway - hit allocation has slowed the game down considerably as players need to allocate hits every time a unit is attacked rather than just throwing some dice to save. There's so much that could be done to simplify 40K - vehicle shooting rules, for example. Move 6", fire one weapon, move 12" fire one. Apply that to all vehicles, fast or not. Job done.

However, you do have a point. The current system does have it going for it that there is no calculation and counting up wounds or models is a pain, particularly in large combats. I don't relish going back to that, but it seems to me a necessary evil as I don't see how else you can do it.




At the moment you get ridiculous situations where one model kills 2 out of 30 enemies, takes no wounds and runs the whole lot down.

Whether people want to admit it or not, weight of numbers will have a massive effect in melee.

Even if you killed twice the number I did, the guys at the back can't tell that and the proportion is so small that it doesn't matter.




I admit that wound allocation still could use work, however, I do (and did) NOT like number of models involved in combat being a factor in combat resolution.

If your 10 terminators fail to hit/wound/kill a lonely firewarrior in close combat, and he subsequently does hit/wound/kill a termie... then your issue is with either your Terminators, or your dice, NOT the fact that you lost close combat, and want your consolation prize for simply showing up in close combat with "more/cooler models".

Bloodknight
03-02-2010, 07:06
The problem lies with units that "suck" in CC and have no LD gimmicks, or tarpit units that aren't at least stubborn.

2 Assault Marines can easily rout a squad of 15 Kroot Warriors, for example, as long as one of the Marines survive, and Kroot are supposed to be combat troops.

Or Wyches. Wyches used to win by attrition because they're not very killy - if you're fighting Marines, Wyches are quite likely to lose combat if the Succubus doesn't kill at least one guy, and then they run.

Balragore
03-02-2010, 07:09
The problem lies with units that "suck" in CC and have no LD gimmicks, or tarpit units that aren't at least stubborn.

2 Assault Marines can easily rout a squad of 15 Kroot Warriors, for example, as long as one of the Marines survive, and Kroot are supposed to be combat troops.

Or Wyches. Wyches used to win by attrition because they're not very killy - if you're fighting Marines, Wyches are quite likely to lose combat if the Succubus doesn't kill at least one guy, and then they run.



I'd like to refer you to the post directly above yours.

Xelloss
03-02-2010, 08:05
As usual, once your posts are not on the last page, nobody read them... I think we ALL agree that you couldn't and shouldn't apply the WHFB combat resolution system to 40K.
The real point we should be discussing is how to fix the silliness of the present system, that favors un-killable über-units and makes the meat-fodder strategy pointless.

GrogDaTyrant
03-02-2010, 10:56
YES. I think there should definitely be far more going into combat resolution than just 'who killed more of who'. Think about it like this... If a squad of 5 terminators charges into a squad of 30 guardsmen/orks/hormagaunts/whatever... and deal 7 casualties to their opponents but suffer 4 unsaved wounds themselves (resulting in 1 lone terminator remaining, and 23 remaining enemies)... who SERIOUSLY lost that fight? The absurdity of not taking into account things like out-numbering (at the least), is one of the things I dispise most about 5th ed. It's right up there with that 'Randomly Falling Over Dead' rule (No Retreat).

SatireSphere
03-02-2010, 11:12
You did it wrong. With what you describe there is no way the other side could get 9-10 static combat bonus.



+3 for ranks (max)
+1 for outnumber
+1 for standard (max, unless 2nd standard was battle standard)
+1 for flanking (and your knights don't get any rank bonus)


+6 total for your opponent. Your knights won the combat.

He must've had the Griffin Banner: ie he doubles his rank bonus.

6 for ranks, 1 outnumber, BSB + regular standard, flank makes 10 CR, before kills.

borithan
04-02-2010, 14:42
Maybe not have outnumbering be included for determining who wins (do that purely by casualties) but have it negate some of the leadership penalties for suffering more casualties?

Xelloss
04-02-2010, 14:54
Maybe not have outnumbering be included for determining who wins (do that purely by casualties) but have it negate some of the leadership penalties for suffering more casualties?
You will still end with an huge advantage for small and hard-to-die units over small-but-cheap-fries. And it would negatte the only reason why the rule changed since 4th, that is so the melee combat don't last for the rest of the game.

Poseidal
04-02-2010, 15:36
I think the current system is far from great, but the Fantasy system has Banners, Ranked units (and negating of by flanking etc) which don't translate into 40k well.


He must've had the Griffin Banner: ie he doubles his rank bonus.

6 for ranks, 1 outnumber, BSB + regular standard, flank makes 10 CR, before kills.

A BSB with the Griffon Banner wouldn't be too hard for a Chaos Knight unit to kill though, but you could get unlucky.

I shy away from the Griffon Banner, because as good as it is, the bearer can't take any magical protection so the best he has is his armour and horse. If he dies, you're losing 4 CR for one model, rather than 1 on a normal BSB (who could be less easy to kill thanks to taking defensive magic items).