Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So the steadfast rule was put in place because of small units able to cause a lot of damage. However the side effect was to destroy the function of heavy cavalry. Which should rely on the shock of its charge to break enemies.

What if on fast cav had a special rule letting them reduce the leadership of units that outnumber them by a small fixed amount (1, 2 or 3). This reduction would still be capped at no more than what combat was won by and would only apply on the charge turn.

Does that make sense?

I prefer the Warhammer Ancients alternative
units are not steadfast per se, they can "Fall Back in Good Order" (FBIGO) if their Unit Power is more than twice their opponent
Unit Power is as in the old WHFB, infantry = 1, cavalry = 2, big things = variable (usually 3 to 5)
So to be steadfast against 10 horsemen, you'd need to be 41 strong
It's a system that works well in a low-damage output meta though, as there's no step-up / support attacks, no crapload of rerolls or such, so the conditions would need to be toned down otherwise things like Dragon Princes and CoK would be even better than what they already are

Or if you want to play proper Linebreaking cavalry, use Bretonnians, or be smart and combine flanking cavalry with infantry

Ancients does have a lot of good ideas.

As far as cavalry goes, I think the alternative rules discussed a while back about flank/rear charges pretty much sums things up: you get a -1 to your Ld when charged in the flank, and a -2 in the rear.

Cavalry can get to those positions against infanry easy enough. And if they don't want to (Chaos/Blood Knights and Monstrous Cavalry), it's because they'll probably just crush their opponents anyway. It'll just take a bit longer.

Honestly, I've talked to several history buffs about this sort of thing, and the consensus is: well-trained infantry did not break against cavalry.
When we started killing each other, someone figured out it was easier to do while atop a horse. People reacted to this by standing in tight formations, so he couldn't just run them over.

Sorry but your history buff is wrong.

Before the envention of the stirrup this was true. However , katarerphactoi, high and late Middle Ages Christian knights, mongol lancers, malmuk cavalry are all line breaker cavalry trained to break infantry with the lance and trample those who don't give way. It is stunningly effective against all but the best trained infantry and there effectiveness lead directly to the devolpment of better anti cav weapons and formations. However even with those weapons the ability of a man on horse to make it impossible to fight from the ground as an organize force would extend all the way to the end of the napoleaonic wars. Waterloo contains badly used cavalry being very effective (the British heavy cav charge early on) and well used cav being ineffective (French cav being unable to break British and Prussian infantry squares)

Regardless of the history frothing warhammer fantasy is not a sumulator it's a wargame with fantasy, romance, and adventure overtones. In that source material from Rohan, to camelot, to the knights Templar, or the forces in romance of the three kingdoms, the use of heavy cav is line breakers.

IthinkIbrokeit wrote:
Sorry but your history buff is wrong.

Before the envention of the stirrup this was true. However , katarerphactoi, high and late Middle Ages Christian knights, mongol lancers, malmuk cavalry are all line breaker cavalry trained to break infantry with the lance and trample those who don't give way. It is stunningly effective against all but the best trained infantry and there effectiveness lead directly to the devolpment of better anti cav weapons and formations. However even with those weapons the ability of a man on horse to make it impossible to fight from the ground as an organize force would extend all the way to the end of the napoleaonic wars. Waterloo contains badly used cavalry being very effective (the British heavy cav charge early on) and well used cav being ineffective (French cav being unable to break British and Prussian infantry squares)

Regardless of the history frothing warhammer fantasy is not a sumulator it's a wargame with fantasy, romance, and adventure overtones. In that source material from Rohan, to camelot, to the knights Templar, or the forces in romance of the three kingdoms, the use of heavy cav is line breakers.

this

Cavalry are far from useless. They are still the premier monster hunters in the game. They sweep away skirmishers, and can make a bee-line up the flanks toward warmachines.

Anything done to improve Cavalry needs to be done without improving monstrous cavalry, which is already good enough.

Maybe have cavalry reduce a steadfast test by 1 for each rank they have. Having a unit of 15 reduce steadfast by 3 is enough to typically brake unsupported infantry, but won't crush a block near a general/BSB.
Since monstrous cav pays a lot more for the 2nd rank, and doesn't get the same hitting power (monstrous mounts don't fight in 2nd rank), I think it could give a little nod to cav, without furthering the imbalance between cav and monstrous cav.

-Matt

Blood knights need to be able to break infantry with a unit of 5 models because they are to expensive to have a second rank in all but the largest games.

Agreed monstrous cavalry is good right now. Additionaly fast cavalry has a definite purpose ( the flank strikers discussed above) what is screwed up is heavy cav which can't break infantry units because of steadfast.

Cavalry should be a bit of a gamble. Their charge is everything. If the rules reflected this and gave cav more ability to break infantry formations on the charge it would be fine. The warhammer ancients stuff would be fine. But the steadfast rule is basically to good for infantry fighting cavalry.

IthinkIbrokeit wrote:
Sorry but your history buff is wrong.

Oh, c'mon, now. Historical facts are hard to come by. There's always room for debate, error, and false info. How about a little tentativeness?

IthinkIbrokeit wrote:
Before the envention of the stirrup this was true. However , katarerphactoi, high and late Middle Ages Christian knights, mongol lancers, malmuk cavalry are all line breaker cavalry trained to break infantry with the lance and trample those who don't give way.

I should clarify: I have heard that heavy cavalry was not guaranteed to break infantry. It still did, of course. But charging headlong into a phalanx of 20ft. pikes and such was, I imagine, a dicey move.

It is stunningly effective against all but the best trained infantry and there effectiveness lead directly to the devolpment of better anti cav weapons and formations. However even with those weapons the ability of a man on horse to make it impossible to fight from the ground as an organize force would extend all the way to the end of the napoleaonic wars. Waterloo contains badly used cavalry being very effective (the British heavy cav charge early on) and well used cav being ineffective (French cav being unable to break British and Prussian infantry squares)

I dunno what to think of cavalry. They are still really good vs. certain things like say monsters I think. Of course since monsters and other large units are popular with warhammer and have been for all of 8th and some of 7th I think cavalry still have a use. Then there's light cavalry doing a decent job vs war machines. So yeah I think cavalry are ok. Maybe a slight boost to charge like with lances but not much else. If this is the case though I propose that cavalry charging spearmen or possibly halberdiers should at least force a dangerous terrain test on all the cavalry though.

I hear in 7th edition cavalry pretty much dominated the whole game. You really want to see a return of that?

These days most sides with cavalry have monstrous cavalry too and those hit hard. Yeesh and blood knights used to be the most fearsome cavalry.

A simple thing would be to count cavalry as two guys (so a full rank would count as two) so you can break steadfast if you have a large cavalry unit (no mere 10 cavalrymen ever broke a 100-strong infantry block [so 5 horsies vs 50 infantry once put back to WHFB scale]), and give them Devastating charge (=1A on the charge) when using Lances/Spears to help reduce the rubber lance syndrom. But then it would boost CoK and DragonPrinces that don't really need a buff ... maybe a rule of "Shock Cavalry" for heavy cavalry where you can re-roll to hit on the charge ? (some Ancients armies of elite Eastern cavalry have it and it works well)

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I hear in 7th edition cavalry pretty much dominated the whole game.

Imagine a world where charging meant you attacked first.

Now imagine a world where there was no Steadfast, no step-up, and you only fought in 1 rank.

5 Chaos Knights charge into my block of Clanrats. They do ~6 wounds, so I don't get to attack at all. I've got 3 ranks, 1 standard, and I outnumber him for another 1. He's got 6 wounds and a standard.

And that is why my "big" units were 25 strong.

Warpsolution wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I hear in 7th edition cavalry pretty much dominated the whole game.

Imagine a world where charging meant you attacked first.

Now imagine a world where there was no Steadfast, no step-up, and you only fought in 1 rank.

5 Chaos Knights charge into my block of Clanrats. They do ~6 wounds, so I don't get to attack at all. I've got 3 ranks, 1 standard, and I outnumber him for another 1. He's got 6 wounds and a standard.

And that is why my "big" units were 25 strong.

I played in 7th edition but I just didn't play that much so I completely know what you're talking about. I hear this is where jezzails dominated for skaven. I remember almost nobody ran big units in 7th and 10 models wide didn't happen. I think the horde formation didn't give a boost back then.

On the other hand chaos knights are still to expensive to have enough of them to ever defeat steadfast on any reasonably priced infantry. Which means that now clanrats grind them to powder over 2 or 3 combat phases.

Chaos knights are the primer chaos unit, and along with blood knights and dragon princes (and maybe Grail knights amoung the best cav units in the game.

I have no problem with infantry even clanrats and goblins beating cav if the fight slogs on to subsequent turns. I also get that suffering 6 wounds and taking a -4 to -6 break test is not really fair either. A limited reduction would be better so that the chance is worth taking without being to good.

But Chaos Knights don't lose killing power after the charge. They'll still be strength 5 with 2-3 attacks each, and T4 with 1+ armor. So they can actually grind the unit away with not too much to fear. If its an elf or human they're only str3. So they aren't going to be doing much grinding after the charge.

Chaos Knights are one of the few heavy cavalry(that isn't Monstrous) that can actually keep in the fight after a charge. Clan rats by themselves aren't going to do much to them. They need 5s to wound and the Knights have 1+ armor. Plus the rats need to take a fear test each round.

IthinkIbrokeit wrote:
...clanrats grind them to powder over 2 or 3 combat phases.

Chaos knights are the primer chaos unit, and along with blood knights and dragon princes (and maybe Grail knights amoung the best cav units in the game.

...um. Chaos Knights still dish out those 6 wounds. Now that the Clanrats get to swing back, that's 10 attacks, 5 hits, 1.7 wounds, and .3 after saves, assuming they didn't fail their Fear test. On average, that's going to be 1 dead knight over 3 combat phases, and somewhere between 15 and 20 dead Clanrats. Oh, and those are Undivided Knights. Clanrats aren't grinding them to powder; they're dying in droves.

From what I've seen, Blood Knights don't rely overmuch on the charge. Dragon Princes do, but they also cost a lot less. I've heard a lot of people talk down about Grail Knights in 8th, too. The Bretonnians need a new book.

Grail knights are quite good, but they're basically Chaos Knights (/w lances) that lose 1T and 1AS for 4 less pts
Chaos Knights are better for sure, but Grail Knights are still decent, especially at monster hunting with a flaming banner as they're ItP

Heavy cavalry is good enough in the 8th edition. It greatly deals with monsters, monstrous infantry. It also routes skirmishers and small units very easily. Big blocks are pretty much the only thing that can stop it, a part from war machines.