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.

I've been hearing a few times that either Knights specifically or cav generally are not very good in this edition.
Can someone please clarify and explain ?

Me bretonnians are doing ok, but they are a different breed....

With steadfast, and requiring 2 ranks to deny rank bonus, they tend to bounce off units after the second round of combat if they use lances, light cav is worse, at least heavy cav usually has a 2+ or better armor save to fall back on. Its just to expensive to get enough of them to justify their points.

You used to be able to build a unit of knights loaded with powerful characters (or just plain powerful troops in the case of Chaos Knights) and pile into an enemy unit and count on the sheer killing you could inflict to win combat by so much that the enemy broke and fled. With steadfast you can still inflict immense casualties, but you can't be certain of breaking the enemy.

Cavalry is still very fast, and very resilient against basic attacks, and can still hit very hard on the charge... so there is still a definite roll for them. But that roll now is in support of big infantry units, so the infantry block counters the enemy's steadfast, and then the cavalry breaks the enemy by hitting them in the flank.

I have been using small units of silverhelms to hold up large blacks for a turn or two while i pick off other pieces of the army. Seems to work quite well and is fairly cheap points wise

Chaos knights still tanks going strong and kicking butt.

I have a silly list with a khorne lord on jugger in a mok knight unit sooo silly and everything it touches dies a horrible bloody death.

skele necro knights totally awesome empire knights effective.

Bret knights not too effective without characters lords heroes etc most of their ws is so low.

cowpow16 wrote:
I have a silly list with a khorne lord on jugger in a mok knight unit sooo silly and everything it touches dies a horrible bloody death.

Say hello to white lions sometime wont you?

Ralin Givens wrote:

cowpow16 wrote:
I have a silly list with a khorne lord on jugger in a mok knight unit sooo silly and everything it touches dies a horrible bloody death.

Say hello to white lions sometime wont you?

Floating around with the banner that negates frenzy, hatred and everything else, eh? My friend who plays HE let me know about that...after he let another friend charge said unit with a unit of death-frenzied stormvermin. It wasn't a good day to be a rat.

Its never a good day to be a rat

Dont even bring up white lions or ill come over there I hate those guys even tho their banner says no to hatred

But ya HE gah just anger but when infernal gateway goes hey guys um so i rolled a 12 and you didnt dispel well bye but ya those guys so nasty.

cowpow16 wrote:
Bret knights not too effective without characters lords heroes etc most of their ws is so low.

Wait what?

WS4 is "so low"?

Knights suck against large units of infantry, supported by a general and bsb for re-rolls.
Outside of that task, knights do fine.
They are quick enough to hunt warmachines, do great supporting infantry with a flank change, and since they can't be stomped on, are good for going toe to toe with monstrous infantry and monsters.


-Matt

The ones with ws 3 sorta suck ya well my halberdiers clobbered them when they charged me.

I agree with matt

Im pretty sure you get stomps against basic calvary....

Nope stomps only against swarms and infantry sized models.

Horses have attacks tho so thats not all too bad.

cowpow16 wrote:Nope stomps only against swarms and infantry sized models.

Horses have attacks tho so thats not all too bad.

Units classed as infantry, swarms or war beasts get stomped on.
Cav, monstrous infantry, monsters do not.

Goblin? Yes.
Wolf? Yes.
Goblin on Wolf? No.

-Matt

Yup so no squishing cav woot.

Cavary are still great in a supporting role, but no, you cannot really build your army around them anymore, at least not to the exclusion of all else like you previously could.

Still, I guess you could just try and kill everything else then go after the infantry blocks at the end!

Some of those mass infantry blocks would need some serious time and several combats to crack not to mention that the knights may havecnot broken what they charged and then get flank and or rear charged.

I have seen a few battle reports with all centigor Beastmen (with one monster if I recall) that did pretty well actually. Probably a REAL stretch, but if you can find them they might give you some good ideas on running all knights.

I must admit I don't understand the reasoning here. Knights do not break large blocks in one turn? I'm afraid the same applies to infantry in the same setting, ie. when the opposition is steadfast. Of course a large unit of infantry *might* take away your opponent's steadfast but that doesn't matter when you lose the fight. And even without steadfast, who says that someone breaks? A brick of 50 might be better at playing the attrition game in some circumstances but if it gets stuck, it can be flanked as well. Without any context, it's difficult to say who is really better. I'd rather have my knights get to grips with those archers or repeater crossbows fast than to see them shower my slower unarmoured infantry turn after turn.

Lord Solar Plexus wrote:I must admit I don't understand the reasoning here. Knights do not break large blocks in one turn? I'm afraid the same applies to infantry in the same setting, ie. when the opposition is steadfast. Of course a large unit of infantry *might* take away your opponent's steadfast but that doesn't matter when you lose the fight. And even without steadfast, who says that someone breaks? A brick of 50 might be better at playing the attrition game in some circumstances but if it gets stuck, it can be flanked as well. Without any context, it's difficult to say who is really better. I'd rather have my knights get to grips with those archers or repeater crossbows fast than to see them shower my slower unarmoured infantry turn after turn.

The issue for me is points cost. My empire Knights cost 23pts vs 5 pts for a halberdier. If the cavalry can't break the opposition on turn one, the combat turns into a meatgrinder; and I would rather feed 5pt guys into a meatgrinder than 23pt guys. GW seems to be recognising this by dropping the points costs for heavy cavalry in the new codexes. Until they do this for the empire, I'll be taking minimal units of Knights and using them only to support the infantry; either by following up their charges or to quickly block holes in the line.

Now if GW were also to give heavy cavalry impact hits then the choice between cavalry and infantry might become a lot harder...

Impact hits would be nice for sure.

Empire knights are a little on the weak side for sure since they hit a unit and then it is a meat grinder since they will most likely loose because of ranks so they can and will get chased around the table.

Lord Solar Plexus wrote:I must admit I don't understand the reasoning here. Knights do not break large blocks in one turn? I'm afraid the same applies to infantry in the same setting, ie. when the opposition is steadfast.

Of course it does, but cavalry are much more dependant on breaking the enemy on the charge, as that's the only turn they get the bonus of their lances. Looking in particular at Empire Knights, once the first assault is survived, the now represent 23 point troops putting out 2 Str 3 attacks a turn. If they don't break the enemy on the charge, they're extremely unlikely to grind through the rest afterwards.

Of course a large unit of infantry *might* take away your opponent's steadfast but that doesn't matter when you lose the fight. And even without steadfast, who says that someone breaks? A brick of 50 might be better at playing the attrition game in some circumstances but if it gets stuck, it can be flanked as well. Without any context, it's difficult to say who is really better. I'd rather have my knights get to grips with those archers or repeater crossbows fast than to see them shower my slower unarmoured infantry turn after turn.

Who says it might? No-one, but probability says that most of the time the steadfast unit won't break, particularly if that unit is in the IP and BSB bubbles. You need to build plans around things that will work most of the time.

Now, I agree with you entirely that knights have all kinds of other roles, like piling into the large flanks of those big steadfast units, or charging enemy ranged units, and so on. But they are no longer capable of charging into big units of crappy troops and reliably break them.

Hoard Of Hordes wrote:
The issue for me is points cost. My empire Knights cost 23pts vs 5 pts for a halberdier. If the cavalry can't break the opposition on turn one, the combat turns into a meatgrinder; and I would rather feed 5pt guys into a meatgrinder than 23pt guys.

I see where you are coming from. Still, 40 Halberdiers cost about as much as 10 knights. The latter are way harder to kill, so it's quite possible to lose the same amount of points regardless of what you field. I'm just saying that it isn't a given whether you lose more or less.

Those knights might not break the enemy on the charge consistently but they can hold them up and wait for infantry support just as well as the other way around.

sebster wrote:
Of course it does, but cavalry are much more dependant on breaking the enemy on the charge, as that's the only turn they get the bonus of their lances. Looking in particular at Empire Knights, once the first assault is survived, the now represent 23 point troops putting out 2 Str 3 attacks a turn. If they don't break the enemy on the charge, they're extremely unlikely to grind through the rest afterwards.

True - and yet, that attack could fix a unit into position for a flank charge from something else and weaken them. Or vice versa. Empire in particular benefits from combined arms, so I wouldn't rule out knights. Last, Empire can take cavalry hammers if they wish.

My knights have been killed by a multitude of things from spells to repeaters to WLC and yes, even by a unit of 100 Slaves with hatred from a terrain piece but they have broken flanks and neutralized a lot of threats as well.

Who says it might [take away steadfast]? No-one, but probability says that most of the time the steadfast unit won't break, particularly if that unit is in the IP and BSB bubbles.

It's implied. If Cavalry is bad because the steadfast enemy unit won't break from its charge, then infantry is better because it can negate steadfast. Granted, Hoard of Hordes is looking at this from a different perspective when he says that breaking the enemy is not as important for infantry.

Now, I agree with you entirely that knights have all kinds of other roles, like piling into the large flanks of those big steadfast units, or charging enemy ranged units, and so on. But they are no longer capable of charging into big units of crappy troops and reliably break them.

Again, there is no guarantee that infantry can do this. Of course you can say that it matters less. The complete argument however goes like this: Knights don't break a big infantry unit in one turn and suffer on subsequent turns. All I'm saying is that infantry that doesn't break the enemy in one turn is just as likely to suffer in that fight, even though they might not lose any bonus in subsequent rounds. Whether you come out of it with a severely beaten unit of knights or infantry is irrelevant.

Hoard Of Hordes wrote:
The issue for me is points cost. My empire Knights cost 23pts vs 5 pts for a halberdier. If the cavalry can't break the opposition on turn one, the combat turns into a meatgrinder; and I would rather feed 5pt guys into a meatgrinder than 23pt guys. GW seems to be recognising this by dropping the points costs for heavy cavalry in the new codexes. Until they do this for the empire, I'll be taking minimal units of Knights and using them only to support the infantry; either by following up their charges or to quickly block holes in the line.

On the charge, knights and halbardiers have about the exact same damage out put (kills per point spent on unit); if the halberds are in a horde.
After the charge, the halberds out perform.

The thing is, Knights have the speed to pick their fights, are much tougher to kill with shooting, are better at running down units once you break them, and get a magic banner.
You don't get all those bonuses for free. You lose out on steadfast.

If only empire had a warmachine that was around 75 points and dropped 5" templates of infantry slaughter...

And that's the problem, you can't look at cav in a vacuum, they'll lose on paper every time. But factor in performance in an army, and they can and do work. If they work for some people, but not for others, you might want to look at how you are using them (or just stick with units that do work for you).
As for the point cost, 23 points for a 1+ save, WS4 knight, with either a lance or great weapon is a good deal. They aren't undercosted, but I'd call that a fair price.
IMO, a unit that can work, but not a unit that everyone must take (re:salamanders) is properly priced.
I could see a point or two cheaper, but that's about it.
I wouldn't want to see empire knight hordes start to become a good idea. (as soon as the Empire knights fight in the 3rd rank, they point for point beat most infantry).


-Matt

Lord Solar Plexus wrote:True - and yet, that attack could fix a unit into position for a flank charge from something else and weaken them. Or vice versa. Empire in particular benefits from combined arms, so I wouldn't rule out knights. Last, Empire can take cavalry hammers if they wish.

Absolutely, or more to the point those knights could be used to make the decisive charge once an infantry unit has tied the enemy up in the front.

I've never argued that knights are bad. My point was that they're still good in specific roles, but can no longer be used to run over powerful enemy units in one turn.

And yes, cavalry hammers are great, which is why you see so few lances in Empire armies unless they're taken for fun (I take mine because I'm quite pleased with the paintjob, for instance). There is a real problem with lances now that combats are rarely decided in the first combat, and striking last is not that much of a penalty.

Again, there is no guarantee that infantry can do this. Of course you can say that it matters less. The complete argument however goes like this: Knights don't break a big infantry unit in one turn and suffer on subsequent turns. All I'm saying is that infantry that doesn't break the enemy in one turn is just as likely to suffer in that fight, even though they might not lose any bonus in subsequent rounds. Whether you come out of it with a severely beaten unit of knights or infantry is irrelevant.

The simple point is that no unit is ever guaranteed to do anything. The match up might be wrong, the dice might abandon you... the point is what units are more likely to achieve something, and what units are less likely.

Good quality infantry units are a much better at taking a large enemy units on head on, as they are affordable enough that you can take as many ranks as the enemy, thereby denying steadfast and reliably breaking them. Knights have valuable roles to play, but piling into large enemy units head on is not one of them.

If your experience is different, well then go with what you know, but I'd be very surprised if most people weren't find the same.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
On the charge, knights and halbardiers have about the exact same damage out put (kills per point spent on unit); if the halberds are in a horde.

10 knights + 5 horses (230 points) make 6 kills against WS 3, T 3, AS 0-5+. 46 Halberdiers get 10. Against better WS, the knights become worse, better AS makes the Halberdiers worse.

I think we all agree that regardless of what we prefer, a combined charge would be the best solution. Which, accidentally, I assume is what you're saying.

As for the point cost, 23 points for a 1+ save, WS4 knight, with either a lance or great weapon is a good deal. They aren't undercosted, but I'd call that a fair price.
IMO, a unit that can work, but not a unit that everyone must take (re:salamanders) is properly priced.
I could see a point or two cheaper, but that's about it.

Agreed. That Orc cavalry costs what, 20 points? Okay, the beast itself gets S5 on the charge and they have better T but they have other drawbacks.

sebster wrote:
And yes, cavalry hammers are great, which is why you see so few lances in Empire armies unless they're taken for fun (I take mine because I'm quite pleased with the paintjob, for instance). There is a real problem with lances now that combats are rarely decided in the first combat, and striking last is not that much of a penalty.

Well, over on Warhammer-Empire, the guys seem to be more in favour of lances (at least for IC Knights). I prefer them because I can then boost their Initiative. Speed of Light or Birona's really help a lot. Going first might not matter much against a big horde but when you're fighting an Abom, it can make all the difference.

The simple point is that no unit is ever guaranteed to do anything. The match up might be wrong, the dice might abandon you... the point is what units are more likely to achieve something, and what units are less likely.

Good quality infantry units are a much better at taking a large enemy units on head on, as they are affordable enough that you can take as many ranks as the enemy, thereby denying steadfast and reliably breaking them. Knights have valuable roles to play, but piling into large enemy units head on is not one of them.

Hmm. "Good quality infantry" will always be more expensive than models in "large enemy units". Taking as many ranks of Phoenix Guard or Stormvermin or Greatswords as those Marauders or Gobbos means you're spending more points. However, that isn't even necessary after kills unless it's the 100 Slave horde from hell. On the other hand, knights will have an easier time to flank them, break ranks and even to cancel steadfast - half a dozen S3 attacks they can possibly shrug off without any loss. And those Slaves might even be steadfast on 2...but if they're not, they're going to run even with the General around.

Oh, I agree that a frontal charge into a large unit isn't the best idea but even this could be used with some success - throw in a crown of command and disrupt his battle line! Let your knights get flanked and flank that unit yourself again.

Lord Solar Plexus wrote:
10 knights + 5 horses (230 points) make 6 kills against WS 3, T 3, AS 0-5+. 46 Halberdiers get 10. Against better WS, the knights become worse, better AS makes the Halberdiers worse.

I think we all agree that regardless of what we prefer, a combined charge would be the best solution. Which, accidentally, I assume is what you're saying.

10 knights charging into 46 halbardiers will kill about 7.6 halbardiers, or 38.1 points worth.
Halbardiers swinging back at knights will kill about 1.67, or 38.1 points worth.
Head to head, it's about as even as it can get, in the first round of combat.
Knights have a ton more combat res, halbardiers have steadfast. On a scale of value of troops lost, it's a wash.

I wouldn't combine halberds with knights. Halbardiers give a decent damage output, but IMO, give up too much combat res. I'd rather go elite, well, empire elite that is. Swordsmen to hold, giving up as little combat res as possible, and flanking with knights. Must more survivable and much easier to move than a horde of halberds.
It also gives you better firing lanes, should you need them.

-Matt

Lord Solar Plexus wrote:Hmm. "Good quality infantry" will always be more expensive than models in "large enemy units".

Yes, but the good quality infantry will in turn be cheaper than knights, and much more killing from round to round. Compare a Swordmaster and an Empire knight. The latter is more expensive and less lethal, because he's getting a much better armour save and mobility for his points.

So the simple fact is that good quality infantry can be viably built to grind through a horde of low quality troops, in a way that few knight units can (outside of a ludicrous points investment in Chaos knights, for instance).

Taking as many ranks of Phoenix Guard or Stormvermin or Greatswords as those Marauders or Gobbos means you're spending more points.

Spending more points on core units designed to win combats is how it is supposed to work. Just as spending less points on anvil units to hold up more expensive, elite enemy units is how it is supposed to work.

However, that isn't even necessary after kills unless it's the 100 Slave horde from hell. On the other hand, knights will have an easier time to flank them, break ranks and even to cancel steadfast - half a dozen S3 attacks they can possibly shrug off without any loss. And those Slaves might even be steadfast on 2...but if they're not, they're going to run even with the General around.

Which is why I spent all that time talking about the importance of not looking at steadfast blocks with the assumption they'll have IP and the BSB to support them.

Oh, I agree that a frontal charge into a large unit isn't the best idea but even this could be used with some success - throw in a crown of command and disrupt his battle line! Let your knights get flanked and flank that unit yourself again.

Of course, all sorts of things can be used in a battle to all kinds of success, context and luck matter. The point is to give yourself an army with the maximum number of options, and units that are the most likely to succeed in what you send them to do.

Simply put, if you want to take on large enemy units front on and grind through them, you take elite infantry units. Where you want to hit the enemy hard in the flanks, knights are the best option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HawaiiMatt wrote:10 knights charging into 46 halbardiers will kill about 7.6 halbardiers, or 38.1 points worth.
Halbardiers swinging back at knights will kill about 1.67, or 38.1 points worth.
Head to head, it's about as even as it can get, in the first round of combat.
Knights have a ton more combat res, halbardiers have steadfast. On a scale of value of troops lost, it's a wash.

Shouldn't the halberdiers be killing 0.56 knights? 3/6 to hit, 4/6 to wound and 1/6 to beat armour, given they've got a 1+ save initially?

And yeah, I go for swordsman anvils first, with either knights or halberd detachments to flank.

sebster wrote:
Shouldn't the halberdiers be killing 0.56 knights? 3/6 to hit, 4/6 to wound and 1/6 to beat armour, given they've got a 1+ save initially?

Yeah, and 10 wide with a ton deep is 30 attacks at 3/6 hit, 4/6 wound, and 1/6 fail the armor. That's .56 kills per 10 attacks.
Why wouldn't you go horde on the halberds?

-Matt

I think clever use of cavalry makes them worth it. As others have said what you pay for is the mobility to decide when and where you will use them. If you use them like they are a bunch of night goblins though then they suck.