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.

As some have pointed out cavalry have become a bit lackluster in 8th edition. Spears have also become lackluster compared to AHW, being inferior in practically every way except for a +1 save if combined with a shield that usually doesn't make much difference. As a consequence of this I think the following rule changes could fix this

1. Infantry with spears have ASF on the first round of combat unless they charge. This allows them to get some free hits in on the first round to represent them planting their spears and bracing to make a forest of sharp points and give them an edge over shock troop type attacks
2. Lances and spears have ASF for cavalry on the turn they charge. This allows them to have a greater impact on the first round of combat as well as lower initiative types (knights, boar boyz) being useful in smaller units as shock troops to hit flanks etc without losing troops before they can do any damage.

I think this change will give cavalry a much needed boost and allow them to fulfill their role as elite shock troops in a smaller sized unit much better. It also fits in with the purpose of spears and other long weapons to give their user a chance to take down their opponent before they close. This may seem to make high elf cavalry a bit worse but they will still have their rerolls from ASF and higher initiative to give them the edge.

Thoughts?

Also a question, does a unit get step up attacks from an opponent on its flank or can such attacks only be used to the front?

Not a bad idea actually. Though instead of ASF, I would just have any enemy unit charging the spears receive an automatic hit at the spear units S for each spear they are in base contact with, which is resolved before blows are struck. Sort of like reverse impact hits.

Cavalry should get impact hits when they charge with spears and lances, with the usual S bonuses. This is to represent the impact of momentum from their charge.

And you are wrong about the spears giving +1 to saves. They only allow the unit to fight with an extra rank of supporting attacks.

Do you mean supporting attacks? I think they still get them in the flank. They are not allowed any bonuses from spears or HW/S though.

Its the +1 to save because you can take a shield with a spear and not an AHW.

From what I can see of the rule book you only get supporting attacks from the front, so flankers get less attacks back from the enemy. I was meaning step up attacks (AKA if you kill the guys on the flank in base contact with you, can the guys who replace them strike back. I think they can)

The reverse impact hits is a cool idea and something I didn't think of, effectively giving the front rank an extra attack that auto hits... probably ASF would be better overall as you'd get the supporting attacks as well.

Impact hits from the cavalry aren't a bad idea either, this would favor multiple smaller units over less larger ones.

excessiveswagger wrote:As some have pointed out cavalry have become a bit lackluster in 8th edition. Spears have also become lackluster compared to AHW, being inferior in practically every way except for a +1 save if combined with a shield that usually doesn't make much difference. As a consequence of this I think the following rule changes could fix this

Why are spears and shields inferior to extra hand weapons in every way. Actually in many ways a spear and shield is superior.

Consider a unit 5 men wide wearing light armor.

With AHW they would get 15 attacks (2 for each in the front and 1 for each supporting) armor save = 6+

With spear and shield they would get 15 attacks (1 for each in the front and 1 for each supporting in the second and third rank) armor save = 5+

So the AHW can be used on the charge but has an inferior armor save.

The spear and shield loses attacks on the charge and needs an extra rank to be effective but gets a better armor save.


So we see that with at least 3 ranks (4 in a horde) when not charging the spear and shield combo is actually superior. Since most infantry blocks have 4 or more ranks and tend to get charged the spear and shield combo is usually better. (of course you could argue that hand weapon and shield with its parry save is sometime better than both of the others but that is another issue entirely).

edited for typo.

I like the reverse impact hit idea for spears.
A handful of automatic lower strength hits would make spears the better defense weapons, and extra hand weapon the better offense.

For lances, +2 strength is pretty significant, and I'm ok leaving lances as is.

-Matt

excessiveswagger wrote:Its the +1 to save because you can take a shield with a spear and not an AHW.

From what I can see of the rule book you only get supporting attacks from the front, so flankers get less attacks back from the enemy. I was meaning step up attacks (AKA if you kill the guys on the flank in base contact with you, can the guys who replace them strike back. I think they can)

The reverse impact hits is a cool idea and something I didn't think of, effectively giving the front rank an extra attack that auto hits... probably ASF would be better overall as you'd get the supporting attacks as well.

Impact hits from the cavalry aren't a bad idea either, this would favor multiple smaller units over less larger ones.

Oh, you are talking about two hand weapons. Ok, I got it now.

My understanding is attacks on flank and rear of a unit dont get support attacks.

Duke_Corwin wrote:

excessiveswagger wrote:As some have pointed out cavalry have become a bit lackluster in 8th edition. Spears have also become lackluster compared to AHW, being inferior in practically every way except for a +1 save if combined with a shield that usually doesn't make much difference. As a consequence of this I think the following rule changes could fix this

Why are spears and shields inferior to extra hand weapons in every way. Actually in many ways a spear and shield is superior.

Consider a unit 5 men wide wearing light armor.

With AHW they would get 15 attacks (2 for each in the front and 1 for each supporting) armor save = 6+

With spear and shield they would get 15 attacks (1 for each in the front and 1 for each supporting in the second and third rank) armor save = 5+

So the AHW can be used on the charge but has an inferior armor save.

The spear and shield loses attacks on the charge and needs an extra rank to be effective but gets a better armor save.


So we see that with at least 3 ranks (4 in a horde) when not charging the spear and shield combo is actually superior. Since most infantry blocks have 4 or more ranks and tend to get charged the spear and shield combo is usually better. (of course you could argue that hand weapon and shield with its parry save is sometime better than both of the others but that is another issue entirely).

edited for typo.

1) Usually Spear+Shield are two different upgrades and cost more points per model than AHW (example: Orcs).

2) Spears do not have the same amount of attacks on the charge as AHW

3) If reduced below 3 ranks, spears become less effective (AHW only below 2 ranks) - this means that for the same offensive consistency you need to buy an additional rank of models.

4) AHW work against units engaged in your flank, spears do not

5) A 5+ save is not as special as one might think. Considering the majority of hard combat-oriented units are S5, there is no benefit. Against S4 units, you are left with a 6+, which is practically nothing.

I think you are forgetting that the shields also work against ranged attacks. That means more soldiers survive to reach close combat. Also in the Vampire Counts book (a recent 8th edition book) spears are a free upgrade so don't add to a units cost (we will have to wait for other books to see if this continues).

As for the rank thing if an infantry block gets reduced to less than 3 ranks losing the additional spear attacks is the least of it's problems.

As for the flank attack issue the spear unit will still be able to use it's attack's to the front or if only attacked on the side combat reform to face the enemy next round.

The point isn't that spear and shield isn't better than AHW the point is that they are not practically inferior in every way except for +1 save. If AHW is better than spears it should simply cost more than spear and shield.

Anyone want to volunteer to put down some prices (from new 8th books) on relative AHW, spear, shield?

Instead of ASF you could add 1 or 2 to a units initiative on the first round of combat if armed with spears. ASF is virtually supernatural speed and is a bit much for simply having spears (remember it can also give re-rolls to hit). Do you really think that skeletons (I2) should get ASF simply for having spears?

Instead for ASF, add an attack to each model?

DukeRustfield wrote:Anyone want to volunteer to put down some prices (from new 8th books) on relative AHW, spear, shield?

Spears now appear to be a +1 point upgrade that replaces the hand weapon.

I agree that lances and spears on cavalry should be ASF when charging. It's just silly that no matter how fast your clanrat may be, that it attacks before the charging knight, only for the knight to then get a strength bonus for the momentum of the charge as it carries its charge into the clanrats. As a representation of battle it straight up makes no sense.

On spears, I think they work well as is, to be honest. Having a shield and an extra rank of attacks is a pretty solid equipment set. The issue, really, is that for almost every unit where spears are available you're expected to pay a point for the shield and then an extra point for shields, and when you're looking at very basic troops like Empire Spearmen or Orc boys those points add up very quickly. So instead people march into combat without shields, negating the advantage of shields over weapon sets that require two hands.

Really, the best answer would be for army books to simply give units spears and shields as a single upgrade. That way taking halberds or extra weapons would have a meaningful disadvantage, as troops with shields would have a slightly higher armour save.

If lance and spears ASF
then what about phalanx or spear walls?

Just play HE's, then you'll be right. ;D

sebster wrote:I agree that lances and spears on cavalry should be ASF when charging. It's just silly that no matter how fast your clanrat may be, that it attacks before the charging knight, only for the knight to then get a strength bonus for the momentum of the charge as it carries its charge into the clanrats. As a representation of battle it straight up makes no sense.

On shields, I think they work well as is, to be honest. Having a shield and an extra rank of attacks is a pretty solid equipment set. The issue, really, is that for almost every unit where spears are available you're expected to pay an extra point for shields, and when you're looking at very basic troops like Empire Spearmen or Orc boys, the shield is not worth taking for the price they charge. So instead people march into combat without shields, negating the advantage of shields over weapon sets that require two hands.

Really, the best answer would be for army books to simply give units the shields for free. That way taking halberds or extra weapons would have a significant disadvantage, as these troops would be forced to give up their shields in combat.

Im not sure if the shields should be free, maybe the spears should be free.

Night goblins come in at 3ppm and come with hand weapon and shield. You can then swap the hand weapon for spears. On goblins at least, the 6+ parry is better than the extra rank of fighters. On stronger units obviously the extra fighters are going to get better but for goblines: hand weapon > spear, even when the spears are free. For orc boys, I think spears should be free, shields +1 pts.

Honestly what makes sense and is not overpowered at all, and would give spears a slight boost. When an enemy charges you, everyone in their front rank has to take a dangerous terrain test. So a Horde of Gor charge a spearmen unit, 10 Gor take dangerous terrain tests, a bus of 5 wide skaven, 5 skaven take terrain tests, or reverse it and have the unit charging the spearmen have to take a dangerous terrain test based on how many spearmen are in the front rank.

Exergy wrote:Im not sure if the shields should be free, maybe the spears should be free.

Night goblins come in at 3ppm and come with hand weapon and shield. You can then swap the hand weapon for spears. On goblins at least, the 6+ parry is better than the extra rank of fighters. On stronger units obviously the extra fighters are going to get better but for goblines: hand weapon > spear, even when the spears are free. For orc boys, I think spears should be free, shields +1 pts.

Fair point. I think that'd work well. Ultimately, though, I think the problem of spears being less popular than other weapon sets is best solved by first looking at the points costs and unit options, rather than adding a whole other special rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hargus56 wrote:Honestly what makes sense and is not overpowered at all, and would give spears a slight boost. When an enemy charges you, everyone in their front rank has to take a dangerous terrain test. So a Horde of Gor charge a spearmen unit, 10 Gor take dangerous terrain tests, a bus of 5 wide skaven, 5 skaven take terrain tests, or reverse it and have the unit charging the spearmen have to take a dangerous terrain test based on how many spearmen are in the front rank.

I'm not really sure that works, because the numbers get really weird when you start looking at very big units. When that massive skaven slave bus of 100 models charges in, it can expect to lose 16 of them. How exactly are the guys 19 rows back increasing the casualty count?

If you're gonna have a Weapon grant ASF due to reach, make it a Pike. Spears are generally used underhand, and don't really reach further than 3 feet in front of you, and Lances are moving so fast, it's just going to do its damage almost synchronously with everyone being in melee.

Lances should stay the same Imo, horses should get d3 impact hits on the charge at there respectable strength values.

Wielding a lance accurately is no easy task, let alone holding onto it after you scure someone with it. ASF is too much and the majority of the bonus shouldn't lay with the weapon as it should the fact your charging in on a horse which is going to trample people under it.

As far as spears go I think they should get an effective str bonus against mounted units, similar to great weapons vs cavalry on the turn charge.

The thought behind this being - They shouldn't strike first because they have to survive the actual being trampled for them to really do anything, scuring the mount/rider while being charged can be displayed by the remaining members in the unit getting there attacks back after the knight. Either way its unlikely you will kill the knight/mount before its damage is done.

The fact that they are charging you at heavy speed though should mean that when you do stand there and brace for impact you should get a large strength increase to account for the fact there running into spears at speed.
At the same time though this also wouldn't work on flank charges, nor if your unit is marching/running full speed down the table. To make a proper shield wall you would have to advance slowly (anyone played Total war games?)

Skewer, not scure.

Sorry, really couldn't hold that one in.

Scure is Italian for Axe.

sebster wrote:

Hargus56 wrote:Honestly what makes sense and is not overpowered at all, and would give spears a slight boost. When an enemy charges you, everyone in their front rank has to take a dangerous terrain test. So a Horde of Gor charge a spearmen unit, 10 Gor take dangerous terrain tests, a bus of 5 wide skaven, 5 skaven take terrain tests, or reverse it and have the unit charging the spearmen have to take a dangerous terrain test based on how many spearmen are in the front rank.

I'm not really sure that works, because the numbers get really weird when you start looking at very big units. When that massive skaven slave bus of 100 models charges in, it can expect to lose 16 of them. How exactly are the guys 19 rows back increasing the casualty count?

I'm talking front ranks only that's why I gave the example. So it could work 1 of 2 ways.

1. A DT test is taken for every model in the front rank of the unit for the unit charging a unit of 20, 7 wide HE Swordsmen charge Empire Spearmen then 7 Swordmen would take the DT test
2. A DT test is taken for every model in the front rank of the spearmen for the unit charging a unit of 20, 7 wide HE Swordsmen charge Empire Spearmen 5 wide, then the Swordsmen would take a DT test for every spearmen in the front rank in this case 5.

Sasa0mg wrote:Lances should stay the same Imo, horses should get d3 impact hits on the charge at there respectable strength values.

Orc Boar Boys become an unstoppable hammer.

Hargus56 wrote:I'm talking front ranks only that's why I gave the example.

Sorry, misread you there.

Exergy wrote:

Sasa0mg wrote:Lances should stay the same Imo, horses should get d3 impact hits on the charge at there respectable strength values.

Orc Boar Boys become an unstoppable hammer.

All cavalry would have to have a points increase and perhaps limitation put in place if you wanted my solution I suppose. Then again, ever seen someone hit by a boar :F if realism is what people are going for its much worse then a horse. That said things like wolves and spiders wouldn't get that kind of bonus.

D3 impact hits for all cavelry?

Even ogres don't have D3 impact hits base. They would have to change to that base(+1 for charging over 10") and Mournfangs would become D6 or something.

My friends and I have played a few games with Cavalry having impact hits (1) at the mounts strength, +1 Str if they have barding. we also used the rule of having spears get +1 str vs mounted units to the front and sides, but not rear. It seemed to work fine and made cavalry good, but not game breaking.