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.

Hordes are usually only worthwhile in units too expencive to use them.

Edit: Oh i've yet to run a 40 man unit, let alone bigger, and still do ok.

I think that they have their place, there only 40+ plus unit I have ran is a 40 block of horrors, which seem to attract a whole lot of attention.

However in an upcoming tourney I plan on hordeing 50 GW Khorne Marauders, I think that will be fun.

Hmm, thanks for the responses all. It surprises me to hear so many people saying that 40 man units are not that common.

I play VC and every list I see has 30-40 man blocks of ghouls. I'm not used to having so few blocks, back in 6th edition you would likely have 6 or more blocks of infantry, albeit 16-20 man sized.

I dislike Steadfast in the extreme.

You are correct in thinking that it takes the maneuver aspect out of the game. In editions past there was MASSIVE incentive to flank, because, generally, barring the hardest of units or units that actually were stubborn, a unit of infantry that relied upon ranks for static combat resolution which got flanked by something even half-way combat worthy was essentially a dead unit.

40 man Marauder unit? 10 Empire Knights in the flank in 7th edition and that was pretty much a done deal, the actual combat phase was pretty incidental, as the Knights had a rank, banner, and a flank, plus whatever they killed vs a banner and an outnumber from the marauders. Conservative estimates put it losing combat by at least three points, breaking, and getting run down.

This is how things should be, and I am endlessly sad that they are like this no longer. The orientation of the formation and on what terms combat take place once were, generally, the determining factor. It rewarded clever maneuvering, and forced players to think before committing their units. These days you really can just take a 50 man unit of whatever 10-deep and herp derp it into combat whilly nilly without any real fear of it going anywhere for 5 turns unless the entire enemy army focuses on it.

Sad days.

A stone thrower can kill nearly 20 of that 50 man unit, then that now 30 man unit will test, and mabye run.
I drop a rock on my foes horde, charge with my smallish RaF unit (25-30), then slam my knights in to them, or charge my knight unit with 5 ranks into his 50 strong unit, get 13 S5 attacks, then horses attack, then his puny horde flail ineffectively at my 2+ AS 6+ Ward Save knights, then he takes a test.

Powerguy wrote:Fantasy in 8th is much more a 'rock paper scissors' game than in the past, high powered magic (talking specifically about the mega spells) counters big blocks which counter MSU which counters high powered magic. In that sense the strategic side of the game is basically dead, because if you run into the counter for your style of army you are seriously disadvantaged. There is actually very little incentive to bring a 'balanced' army imo, if you do you tend to get overrun by the more extreme builds, which at least have a 2/3 chance of getting a good match up. The tactical side of the game is also somewhat diminished because the RNG is always waiting ready to turn the game on its head, you don't even have to roll that well (say they get Dwellers off twice with IF over two turns, which is not hard at all) and half your army dies and there is nothing you can do to stop it. Randomness is fine, but 8th has a few places which would be nice if they were scaled back a tad.

Not saying that 8th is a bad edition, its still great fun as a casual game with mates and scales pretty well (don't play at 3000pts because its too easy to abuse, but 4000pts+ you get some epic games) but purely from a competitive standpoint it doesn't measure up to 40k, Warmachine or FoW.

Atleast is better than 7th Ed where Daemons, VC or DE pwns everyone.
And srsly, having like a 5 men unit of knights running down 40 odd guys just because they flank charge make no sense whatsoever.

Powerguy wrote:Not saying that 8th is a bad edition, its still great fun as a casual game with mates and scales pretty well (don't play at 3000pts because its too easy to abuse, but 4000pts+ you get some epic games) but purely from a competitive standpoint it doesn't measure up to 40k, Warmachine or FoW.

This was the only thing that caught my eye. And made me laugh. 40K is about as competitive as slap fights between professional sumo wrestlers and your average 3 year-old.

It's not as bad as, say, Magic the Gathering, where if you spent enough money you would be nearly guaranteed a win, but it's getting close.

I think there is still massive incentive to flank because of Steadfast, its just that exactly what you flank with changed. in 7th, anything in the flank could make a unit break. now it HAS to be a unit with at least 1 rank.


This makes complete sense. 5 dudes in the flank arn't scary, 10 or 15 are.

the only problem is that Monsters got hugely nerfed as Flankers because they don't break ranks anymore. I think they should have put in the rules that any Monster counts as a unit with 1 rank for the purposes of breaking Steadfast.

So an Infantry or Cavelry unit facing a monster wound need 2 ranks or more to be Steadfast against a Monster. maybe make Monsterous Cavelry and Infantry immune to this(they are practically monsters themselves)



an Errata to this effect would be awsome since Monsters are now bascially Cannon magnets and Combat Rez generators(sometimes, not even this)

Grey Templar wrote:I think there is still massive incentive to flank because of Steadfast, its just that exactly what you flank with changed. in 7th, anything in the flank could make a unit break. now it HAS to be a unit with at least 1 rank.

That allows you to negate the rank bonus to CR. It doesn't do thing 1 about steadfast. You could flank a 5 wide, 10 deep empire unit with something sporting four ranks, and that 5 by 10 unit would still be steadfast.

Flanking does jack all for breaking units if they are bigger than the thing doing the flanking.

Doh

thats right.


anyway, flanking is still a good thing because they can't put out very many attacks to the side compared to the front. if you pin them in the front with some chaff, and then hit them in the flank with something super killy, you can grind them down much more effectivly. and they can't turn to face the real threat because they can't turn if fighting to 2 different directions.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Powerguy wrote:Not saying that 8th is a bad edition, its still great fun as a casual game with mates and scales pretty well (don't play at 3000pts because its too easy to abuse, but 4000pts+ you get some epic games) but purely from a competitive standpoint it doesn't measure up to 40k, Warmachine or FoW.

This was the only thing that caught my eye. And made me laugh. 40K is about as competitive as slap fights between professional sumo wrestlers and your average 3 year-old.

It's not as bad as, say, Magic the Gathering, where if you spent enough money you would be nearly guaranteed a win, but it's getting close.

I know we're getting a bit off topic but... you are completely off base.

Magic: The Gathering is extremely competitive, perhaps the most competitive "traditional game" that exists, with hundreds of thousands in prize money. There exist decks that compete at the highest level that are around the $100 level, most extremely high power/expensive cards run around $20-$40 max.

Magic definitely has a required level of money invested, but after all so does every game. At the highest level of magic it does not come down to whose deck is more expensive, but to who is better at mind games, set knowledge, and deck matchups.

40k is generally considered to be more competitive than fantasy in these editions. Back when I started in 3rd edition 40k and 6th edition fantasy, this was more or less opposite, but the times have changed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:Doh

thats right.


anyway, flanking is still a good thing because they can't put out very many attacks to the side compared to the front. if you pin them in the front with some chaff, and then hit them in the flank with something super killy, you can grind them down much more effectivly. and they can't turn to face the real threat because they can't turn if fighting to 2 different directions.

True, you will probably charge in and cause some major hurt on the block you are attacking... but then you get stuck. They aren't going anywhere, and your charge attacks and impact hits are gone.

I do think making large Infantry blocks harder to shift is a good thing.

This game should have large blocks of Infantry grinding away at each other. 7th edition was just silly with units getting charged, losing combat by a couple of points, then get run down like its nothing. It led to armies that didn't look anything like real armies. you wouldn't have 30 blocks of 20 dudes in real life, you would have 6 blocks of 100.

ph34r wrote:gathering is extremely competitive, perhaps the most competitive "traditional game" that exists

I think you mistake competitive with "people playing it."

Chess is a competitive game based on skill. It's pretty much the baseline for games. Magic is a competitive game based on the amount of money you sink into it. The fact they have rare cards negates any shred of pretense it's trying to be a balanced strategy game. They're trying to sell cards. And that's absolutely Okay! I mean, it's a business. But just about any game that has ever existed in the history of mankind is more balanced in a competitive sense than magic. It's got randomness and vastly rewards those who spend more. The fact that single cards can be worth entire decks isn't because they are pretty, it's because they are unbalanced and overpowered.

I liked magic, back in the day. But if Warhammer is a beer and pretzels game, Magic is a cocaine and couch-crumbs game.

Personally, I love running a 40+ strong unit of White Lions or Sword Masters. Or both! Hoorah!

DukeRustfield wrote:

ph34r wrote:gathering is extremely competitive, perhaps the most competitive "traditional game" that exists

I think you mistake competitive with "people playing it."

Chess is a competitive game based on skill. It's pretty much the baseline for games. Magic is a competitive game based on the amount of money you sink into it. The fact they have rare cards negates any shred of pretense it's trying to be a balanced strategy game. They're trying to sell cards. And that's absolutely Okay! I mean, it's a business. But just about any game that has ever existed in the history of mankind is more balanced in a competitive sense than magic. It's got randomness and vastly rewards those who spend more. The fact that single cards can be worth entire decks isn't because they are pretty, it's because they are unbalanced and overpowered.

I liked magic, back in the day. But if Warhammer is a beer and pretzels game, Magic is a cocaine and couch-crumbs game.

I would not consider chess, go, etc. to be in the same category of "traditional games".

Of all the "hobby", "fun" non-video games that exist, MtG is the most competitive.
Magic has rare cards because 1. It's a collectible card game, 2. One of its biggest formats is limited/draft which requires rarity

If you think that competitive magic decks are mostly rares then you are horribly misinformed. When was the last time you read anything about competitive magic? Because "back in the day" is not now. I think your knowledge no longer applies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:I do think making large Infantry blocks harder to shift is a good thing.

This game should have large blocks of Infantry grinding away at each other. 7th edition was just silly with units getting charged, losing combat by a couple of points, then get run down like its nothing. It led to armies that didn't look anything like real armies. you wouldn't have 30 blocks of 20 dudes in real life, you would have 6 blocks of 100.

In fantasy each guy represents many guys. What the 3 blocks of 40 guys represents is an army of many hundreds, marching forward in three fighting formations.

ph34r wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:I do think making large Infantry blocks harder to shift is a good thing.

This game should have large blocks of Infantry grinding away at each other. 7th edition was just silly with units getting charged, losing combat by a couple of points, then get run down like its nothing. It led to armies that didn't look anything like real armies. you wouldn't have 30 blocks of 20 dudes in real life, you would have 6 blocks of 100.

In fantasy each guy represents many guys. What the 3 blocks of 40 guys represents is an army of many hundreds, marching forward in three fighting formations.

I have never read anywhere in any edition of rulebooks that support that, WHFB isnt Fow, 1 guy is really just 1 guy.

Jackster wrote:

ph34r wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:I do think making large Infantry blocks harder to shift is a good thing.

This game should have large blocks of Infantry grinding away at each other. 7th edition was just silly with units getting charged, losing combat by a couple of points, then get run down like its nothing. It led to armies that didn't look anything like real armies. you wouldn't have 30 blocks of 20 dudes in real life, you would have 6 blocks of 100.

In fantasy each guy represents many guys. What the 3 blocks of 40 guys represents is an army of many hundreds, marching forward in three fighting formations.

I have never read anywhere in any edition of rulebooks that support that, WHFB isnt Fow, 1 guy is really just 1 guy.

Really? I'm pretty sure it literally says that in the back of the 6th edition rulebook. The 6e rulebook had a writers commentary in the back.

Flank charging is still a very useful thing. Sure, it's not an auto-win like it used to be (all the better, I think, I'm on the side that doesn't like any random unit to break a block just by virtue of flanking). Just look at the rules and you can see what flanking gives you:

1.) +1 combat res (minor).
2.) No supporting attacks coming back at you (major).

In the 8th edition world of damage based combat res, this is huge. Depending on their horde status and number of base attacks, you're looking at 2/3rds to 1/3rd of the head-on attacks coming at your. Either way, it's a pretty big advantage. Between roughly equivalent units, it should be a solid win. If your unit is significantly worse, it should help even things up. If you're hitting a great unit with trash, you still lose. Does anyone really think they deserve a win just because they got a handful of junk flanking an enemy?

+1 combat res isn't minor at all, especially against something that's probably steadfast.

If you have a ranked flank charge and a unit with three ranks in a combat you're starting 8 ahead on resolution before blows are even struck (-3 ranks for them, +3 ranks for you, 1 charge 1 flank). That's autobreak territory if they lose steadfast in the combat.

Really you're only 5 up though. Their rank bonus is 0, not -3.

-3 from what they would otherwise get, I.E. 3.

True, but for actual CR the difference is only 5.

Opponent: +0

You: +5
+1 Charge
+1 Flank
+3 Ranks

And if they are steadfast, they are going to A. still have their +3 rank bonus and B. not care at all because they are steadfast...

ph34r wrote:And if they are steadfast, they are going to A. still have their +3 rank bonus and B. not care at all because they are steadfast...

A: Steadfast units don't get their rank bonus when flanked. Steadfast has nothing to do with rank bonus.

B: Pin the giant unit in the front with an anvil unit with a lot of ranks. Then hit it in the flank with with a hammer unit (ideally a ranked cavalry unit). It should lose enough models that you'll have more ranks and negate steadfast and force it to roll insane courage or be run down.

Flanking still works in this edition, it just doesn't work effortlessly. I like it all the more for that to be honest. Large blocks of infantry should be the backbone of the army and in most periods in history they were.

Nitros14 wrote:

ph34r wrote:And if they are steadfast, they are going to A. still have their +3 rank bonus and B. not care at all because they are steadfast...

A: Steadfast units don't get their rank bonus when flanked. Steadfast has nothing to do with rank bonus.

B: Pin the giant unit in the front with an anvil unit with a lot of ranks. Then hit it in the flank with with a hammer unit (ideally a ranked cavalry unit). It should lose enough models that you'll have more ranks and negate steadfast and force it to roll insane courage or be run down.

Flanking still works in this edition, it just doesn't work effortlessly. I like it all the more for that to be honest. Large blocks of infantry should be the backbone of the army and in most periods in history they were.

Ah true, they do not get their bonus.

So basically flanking is a way to negate support attacks so while you wear them down, eventually your giant blob of guys will have more ranks than them?

But either way, it comes down to whose 5x10 column of guys is longer?

ph34r wrote:

Nitros14 wrote:

ph34r wrote:And if they are steadfast, they are going to A. still have their +3 rank bonus and B. not care at all because they are steadfast...

A: Steadfast units don't get their rank bonus when flanked. Steadfast has nothing to do with rank bonus.

B: Pin the giant unit in the front with an anvil unit with a lot of ranks. Then hit it in the flank with with a hammer unit (ideally a ranked cavalry unit). It should lose enough models that you'll have more ranks and negate steadfast and force it to roll insane courage or be run down.

Flanking still works in this edition, it just doesn't work effortlessly. I like it all the more for that to be honest. Large blocks of infantry should be the backbone of the army and in most periods in history they were.

Ah true, they do not get their bonus.

So basically flanking is a way to negate support attacks so while you wear them down, eventually your giant blob of guys will have more ranks than them?

But either way, it comes down to whose 5x10 column of guys is longer?

Believe it or not, that's actually how most of the world's armies fight before the advent of rifling and machine guns render formation fighting obsolete.
Flanking a formation of troops does work to your advantage, but it will not instantly rout them on the spot.

I think the important thing to consider is that it's not the player who shoves forward the longer column of troops, it's the player who controls the field so that when columns do meet it's advantageous for him or her. This is where flanking, shooting, redirecting, etc. come into play.

Loss of ranks is important while fighting skaven, don't forget, as they lose the Ld bonus from Strength In Numbers while Disrupted.

That's a pretty big deal, because they're testing on the General's 7 at that point, which has a much better chance of eventually failing even at steadfast.