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.

How about making spears fight at 2x Initiative in the first round of combat?

Personally I like the impact hit per model idea the best, represents the sheer mass and momentum of the knights bashing into something

cheers

Papasmurf

I think warp solution has the right idea.

Make some of the weapons already out there count for more and make more sense. Spears, lances and pikes are on long sticks for a reason.

Yes on the S4 horses too, A horse is the same strength as a human? Really? A chaos Knight in his neato-armor is stronger than a horse? He can pull more weight than a horse? Does he have enough mass?

Thanks for you ideas . . . to everyone, if only we could have a game designer listen.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:I think warp solution has the right idea.

Make some of the weapons already out there count for more and make more sense. Spears, lances and pikes are on long sticks for a reason.

Yes on the S4 horses too, A horse is the same strength as a human? Really? A chaos Knight in his neato-armor is stronger than a horse? He can pull more weight than a horse? Does he have enough mass?

Thanks for you ideas . . . to everyone, if only we could have a game designer listen.

The strength on the mount is only used for it's attack.
GW is saying that a chaos steed kicking is about as strong as a human swinging a halberd.
An empire knight's horse is about a strong as a human swinging an sword.
A horse is easily 4-10 times stronger than a man, but the Strength Stat is a measure of combat output, not lift,pull, endurance or Horsepower.

-Matt


-Matt

That is true, but I'd also consider that the horse isn't likely to charge toward you, stop, rear up, and kick you in the face. Horses are stronger, horses don't have combat training/leverage/know-how, horses can run super fast and weigh a lot. Overall, I'd consider it a point in the favor of "a horses kicking you is going to hurt more than a man clubbing you with a war hammer".

@Bastion of Mediocrity: check out 3rd edition D&D; horses are stronger than men, but they also pull push and carry more weight than a biped with a matching Strength score. Four or more legs--the primary requirement to be a beast of burden.

Spears fighting at X2 Initiative seems solid, but I'd hesitate to implement rules that add new nuances to the game, rather than re-apply existing ones. Warhammer isn't a simple game, so we have to try and keep it where it's at.

There is one issue with the spears/pikes thing:

Right now, spears are already a little better than the hand weapon/shield combo. If we make spears better, and make pikes available, will it be the death of the Parry save?
Maybe, since spears already (usually) cost more, the extra boost would make people more willing to pay that point/model more.

Beyond that, though, I have problems with the weapon special abilities all over the place.

Halberds should be better (+1 S or Fight In Extra Ranks, choose at beginning of combat, at the least).

Swords should be better (they were The Hand-to-Hand Weapon of the world. Still would be, if we needed lethal close-combat action).

Two hand weapons should be better (you can Parry with a shield, but not with a duelist's Main Gauche?)

...but we can't do all that stuff, so...I dunno.

I also looked at some numbers, and decided cavalry that counted each rank as two on the charge would allow decent-sized units to break decent-sized units of infantry on the charge.
...though Chaos Knights would be a problem, surprise surprise.

A 2 rank unit of chaos knights (meaning 4 ranks equiv of infantry) is naked no command or anything 400 pts, that should be able to smash through a similarly pointed infantry unit - basic infantry not elites

that unit would then have 16 attacks on the charge plus 5 horses

only problem with them counting double ranks is lose 1 knight you lose 2 ranks negating the whole reason for doubling their ranks, perhaps use bretonian ranks ie 3=rank would be fine

still like that but think that impact hits makes better match for whats happening

cheers

Papasmurf

Well, I was suggesting both.

The impact hits wouldn't help strip Steadfast, but double ranks wouldn't in themselves be enough to grind units down to manageable, run-downable sizes.

A unit of 10 knights would go from 4 ranks to 2, if they suffer 1-5 casualties. Unless they've seriously mauled their opponent, they're not stripping Steadfast. Which, I feel, is fine. Units this size shouldn't negate Steadfast; either they're support units, or they're made up of super-cavalry that shouldn't have a problem grinding their opponents down turn by turn.

At 15, the unit would count as 6 ranks, or 4 if they lose 1-4 guys. They'd stand a good chance at stripping Steadfast, unless the unit they're up against is a fully-fledged tar pit of 50 goblins or Slavenslaves which, again, shouldn't be denied it's one purpose due to something as unavoidable as being charged by cavalry.

And I'd have to say "no way" to 3 knights/rank for all infantry. Brettonia needs their thing. And Chaos Knights don't need to reduce the number of incoming attacks against them.

I was told that I might have a future with the GW design crew.
...if I was willing to move to Iceland.

hehehe iceland, home of hot springs and no last names

cheers

Papasmurf

Should never have gotten rid of US. Keep the US rule, bump up the required US to break ranks from 5 to 10, and viola! You're just fine. A much less substantial nerf to cav and still requiring them to hit flanks. I'm just finding units getting destroyed in the first round of combat in 8th, leaving me no combat to have my cav join into the flank of.

8th is pretty damned bloody, imo.

Bloody, sure, but units wiped out in the first round? That doesn't seem common, what with huge units and Steadfast.

what are you playing and fighting against that you are destroying units in the first round of combat?

other than exploding a unit of zombies I don't think I have blown up a unit on one round yet this edition :(

cheers

Papasmurf

A horde of Savage Orc Bigguns vs nearly anything that isn't WoC. S5 and multiple attacks pretty much annihilates everything I've seen so far. The unit mentioned is cheaper than anything that can stand against it by a considerable margin. Unless you are taking a BIGGER unit than the orcs (forcing you to invest even more points just to stay your ground) you won't be steadfast by the end unless your unit has a ward save.

Tzeentch Chosenstar. More expensive? Perhaps. Point-for-point? Far superior.

Warpsolution wrote:Tzeentch Chosenstar. More expensive? Perhaps. Point-for-point? Far superior.

And does it usually annihilate its opponants first turn of combat? I'm not sure if you're supporting my point or trying to refute it by offering something even more powerful and broken.

How about stop expecting cav to hit the front of a unit block and use them to hit flanks?

@Nagashek: eh...both? They've got one less attack, assuming they don't have the Banner of Rage, and possibly one more Strength.
But they're, what, 16pts/model? A horde of Savage Big Un's, all on their lonesome, is far from broken. Just good.

@Sutur: that point has been made often. The issue people are having, even with cavalry on the flank-charge, is that the unit you're charing will still be Steadfast.
And in history, cavalry could charge headlong into infantry and break 'em. Sometimes.

Cavalry should be better. But not as good as it was in 7th. Infantry now has Steadfast, which makes it the best, but Steadfast only makes a combat longer. None of this "charge-pursue-into-fresh-combat-repeat" nonsense. So Steadfast is definately less of a problem, being defensive in nature versus offensive.

Well, as you pointed out, in 7th cav were king. They are faster than you, tougher than you and hurt more than you. In terms of game balance that's pretty hard to balance out especially with all the new changes they put in. Now they are elite units to help blocks of infantry beat down steadfast blocks until they're not steadfast anymore. If you can't beat the unit down, stop fighting blocks of 100 goblins.

Well, that's the idea. But most cavalry, using lances and all, are only good on that initial charge. After that, they're S3 or 4 guys with a really good armour save.

I think that's the root of it: we don't want to see the return of one-phase combats, but the nature of most cavalry currently centers around it. +2 S on the charge is great, but it's too one-sided.

But at the same time there are a few cav out there that do have staying power. Blood knights (shudder), chaos knights and centigors. Saurus knights do ok too. I understand it's an underwhelming list, but listen. If we have 2 equally matched hordes fighting each other, and I flank with cav, you should be destroyed. On the other hand if you are more powerful with your horde, my cav might save mine with a flank charge. If you have a quagmire unit like 100 gnoblars, then I'm wasting my time throwing more units at the problem.

master of ordinance wrote:look at historical accounts of cavalry charging dead on into the foe.
i mean this is what medevial cum resoninance timeline???
knights should be able to devestate units on the charge were as now in 8th they stand around infront of the infantry poking at them with their lances.
this is all wrong.

Whether or not cavalry could just pile into the front of the enemy and break them depended mostly on the quality and discipline of the infantry they were attacking. They might expect to route peasant levies and the like, but were extremely unlikely to break quality, well disciplined troops. When facing troops of that quality, cavalry were used more sparingly, to attack the flanks of the enemy once they were already engaged by your own troops in the front.

Warhammer consists mostly of quality, trained troops, mostly professional soldiers. There are exceptions, like Bretonian peasants and skaven slaves, but not that many. As such, I think it's reasonable for the rules to represent the place of knights in an environment full of disciplined, quality troops, and that means knights should not expect to run straight at the enemy and smash their way through them. Instead they should add value by attacking the flank of the enemy, once your own infantry has engaged them in the front. This is not only more believable, it encourages a combined arms approach to warfare, and that means a more skillful game.


There are problems with knights, but I think right now it comes mostly from the plainly underwhelming lance rule. +2 Str is great and all, but when it only lasts one round and gives no other benefit, then you see people always choosing great weapons or ensorcelled blades, or whatever other weapons they can get. I think giving lances ASF on the charge would solve this, and make more sense (a ratman might be very nimble, but exactly how is he attacking before the big, long pointy lance reaches him?)

This would boost Empire knights and Bretonian knights, without giving any significant boost to the already powerful Chaos knights and Blood Knights (Chaos knights could take lances, but all we'd be seeing is an actual choice between lances and ensorcelled blades, compared to the automatic choice it is now).

All things considered here we have to say good by to to cav death stars wiping everything from the front. I under stand that plenty of people are lamenting that cavalry no longer has any sticking power or serious lethality without large infantry blocks backing them up or seriously silly numbers.
However even giving cavalry ally the extra hitting gribbly you want on the front (Or the side for that matter) like impact hits or asf isn't going to help as you'll hit the unit kill a rank maybe two and they'll still have steadfast and grind you down over the next two turns.
Cavalry have been pushed in eighth into a more supportive role, flanking charges and monster/war machine hunting and unfortunately they are pretty rubbish at the former unless in large numbers.
All they really need though is a rule that lets them disrupt ranks for less, either otc or with 5 models = 2 ranks, anything like that. It's the same with skirmishers tbh, to make beastmen and wood elves not the bottom rung skirmishers also need a disrupt ability but I'd just say for every 5 models the unit counts as having+1 rank in cc.
This would make both unit types much more effective and not op.

I'm... really not having problems with Cav in 8th. Personally, I see 8th as a scaled up 7th with different rules. While Chaos Knights definitely got nerfed, as did any 2+ attack Cav, a unit of 10 Empire Knights or something similar can still be a great asset, IMHO.

Cavalry have definitely shifted in role however. No longer are the days of frontal charge cavalry winning combats, sadly.

guzzoid wrote:I have some special modifications:

1.Cavalry on the charge pops out of the other side of the enemy unit and may move the rest of its movement, if it has as many or more kills as the enemy has ranks. (Steadfast is still in place but the momentum of the charge leaves the cavalry clear of the enemy so it can charge again, maybee)
2.Heavy cav causes D3 impact hits for every full rank. (Hello Brettonians! You are BAAAAACKK!)
3.Lances have ASF on charge.
4. Spears recieving a charge negate lances to the front and pop out rule.

I like this, very similar to the old Battlestorm rules which is what I'd have advocated.

For the curious, the old battlestorm rules for mounted charges were that mounted troops would move in a straight line for their entire movement through the enemy ranks, getting an attack against every model that they would come in base contact with on the way through. This made the angle of your attack absolutely critical and much of the strategy of the game involved maneuvering the enemy's models into a long straight line that your cavalry could then charge through, giving you the maximum possible number of attacks. Of course, this could result in your cavalry stranded in the middle of a huge unit of infantry and in this case, surrounded on all sides with no more momentum to carry them through, they were highly vulnerable, so you had to carefully weigh that risk in your calculations for exactly what angle you wanted to charge at and how many enemy models you wanted to try to get through.

Cavalry charges devastated infantry, but they weren't that deadly against other mounted units. So I'd think about giving them a rule that allows them to do more damage to infantry, but doesn't do anything against other cavalry, or monstrous units.

To represent the weight of their charge, I'd give cavalry a special ability allowing them to double the number of attacks they get on the turn that they charge a unit of infantry.

To simulate how much of a meat grinder charging a spear wall can be, spear wielding units can also get double the number of attacks they get to make on the turn that cavalry charges them in their front arc.

Cavalry become more devastating against infantry, like their historical counter parts, but at the same time have to pick and choose, when and where they want to charge.

I'm kind of surprised WHFB doesn't already have some kind of rule in place to model cavalry's advantage vs most types of foot troops but disadvantage against pikemen. Did previous versions of the game never address that?

Well, way back in 6th the Dogs of War book had rules for pikes, which caused some pretty silly damage to cavalry, but since Dogs were the only army with access to pikes it never really came up.

I feel that if a unit of cavalry with 2 or more total ranks (including the front) of 5 models could break steadfast it'd be fair. But then again, impact hits are always fun.

Cavarly is still good due to their armour save. I don't like the idea of overpowered Cavarly.

rockerbikie wrote:Cavarly is still good due to their armour save. I don't like the idea of overpowered Cavarly.

But still what about going against things that chop through armor like GW? And even with S3 troops, chances are they can force you to make saves which will eventually wittle you down and with with steadfast

kenshin620 wrote:But still what about going against things that chop through armor like GW? And even with S3 troops, chances are they can force you to make saves which will eventually wittle you down and with with steadfast

Which is why you don't send cavalry straight into decent sized blocks of greatweapon troops, or into massive blocks of infantry no matter what they're wielding.

Instead cavalry is there to use their mobility to score quick kills against weakened units or help gang up on units that are already in combat with an infantry unit of their own. Having units like that, where they're very good in some circumstances, and very poor in others is the point of the game. If the rules for cavalry were 'fixed' so that they could pile into any unit and just smash through it, even the enemy had high strength weapons or loads of troops, the game would stop working.

I like most of the ideas that have come up here, I just thought i would throw my two bits in. First off, I'd vote against the ASF on the charge, as it significantly tones down slannesh steeds and HE Cav in general. Impact hits or additional attacks or some combination thereof would seem to be the best way to do it.
Also, something like the new ogre impact hit rules might work, where if you move or roll more than a set distance on the charge, you gain additional hits, or perhaps get additional strength on your existing hits.