PDA

View Full Version : Are elite infantry a viable army core?



Finnigan2004
29-03-2007, 14:33
I'm wondering if people on warseer have found very many viable army builds that use heavy infantry as the core of their army. I know that dwarfs and dryads can be used in this way, but I'm wondering if anyone has seen or used other army lists that are centered on elite infantry. I felt that in the last edition heavy cavalry, and cavalry in general were a little too predominant. Do you think that this has changed in this edition? I'm also wondering if people think that elite infantry are not effective enough, or if they are just about right. If you think that they should be more effective, how would you fix it?

ekxw
29-03-2007, 15:05
uhmm i m a dwarf palyer so i think they are to good, but other armies cant say so

Selsaral
29-03-2007, 15:49
I think infantry are more skill-based than other troop types. It can be real hard to get 4-move blocks into combat. In the case of chaos warriors, most enemies will lose if they actually fight you, so not only is your unit impossibly slow, your enemy is avoiding it at the same time.

I'm no master of the game so I cannot see where the skill can take you. In my experience, even skilled players can have a rough time delivering 4-move infantry. I am moderately skilled, and I have vastly more success with beast herds than with marauders or chaos warriors.

I am not sure what I would do to fix it. I like the fact that some troop types require more skill to use. However I would like to see more infantry in the battles I participate in.

Narrower tables is one way to modify the balance. Narrower tables reduces the total playing area, which reduces the negative impact of extreme slowness, and it also reduces flanking possibilities, thereby enhancing all types of infantry.

My gaming group has played several battles in special scenarios where only infantry and man-sized models can be fielded. Inside a cavern for example. We did this entirely because we were sick of playing most of our battles without infantry and we wanted more variety in our gaming.

gjnoronh
29-03-2007, 15:51
Depends on the rest of the list and whose playing it.

Elite infantry backed by lots of cheap support can do fairly well when run by an experienced general.

Elite infantry with only expensive support options - not so well.

A dwarf ALL infantry list won the Marauder GT in 2006 www.marauders-inc.com so clearly some people are doing quite well with them

Gorbad Ironclaw
29-03-2007, 15:56
Of course it can work.
I know people who play armies based around chaos warriors and doing fairly well with those, and my Dark Elves are also based around several units of elite infantry and likewise does as good as could be expected with me playing them :p

It does require you to take it in mind when you build it, and arrange for some support that works in combination with it, but it can work just fine.

MarcoPollo
29-03-2007, 16:05
It can work, of course, but there are so many other options available armies that you can usually find a cheaper replacement that can do the role that you are looking for (and possibly do it better).

Peril
29-03-2007, 16:12
Depends on the elite infantry. Some are very good. Some are really not. Dwarf infantry is fantastic, because you have to tools to force an opponent to engage you (lots of shooting and stout magic defense). M5 infantry at least have the extra movement which really does come in handy. Chaos Warriors suck in the worst way, because not only can you not force the issue unless you take an obscene amount of magic, you are M4 and have 1 attack for about 15-16 points. I would much rather take a Marauder unit and give them a hitty character (which is STILL cheaper than a unit of Chaos Warriors). With so many units with multiple attacks like Minotaurs or Ogres, you must either have ridiculous static combat res (like Dwarves), a special rule like Stubborn (like Eternal Guard), or be absurdly hard to kill (Plaguebearers). If you cannot do one of those things as an "elite" infantry unit (meaning your per point cost is over 11 or 12), then you are not a good unit.

vampires are cool!
29-03-2007, 16:20
An army based around the heavies can mow down quite a lot. It all comes down to deployment and tactics. The interesting part comes when you try to definbe heavy infantry;
Chaos infantry are probably the best in the game, and no one cab deny that they are very heavy, almost super elite, infantry.
Grave Guard are also counted amoung the warhammer heavy weight units, but they are by no means as impressive as the Chaos.
All troops dwarf armies have access to heavy armour and can boast a 3+ save on most of the models, but do they count as elite units?

DarkLord Of Naggaroth
29-03-2007, 16:43
I was a bit confused by your question. You asked are elites effective, well yes. You have to have some elites in your army to make it work (and to not get bored out of your skull) but then you asked if they are viable as an army core. I'd say no. I'm all for it in skirmishes, but IMO all armies need the basic warriors as a core not elites. Dark elves must have lots of spearmen to work, yes they must have some elites too, but not as a core. Sometimes I wonder if elites are good enough, but at the end of the day it's the same race and have the same capabilities.

Hywel
29-03-2007, 17:03
It can work. This isn't to say it will be the most effective list under the sun, but it can do a job. The key is to not have too many 'weak links' that the enemy can break through to come around behind your elites. Your support units need to be well handled and used thoughtfully (as ever I suppose...)

An advantage to keep in mind with large, expensive units is that to force the enemy to engage them, you have to ensure they cannot reasonably score large amounts of VPs elsewhere. In essence, construct the army so that if they want to win, they have to engage those big blocks - and then ensure your blocks are able to resist that.

It's not the best unit type around. High points (thusly low CR) and poor movement is a bad combination. But don't relegate elite infantry to redundancy.

Any one-dimensional army will struggle, this one will probably struggle a bit more than usual.

Onisuzume
29-03-2007, 19:28
Lizardmen don't have any other rank&file infantry but elite infantry. So imo, they're about right.

An army based around the heavies can mow down quite a lot. It all comes down to deployment and tactics. The interesting part comes when you try to definbe heavy infantry;
Chaos infantry are probably the best in the game, and no one cab deny that they are very heavy, almost super elite, infantry.
Grave Guard are also counted amoung the warhammer heavy weight units, but they are by no means as impressive as the Chaos.
And you, and the others, forget about the humble Saurus Warrior.
Who happen to be more then an match for most other infantry units.
And are, point for point, one of the best infantry units in the game.
Cold-blooded Ld8 isn't going to run fast. So they'll hold their ground more often than both dwarfs and unmarked chaos warriors. (effective leardership is roughly 9.7 o.0)
2 S4 attacks isn't something that most other units can boast about. (only chaos warriors I think)
Toughness 4 is also a rarity on most units. (dwarfs but they're slower and chaos warriors)
Can be upgraded to "heavy armour". (5+ scaly skin save) Or various other bonuses.(extra dispel dice anyone? Or aquatic and +1I? Ignore wooded terrain? Immune to psychology? Extra persue die? Or even an extra attack on the charge!)

Their only problem is their points cost, and their low initiative.

Indrid Khold
29-03-2007, 20:18
Well since Saurus are, as you say, the only real rank and file infantry in the Lizardman army they are obviously balanced accordingly and don't really count for purposes of this discussion, which is about the wisdom of taking the OPTION of an elite infantry army in lists that are perhaps not designed to be run that way (or at least exclusively that way). Or so it seems to me. Not that I have anything to contribute to that discussion either, since I'm still kind of a fantasy noob.

Grymlok
29-03-2007, 22:39
I don't class Saurus as Elite infantry. Maybe the Temple Guard, but even they are a core choice. Saurus are the regular infantry of the Lizards, albiet quite good regular infantry.

As for using elite infantry as the core of your army composition, I prefer any army that has it's basic models as the core of the army.

Rightnow
30-03-2007, 02:48
I hear the laughter of Bretonnians in the distance when non-stubborn/unbreakable, elite infantry is mentioned.

sulla
30-03-2007, 06:15
Case by case... Elite infantry as a rule is not broken so it doesn't need a rulechange in the main rules to fix it. However, most elite infantry is not worth the extra cost vs core infantry in most lists. This vcan be addressed on a case by case basis as each armybook is re-done.

Highborn
30-03-2007, 08:57
A dwarf ALL infantry list won the Marauder GT in 2006 www.marauders-inc.com so clearly some people are doing quite well with them

As opposed to dwarf all-cav? ;) What missile component was there to this army?

Onisuzume
30-03-2007, 18:07
I don't class Saurus as Elite infantry. Maybe the Temple Guard, but even they are a core choice. Saurus are the regular infantry of the Lizards, albiet quite good regular infantry.
Saurus warriors are "elite" compared to most other infantry units. (human, orc, dwarf, elf, skink...)

And in an Red Host army or Southlands army; they are most definitly elite infantry. With both skink cohorts and Red Crested skinks being lesser in combat than the saurus warriors are. (especially the skink cohorts)

Not to mention that a blessed spawning makes them special and giving them 2 makes them rare...

Inkosi
30-03-2007, 18:18
the questions for your poll is wrong in my opinion.

Instead of asking whether the elite infantry is good enough (hello, they have better stats better equips, of cause they are good enough.)

you should be asking whether they are effective enough for their cost.

to that i would reply a definate "NO".

DarkAngel74
30-03-2007, 21:17
I do not know about other armies, but I find Tomb Guards perform execellent in combat with killing blow and S4. For other elite infantries, what I heard was that flagellants works better than Greatswords.

Grymlok
31-03-2007, 00:27
I would agree with you Onisuzume that in comparison to Skinks that you could well say that Saurus are "elite" infantry. I just wish that in more games I felt that they had served me as elite infantry. I've played games where a unit of Saurus haven't even got involved with the exception of getting shot at! Many a Lizard player uses skinks as the back bone, when it should be the Saurus.

Give Saurus a rule called Crocodile water charge!!!!! Where if they are in a water feature when they charge, they get a 12" charge move! A bit like when a crocodile uses it's tail to launch a nasty attack at a wilderbeast/bison. Okay, I'll stop dreaming! Thats another of my "greedy, my army should have this" type ideas!

Crazy Harborc
31-03-2007, 02:35
Which armie's, compared to what, to who (whom)? IMHO, each player will likely have their own opinion(s).

I seldom use more than one elite unit in an army of 2500 points or less. For foot, I like 20.....for mounted it's 12 bodies.

WLBjork
31-03-2007, 10:47
Firstly what is meant by Elite Infantry?

Is it on a general basis or a per-army basis?

A basic HE Spearman is not elite within his own army, but compared to a Human Spearman is most certainly elite.

Likewise, when looking at the cost effectiveness it again needs to be considered on an army-by-army basis.

E.g. Longbeards are, IMO, worth the upgrade cost. +1WS, +1S, Immune to Panic and Old Grumblers coupled with buying Great Weapons makes them very useful for marching across the battlefield and highly effective at fighting heavily armoured units, such as cavalry.

Edit: My desired minimum force consists of 24 Iron Breakers, 24 Hammerers and 24 Longbeards at 2K. These will usually be accompanied by 24 (or more) Warriors (depends whether I'm playing missile free or not).