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.

What do you guys think of the more expensive multi-model core and special units? Knights, cold one riders, greatswords, that kind of thing. The ones where it's hard to claim mobility is the purpose (since there's cheaper alternatives), or their armour is impressive (but they're twice the price of rank and file core). Are they worth the points, or do they just serve the collector rather than the gamer.

In a world of 6-sided dice, 1 point change in attributes can mean a lot. If someone is +1 T and +1 WS and +1 L, that's actually a big deal even though it doesn't seem a lot.

And the idea of Skaven Slaves being the most efficient use of points only works if you're attacking a wall of infinite dimensions. I mean, how many units can you bring to bear?

So on one hand, I often think the same thing. The cost of an M1 tank is like $6 million. For $6 million you can get a LOT of soldiers with rifles and hand grenades who would do vastly more dmg over more area. But there's obviously situations where that tank is much more useful.

Frontage.

If you field nothing but cheap crap, you risk multiple elite units ganging up and taking out a few, and winning by a small margin.
If you field nothing but expensive elite units, you risk being engulfed, divided, and picked off.

IMO, you want to have enough units where you can control, or at least restrict the points of engagement; and have enough quality of troops to break through your opponents lines as he tries to do the same.

Too much holding power (goblins/slaves/swordsmen) will catch the enemy, but you won't do much once you've got them.
Too much hitting power will let you blow through, but will leave your flanks open and you vulnerable to redirections.

A balance works best for me, and looks good on the table too.

-Matt

I find the card game of war to be a simple analogy, sure you can make an army of all similar units (kings for example)... But you will probably find that a balanced assortment let's you use your varying power levels to their peak efficiency, aces on kings, jacks on tens, etc.
Under that train of thought it's good to have a variety, both for your tactical flexibility, and so you arnt telegraphing your intentions to heavily on deployment. The only time this will fail you is if you run into an army that is min/maxed to be 'ard boys esque... Which usually means power loading into 1-2 of the games phases and hoping you can gimp an unsuspecting and unprepared opponent... Which really isn't that fun of a game on either end.
In the end I enjoy playing armies that I could imagine on a field of battle, and for some thats 15 Beastmen chariots, or two hpa and the twin towers, but for me it's balanced armies comprised mostly of infantry with some supporting cast... This also seems to be the mentality of 8th... Where the rules mechanics have made large blocks appealing to the point that gamers consider them over the high move hammers that rocked 7th.
So, in conclusion, you might find that certain units are the best value per point, but there will always be roles that they can't fill; and that is where the less efficient units you mention come in.

...Did you just copy and paste this?

And then I realized you are the same bird asking the same questions in different ways

Just to point it out, +1 WS rarely means anything. It makes you a little harder to hit VS an enemy with 1 higher skill (3vs4 going to 4v4), or makes it a bit easier to hit a model with the same skill (4v4 going to 5v4). Otherwise all extra points are worthless till you get REALLY high up there, requiring 5's to hit. I personally think they over price WS a bit. Once you are WS 4, WS5 only helps vs some fairly elite troops, and once you are WS5 6 is largely worthless unless you are fighting chaos knights. Vs. characters the difference isn't too exciting considering the volume of attacks matters a lot more.

Not that WS is entirely worthless, but it isn't as frequently good as +1 T,S or Ld is.

To answer the thread question, few elite units are really worth pouring points into, especially Cav it seems in this addition, but often a fair sized elite unit like greatswords can really be worth it by putting a lot of killing power in a compact unit.

In 8th ed, the most overcosted characteristic in the game is: Movement. (with the exception of Orcs and Gobbos, because their book has been adjusted to 8th ed.)


Wehrkind hits the nail on the head though, when he suggests that WS has diminishing returns, I would actually argue that if WS *is* overcosted per model, that the cost is much closer to correct now that you can only lose 1 attack (champion dying) in a combat phase unless attacking ranks start being elminated. (as opposed to the 7th ed standard where the premium paid for high WS was worth nothing if you got charged)

The most competitive armies that I keep seeing, tend to end up eschewing Cavalry for the most part, unless they have cavalry that can continue to bring the pain after the first round of combat.

All this having been said: It REALLY depends on the army being played and the strategy you're using and the tactics being brought to bear.

If Khemri doesn't want to launch 800 arrows a turn, they end up relying on their special units to form a battle-line.

Speaking of value and cost. Something to consider about "special weapons" Such as Great Weapons, spears, and whatnot.

Every model that isn't attacking is a premium paid on top of the points cost of the models that are attacking. Just about every non HW in the game is priced correctly, as long as your units are the most efficient possible size... as unit size grows, you continue stacking those points per model on top and gain very little efficiency from the models. One of the most wastful things you can do (pointswise) is spend points on models that may never attack, and premium points at that.

So this information brings us to 2 huge conclusions.

Huge Units of special weapons are probably a waste in all cases.

Anvil units need to be the best save possible with simple Handweapon/shield/lightarmor being the norm.