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.

All Calvary units should get 1 impact hit for each model that can participate in combat using an enhanced STR buff based on the weapon (+2 STR for Lance / +1 STR for Spears).

I think it would go a long ways towards making cavalry more attractive, and yet not broken.

If anything first rank only. The awesome armor save of heavy cav is where they excel. They hit hard with a few attacks but take very few because of their armor

It should only be given to heavy cavalry, Fast Cav is good enough as it is
Impact hits for the whole unit is too much, but one per "fighting model" isn't stupid as normally a cavalry charge would punch through most of the enemy formation through sheer momentum, and it gives an incentive to go beyond the minimum 5-man unit

I would think something more like a stomp but for a charge only, so the S of the mount +1 if it wears barding. but not for fast cav
Units that don't have barding, but another increase to Sv ie cold ones and warboars should get it.

So an empire knight would have the knight's attacks, the horse's attack at I, then the weight of charge pressing into the unit and stopping the momentum.

Monstrous cav get the barding/sv S bonus to their stomp on the charge, then their stomp is back to normal

EDIT:
That would mean Juggernoughts are nasty on the charge would S7 or 8 be too much?

Cavalry is just fine the way ti is.

Why does cavalry need to be buffed? It is already a dominant part of the armies that can take them. Empire is already taking Knights before State Troops. Silver Helms have largely killed off Spearmen, Black Knights are driving their Vampires around and Wild Riders seem to be murdering just about everything they touch. The 'plight' of cavalry is one of Warhammer's biggest mysteries to me because they seem to be prevalent in just about every army that has access to them. For all the complaining about Steadfast and Horde rules, cavalry is still thriving and the netlist for many armies.
It simply does not need to be made any better.

Off the top of my head, the only 'knight' unit that I would consider genuinely bad are Boar Boyz, because they are fragile, unreliable brawlers in an army that is already crawling with them. In every other case I would consider the knight to be as-good-if-not-better than their competing units.
Even extending the issue to fast cavalry (IE units for which Impact Hits will not help) I can only think of Pistoliers and Tomb King Horsemen as the ones that suffer.
A blanket buff to an already-good unity type is not warranted, needed or conducive to good balance. If there are problem units, fix them individually rather than making Skullcrushers / Doomfire Warlocks / Plague Drones / Inner Circle / Black Knights even better.

If nothing else, congratulations for not making your 'fix' the removal or heavy-nerfing of Steadfast. That's the usual thing I see proposed as a solution to a problem that does not exist.

Mozzamanx wrote:
Why does cavalry need to be buffed? It is already a dominant part of the armies that can take them. Empire is already taking Knights before State Troops. Silver Helms have largely killed off Spearmen, Black Knights are driving their Vampires around and Wild Riders seem to be murdering just about everything they touch. The 'plight' of cavalry is one of Warhammer's biggest mysteries to me because they seem to be prevalent in just about every army that has access to them. For all the complaining about Steadfast and Horde rules, cavalry is still thriving and the netlist for many armies.
It simply does not need to be made any better.

Off the top of my head, the only 'knight' unit that I would consider genuinely bad are Boar Boyz, because they are fragile, unreliable brawlers in an army that is already crawling with them. In every other case I would consider the knight to be as-good-if-not-better than their competing units.
Even extending the issue to fast cavalry (IE units for which Impact Hits will not help) I can only think of Pistoliers and Tomb King Horsemen as the ones that suffer.
A blanket buff to an already-good unity type is not warranted, needed or conducive to good balance. If there are problem units, fix them individually rather than making Skullcrushers / Doomfire Warlocks / Plague Drones / Inner Circle / Black Knights even better.

If nothing else, congratulations for not making your 'fix' the removal or heavy-nerfing of Steadfast. That's the usual thing I see proposed as a solution to a problem that does not exist.

Wait? Empire take Knights? This is news to me as an Empire player.

Units of 5 and units of 30 are pretty common sights 'round these parts. Then again, so are units of 40+ Halberdiers.

But I agree. Cavalry doesn't need a blanket-fix. Fix Boar Boyz. Fix Bretonnia. Fix Bloodcrushers. And, hey, fix Mournfangs, too. By increasing their cost.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Wait? Empire take Knights? This is news to me as an Empire player.

I'm not an Empire player and so I won't tell you how to play your own army. But just about every Empire list I've seen has included Knights, whether as armoured chaff or an Inner Circle murdersquad. The 1+ Circus seems fairly reviled on /tg/ and the only regular Empire opponent I've had just loved to throw his Knightbus at me in every game. And let's not forget than any addition of special rules to the regular Knights is inevitably going to end up on Demigryphs as well.

If nothing else, would you honestly argue that Knights need a buff before Spearmen, Handgunners and Free Company? Because that is what the Knights are already trampling into the dirt as competing options.

Mozzamanx wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Wait? Empire take Knights? This is news to me as an Empire player.

I'm not an Empire player and so I won't tell you how to play your own army. But just about every Empire list I've seen has included Knights, whether as armoured chaff or an Inner Circle murdersquad. The 1+ Circus seems fairly reviled on /tg/ and the only regular Empire opponent I've had just loved to throw his Knightbus at me in every game. And let's not forget than any addition of special rules to the regular Knights is inevitably going to end up on Demigryphs as well.

If nothing else, would you honestly argue that Knights need a buff before Spearmen, Handgunners and Free Company? Because that is what the Knights are already trampling into the dirt as competing options.

Can I play that murdersquad? Please?! I want to take it off in a round with a proper empire list.

Yes, yes. We all know you're a very skilled tournament playing, face-stomping tactician.

The fact remains, however, that a good chunk of cavalry in the game is doing quite well. Whether or not that includes Empire cavalry is beside the point.
Who else is suffering? Boar Boyz seem to be the first to spring to mind. As do a lot of the Bretonnian units; just because running 12+ of them with three fighty characters in the front and a lvl4 in the second rank can be really good does not make the models, themselves, good. It'd be nice if Bretonnians had an option besides a Deathstar.

Um...what about Cold One Knights? In either army; how do they perform? Haven't heard much about them of late.

Warpsolution wrote:
Yes, yes. We all know you're a very skilled tournament playing, face-stomping tactician.

The fact remains, however, that a good chunk of cavalry in the game is doing quite well. Whether or not that includes Empire cavalry is beside the point.
Who else is suffering? Boar Boyz seem to be the first to spring to mind. As do a lot of the Bretonnian units; just because running 12+ of them with three fighty characters in the front and a lvl4 in the second rank can be really good does not make the models, themselves, good. It'd be nice if Bretonnians had an option besides a Deathstar.

Um...what about Cold One Knights? In either army; how do they perform? Haven't heard much about them of late.

It's notsomuch skill, as army. The skill of empire comes from utility, which cavalry based lists tend not to have. Knights do one thing. Hit hard in combat. With the list I run, I stop them from doing that, and neuter them whilst I'm doing so.

Cold One Knights aren't a bad unit, but in terms of the book, they're one of the least effective out there. The only reason they worked in the last book was the extra attack and ASF banner.

The only cavalry I see outside of 5 man fast cav chaff drops are warlocks, dragon princes, and sometimes brets. There's a reason for each of those. They each have something going for them that nothing else does.

What about units of 5, then? Hard enough to clear other chaff, but hard to shoot off the board.

And what about Lizardmen Cold Ones?

I've seen large(ish) units of Chaos Knights. 8 of them, with a character on a Daemonic Mount.

Warpsolution wrote:
What about units of 5, then? Hard enough to clear other chaff, but hard to shoot off the board.

And what about Lizardmen Cold Ones?

I've seen large(ish) units of Chaos Knights. 8 of them, with a character on a Daemonic Mount.

5 Cold One Knights, do what Dark Riders do, but worse.

And Lizardmen Cold Ones float about. On the UK we have the Cav Star. I dunno what's in it, I hear it's hard as nails thouhg.

As for Knights, I dunno. I don't see what they add, that skullcrushers don't.

Fair point on the Chaos Knights.

I meant units of 5 Empire Knights, though. Dark Riders are king, no doubt about that.

 thedarkavenger wrote:



As for Knights, I dunno. I don't see what they add, that skullcrushers don't.

They add the ability to take different marks. Skullcrushers are obviously the better cav choice but when you cant add a character of another mark knights would be better. Both have their uses and neither are auto include IMO. It really depends on your playstyle.

Cavalry is definitely coming back into style. Just look at the wood elves, most people consider wild riders an auto-include at this point, the main argument circles around how many to take. I think the rules are starting to reflect the ability of Cavalry to absolutely decimate on the charge as they should (I mean a WR gets 3 S5 ASF attacks on the charge, sounds like the way cavalry should work to me). I think a little waiting will really let us see the changes that are coming for cavalry. And heavy cavalry's bonus comes in it's survivability (1+ save hurts anyone, even a giant line of handgunners).

Warpsolution wrote:
Fair point on the Chaos Knights.

I meant units of 5 Empire Knights, though. Dark Riders are king, no doubt about that.

The empire chaff drops have a purpose. I include a unit of 5 in my army. Admittedly, more often than not, they're Reiksguard, if I have the points that aren't going to better use. Naughty me.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

As for Knights, I dunno. I don't see what they add, that skullcrushers don't.

They're a lot cheaper, for starters. Also, Skullcrushers can't ride with a BSB that has a 3+ ward save that can reroll 1's.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

As for Knights, I dunno. I don't see what they add, that skullcrushers don't.

They're a lot cheaper, for starters. Also, Skullcrushers can't ride with a BSB that has a 3+ ward save that can reroll 1's.

That BSB is better off on a disk. The mobility outweighs the look out sir. Hiding from cannonballs is a better than relying on a 2+ LoS.

But if the BSB is hiding, then his re-roll is useless.

danny1995 wrote:
But if the BSB is hiding, then his re-roll is useless.

Not necessarily. If depends on several factors. Terrain, deployment, amount of monstrous infantry/cavalry. More often than not, the safest place for him is behinds brick of trolls.

I actually agree that the BSB is better on a Daemonic mount (and the disk for a Lord) as it gives him T5 and 3W, both generous buffs

TanKoL wrote:
I actually agree that the BSB is better on a Daemonic mount (and the disk for a Lord) as it gives him T5 and 3W, both generous buffs

Yeah but he still relies on the 3++ and charmed shield vs cannons, and he gets no look out sir. Whereas the disk is a war beast, and thus makes him cavalry.

True, but how often do you see large units of cavalry in a WoC army to provide LOS to the characters ?
If I have a choice between characters with 3++ and hitting 2 crushers with a cannon shot, I'll shoot the crushers

TanKoL wrote:
True, but how often do you see large units of cavalry in a WoC army to provide LOS to the characters ?
If I have a choice between characters with 3++ and hitting 2 crushers with a cannon shot, I'll shoot the crushers

How often is that scenario going to come up?

Furthermore, if you're not shooting my BSB or prince, my crushers have done more for the army than they could ever do in combat.

The Prince is a cannon target, definitely, I was referring to the "normal" Lord + BSB + Hero build, two with 3++ and one with 4++, build that is more common now in Ireland than the Princes, as they are too many eggs in one basket (dangerous eggs in a big-ass basket)
And due to me usually playing Skavens, Crushers are way more deadly than a lone BSB anyway, as they have the damage output to grind quickly through large units. So my point of view might be different on that too

TanKoL wrote:
The Prince is a cannon target, definitely, I was referring to the "normal" Lord + BSB + Hero build, two with 3++ and one with 4++, build that is more common now in Ireland than the Princes, as they are too many eggs in one basket (dangerous eggs in a big-ass basket)
And due to me usually playing Skavens, Crushers are way more deadly than a lone BSB anyway, as they have the damage output to grind quickly through large units. So my point of view might be different on that too

Only 3++ and a 4++? We've been running the double 3++ round here for a while.

If you read carefully, you'll see I wrote "two with 3++ and one with 4++"

TanKoL wrote:
If you read carefully, you'll see I wrote "two with 3++ and one with 4++"

Fair point...My bad.