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.

Okay so I am just curious as to one thing with flanking, or hitting a unit in the rear, it states that it must have at least 1 rank beyond the first (at least 5 wide), does this meen that unless you have ten cavalry models, you cannot decline enemy rank bonus'?? I play high elves and to take that much cavalry really isnt very cost effective for me i dont think at least not in the lower point games (1000-1500) 200 points for 5 princes with command but the whole reason i want them is for this reason, to hit hard and on the sides T/S 3 doesnt go far after the first round of combat.

Cheers

Mike

You are correct, you need at least two full ranks of models to deny your oponents rank bonus

And note that, while you break their rank bonus yo udo NOT break their rankS, meaning they are still steadfast if they have more ranks than you do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And note that, while you break their rank bonus yo udo NOT break their rankS, meaning they are still steadfast if they have more ranks than you do.

True, which I think is stupid but bah....

God I hate skaven, played them twice at the GT this weekend.

wait whaat, so i need more units than the enemy to flank, and when i flank they still dont get a negative to their leadership....just combat res.??

1) You need a model to gain the +1 flank bonus
2) If you have at least 2 RAnks, you remove their rank bonus
3) If you have more ranks than they do, then in addition to removing their rank bonus you ALSO disrupt them, which removes Steadfast.

Actually disruptions means they get no rank bonus and you dont need to have more reanks just 2+.
Having more ranks is what breaks steadfast not disruption.

OK, so my points were entirely correct apart from using the word "disrupt" in point 3?

But it's so rare when you get stuff wrong, i couldn't resist

Yes, having 9 half-ton animals with riders crash into the flank of your unit does very little, beyond whatever incidental casualties are caused. Then, magically, one more of them throws your ranks into confusion.

The rules are the rules, don't try to make sense of them.

Cav really need 4 wide ranks, i mean GW puts 8 of them in most boxes anyway.

I think 1 rank should be sufficient to disrupt from the flanks or rear, if only on the turn they charge.

Agree with Wehrkind. I mean look at the charge of the Rohirrim in Pelennor Fields in The Return Of The King. The Orcs have way more ranks but the Rohirrim still punch through them like a train and make them run away back to their Heffalumps.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Agree with Wehrkind. I mean look at the charge of the Rohirrim in Pelennor Fields in The Return Of The King. The Orcs have way more ranks but the Rohirrim still punch through them like a train and make them run away back to their Heffalumps.

Orcs have a crappy leadership, and clearly failed the steadfast check.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Agree with Wehrkind. I mean look at the charge of the Rohirrim in Pelennor Fields in The Return Of The King. The Orcs have way more ranks but the Rohirrim still punch through them like a train and make them run away back to their Heffalumps.

Orcs have a crappy leadership, and clearly failed the steadfast check.

-Matt

They did have the Army General in there too so Inspiring Presence and all that.

Well obviously those weren't real Orcs, they were just Archer boys. I guess he spent all of his points on the Nazghoul.

Alternately, look at what happens when horses run into real people. People get tossed around, and things go to hell. Then, after a few moments, the horses lose their momentum and the people, if not running away, carve up the horses. Pretty much standard cavalry tactics since Tacitus.

Oh well, maybe 9th edition will have decent cavalry rules. Though I don't get what is taking GW so long; there are plenty of historical gaming rules that make cavalry useful in that respect, so it isn't like they are forging a new path here.

ya, i dunno guys... ten horses against forty people... i think the people might win.

Oh the 40 definitely do, IF they don't break initially. That was always the trouble with cavalry: they hit like a truck, but if the enemy was disciplined enough to hold out through the initial impact, the cavalry just turned into infantry sitting on a half ton of exposed meat.
The discipline issue was one reason why the Romans and Greeks were not big on cavalry. The legions were generally well trained enough to absorb a cav. charge and keep fighting, and a phalanx was just death to cav. Around the medieval period when professional forces were just the cav themselves and everyone else was largely some manner of levy with rare exception, cav. ruled because so few on the field were willing to accept the hit and keep fighting. In cases where the infantry didn't break, or the cavalry couldn't get in a decent charge, the infantry slaughtered them. Likewise in the colonial era cavalry would smash aside infantry if it caught them on the flanks or rear and scared them, but a block of infantry in square or even receiving in a deep formation from the front would generally defeat them.

Remember, it is very unusual in battle to actually have to kill your enemy down to the man. Usually units fight until they become scared and run, either by virtue of losing too many men, getting flanked or something else suitably unpleasant. So often times 10 cav could smack down 40 infantry if the cav hit hard enough and the infantry lost their will to fight. If those 40 infantry are staring at 40 enemy infantry 30 yards away and get hit with 10 horses in the flank they are going to make some serious choices, usually among the screams of their friends.

I'm sure the invention of the stirrup in the early Dark Ages - and the subsequent improvement in horseman's spears into lances - and the fact that the horse could help a man carry far more weight in armor made him better protected than a footman - all had a role in the ascendancy of cavalry over infantry for most of the Medieval period.

Until the longbow was invented, which punched straight through the thickest armour and, until the invention of the machine gun in the 1800's, was the highest RoF weapon around.

Bernard Cornwell writes an excellent series of books (fiction) about the dominance of the English longbow (fact) in that era.

What's also interesting is, much like pyramid building, firing a longbow is a lost art. I guess it's because they were trained in it from the age of twelve or so, we just can't get close to the expertise needed to accurately fire one now.

Yea, I have read that the bones of long bowmen actually got messed up from all the strain of the ligaments pulling on them in ways they were not really designed to. Something along the lines of massive amounts of micro fractures making the right shoulder bones larger and more, well, boney than normal.

Even with barding and full plate cavalry standing still was at a disadvantage to decent infantry. Remember that you don't need to kill the man if you can kill or disable the horse. Falling off a horse is very dangerous in and of itself (even Superman is vulnerable!) and having the horse fall with you is likely to pin you down and break a good bit. You can't armor the belly of the horse, or even it's neck very well, and it's legs are nearly impossible as well. Those are not easy targets when the horse is moving along at a decent clip, but once it is largely stationary the horse, and by extension the rider, are in a lot of trouble. But man, on the charge, whew... I wouldn't want to have to receive that kind of hit!

Also, armor isn't really all that heavy to wear. The horse isn't really necessary in that regard, but does make getting around (and getting away) a lot easier. Most of the difference in protection between horseman and footman was due to the fact that horses, like armor, were pretty damned expensive, and so only those who could afford one were likely to afford the other. In Western Europe at least; many other places in the world had cheaper horses. It also depends on terrain a lot. Horses are not too great when you have to deal with rough terrain, forests and the like, while they are the bee's knees in open plains and steppes. Which sort of makes it strange that the Wood Elves have all this cavalry, but that's another thread.

And yea, Bernard Cornwell is awesome, though I prefer the Viking Saga to the Archer series.

Wikipedia wrote: Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers are recognisably deformed, with enlarged left arms and often bone spurs on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers.

Sounds nasty.

It was the difficulty in using the longbow which led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and King Edward III's declaration of 1363: "Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery." If the people practised archery, it would be that much easier for the King to recruit the proficient longbowmen he needed for his wars. Along with the greater ability of gunfire to penetrate plate armour, it was the amount of time needed to train longbowmen which eventually led to their being replaced by musketmen.

Interesting. Manipulated by the crown into practising their archery in holidays. All us English do in holidays now is drink, I wonder if there's an agenda there, too. Maybe an ocean needs shifting in the near future.

It was the difficulty in using the longbow which led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and King Edward III's declaration of 1363: "Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery." If the people practised archery, it would be that much easier for the King to recruit the proficient longbowmen he needed for his wars. Along with the greater ability of gunfire to penetrate plate armour, it was the amount of time needed to train longbowmen which eventually led to their being replaced by musketmen.

Interesting. Manipulated by the crown into practising their archery in holidays. All us English do in holidays now is drink, I wonder if there's an agenda there, too. Maybe an ocean needs shifting in the near future.

That particular law was never revoked so technically we're all still meant to be doing it There's also a law which says it isn't an offence to murder a Scotsman within the city walls of York if he is carrying a bow and arrow. We English are truly the pinnacle of law and order.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

It was the difficulty in using the longbow which led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and King Edward III's declaration of 1363: "Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery." If the people practised archery, it would be that much easier for the King to recruit the proficient longbowmen he needed for his wars. Along with the greater ability of gunfire to penetrate plate armour, it was the amount of time needed to train longbowmen which eventually led to their being replaced by musketmen.

Interesting. Manipulated by the crown into practising their archery in holidays. All us English do in holidays now is drink, I wonder if there's an agenda there, too. Maybe an ocean needs shifting in the near future.

That particular law was never revoked so technically we're all still meant to be doing it There's also a law which says it isn't an offence to murder a Scotsman within the city walls of York if he is carrying a bow and arrow. We English are truly the pinnacle of law and order.

Hah, there's also still a law allowing English citizens to shoot rampaging Scotsmen using a longbow from the walls of York or within. We'll sort those bloody Scots out one way or another!

Heh, yea that's the trouble with laws: they never really go away, just sometimes top being enforced. Until they want to get you for something, and then it's "Let's see your long bow, son!" time.

I might have to start packing a longbow just out of paranoia in case I get checked! Bit inconvenient that they're 6' 6" of course...

Tantras wrote:I might have to start packing a longbow just out of paranoia in case I get checked! Bit inconvenient that they're 6' 6" of course...

Then they get you for possession of a lethal weapon. There's no escape from the fuzz

That's the point. You can't control law abiding citizens, but if they can't help but break the law you can get them any time you feel like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only option might be to carry the bow, but Nerf arrows