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'm glad they've brought WFB back, I'm just not a massive fan of the increased complexity in ToW.

6th sat at a pretty good spot for rules imo and was one of the better editions.

There were some legitimate criticisms of it but the issues were far less pronounced than later editions.


So for me, I am thinking about how to get foot troops to function better without changing core rules too much. Striking first on the charge is an important element and creates an aggressive game which is good. Helping troops to stand against charging cav etc is also good. Step up is right out as it breaks the core mechanics of the rules and gives those who strike second twice the number of fighters as those went first.

So thinking along the lines of:

Regiments Outnumbering
Compare rank bonuses between combatants. Whoever has a higher one inflicts their RB in automatic hits that strike first. (ie RB 3 outnumbers opponent inflicts 3 hits). As infantry should outnumber cavalry, this makes cav more cautious in how they attack larger blocks.

Gain RB initiative. Spears grant +1I to this, pikes +2. Ie a regiment of 20 models in 4 ranks has RB3, so it would I6 if I3 base, I7 if equipped with spears. The charge then becomes a key action to bypass higher I larger units.


Larger blocks of troops should be able to use their rank bonus for more than just winning a combat. It makes the extra ranks more than wound tokens and encourages larger units. HOWEVER< I would put standard unit size limits on units (most 6th ed units are size 10+ iirc), and have ranks at 5 wide. Say 20 max for semi elites and 30 for rabble (orcs, beastmen) 40 for chaff (zombies gobbos). 10-15 for cavalry etc.


Brace and Step
If an opponent charges the unit from further than its move away (ie a M4" model has charged from 5+" away), you can make a leadership challenge to foil their charge. Both players make a Ld test and whoever passes by the most wins (ie If you rolled a 4 on Ld8 and your opponent rolled a 4 on ld7, you passed by 4 and they passed by 3). If the chargee wins, the opponent loses Strike first and must strike at initiative.

Where both sides have equal Initiative, attacks are simultaneous.


Longer charge distances give the target more time to brace for their impact and attempt to spoil their momentum. Will cause fast moving units to change how they charge, relying less on long distance charge missiles.



These two rules change the dynamics of combat and put regiments in a more powerful position without changing how combat is resolved.

 Hellebore wrote:
I'm glad they've brought WFB back, I'm just not a massive fan of the increased complexity in ToW.

6th sat at a pretty good spot for rules imo and was one of the better editions.

There were some legitimate criticisms of it but the issues were far less pronounced than later editions.

All in all, I wholeheartedly agree, 6th Ed is for me the best edition of WHF ever released by GW, taking in consideration the overall quality of the ruleset combined with army books/army lists.

 Hellebore wrote:
I


So for me, I am thinking about how to get foot troops to function better without changing core rules too much. Striking first on the charge is an important element and creates an aggressive game which is good. Helping troops to stand against charging cav etc is also good. Step up is right out as it breaks the core mechanics of the rules and gives those who strike second twice the number of fighters as those went first.

Totally agree. The problem in 7th and partially also 6th edition was often that the unit that got charged didn't get an opportunity to strike back, thus making the melee a very one sided thing without proper "involvement" of the defender except for taking away causalties and relying on passive combat res.

The "solution" of 8th ed with support attacks from 2nd rank, horde formations and step up solved this issue by creating a lot of other problems.

 Hellebore wrote:


So thinking along the lines of:

Regiments Outnumbering
Compare rank bonuses between combatants. Whoever has a higher one inflicts their RB in automatic hits that strike first. (ie RB 3 outnumbers opponent inflicts 3 hits). As infantry should outnumber cavalry, this makes cav more cautious in how they attack larger blocks.

What about weapons special rules like great weapons or halberds, would the auto hits be made with the increased strength? Would great weapons strike first too for the matter?
What if the unit is attacked in the flank or the rear?

Gain RB initiative. Spears grant +1I to this, pikes +2. Ie a regiment of 20 models in 4 ranks has RB3, so it would I6 if I3 base, I7 if equipped with spears. The charge then becomes a key action to bypass higher I larger units.

This would mean strike first as attacker is no more?

Larger blocks of troops should be able to use their rank bonus for more than just winning a combat. It makes the extra ranks more than wound tokens and encourages larger units. HOWEVER< I would put standard unit size limits on units (most 6th ed units are size 10+ iirc), and have ranks at 5 wide. Say 20 max for semi elites and 30 for rabble (orcs, beastmen) 40 for chaff (zombies gobbos). 10-15 for cavalry etc.



Brace and Step
If an opponent charges the unit from further than its move away (ie a M4" model has charged from 5+" away), you can make a leadership challenge to foil their charge. Both players make a Ld test and whoever passes by the most wins (ie If you rolled a 4 on Ld8 and your opponent rolled a 4 on ld7, you passed by 4 and they passed by 3). If the chargee wins, the opponent loses Strike first and must strike at initiative.

Where both sides have equal Initiative, attacks are simultaneous.


Longer charge distances give the target more time to brace for their impact and attempt to spoil their momentum. Will cause fast moving units to change how they charge, relying less on long distance charge missiles.



These two rules change the dynamics of combat and put regiments in a more powerful position without changing how combat is resolved.

Isn't this moving the bar a bit too much in favor of large infantry blocks? Assuming an attack to the front of a unit, the cavalry would have to move in charge distance of the infantry unit first, or it would suffer from the "Brace and Step" mechanic? (Assuming movement characteristic ist usually 7 or 8 inches, charge distance for an infantry unit with M4 ist 8 inches). Just my two cents.

Static combat resolution should be enough on itself, so I think the solution would be to limit the output in active combat res, or at least put the correct price tag on units which can deal an absurd amount of dammage.

For the outnumbering it would be with whatever weapons they had, but wouldn't work in the flank or rear (you don't get RB if you get flank or rear charged, so this RB derived ability wouldn't work).

The strike first if charging would still be a thing, so it gives an incentive to want to get the charge.

For brace and step, i should clarify it would only work to the front (trying to get your regiment to manoeuvre to foil a charge is hard enough, trying to do it sideways is unlikely). It's not guaranteed if you charge from further away, it's just possible. It becomes a more considered approach to charging, rather than just firing off 5 man cavalry at large blocks of troops confident they will cause them to run simply from casualties.

It makes manoeuvring to flank charge far more important as it bypasses that ability. Historically cavalry rolled up the flanks, they didn't do grand frontal charges that much.

For foot troops who are less likely to be able to charge, it gives incentive to have a bigger RB and higher leadership (lower level characters to lead regiments) so you can foil the charge and use your initiative advantage.

For dwarfs who never get to charge, it means their high Ld will make them difficult to get strike first against, which won't mean much against I2 but will if they have a couple of ranks and can get to I5.



The idea is to have a set of rules that makes how you charge why and where more challenging, while still ensuring that if you do get the charge you will hit with that advantage.

For clarity:

Rank Effects
The more ranks a regiment has, the more powerful and resilient it gets.

For each additional Rank after the first, a regiment gains a +1 bonus (to max +3) that is applied in following situations:

+1 Initiative in melee for all attacks
+1 combat resolution
+1 automatic hit* before combat begins, whether charged or charging.

*These hits are made and resolved before combat begins and have no effect on the fighting rank of either regiment. Any casualties are still counted for combat resolution.

If engaged to the flank or rear, none of these effects apply.

Other Modifications:

Spears and pikes grant +1I
Great weapons strike at I1 (so that the I modifier will affect the regiment)

Charging regiments strike at I11 (effectively strikes first, but allows for interaction with I modifiers).





So every time two regiments clash there will be some potential casualties, but the charger still gets to strike before the target. Provides some inbuilt protection for larger foot regiments from small cavalry that would normally rely on casualties.


Outnumbering
If one side of a combat outnumbers the other in unit strength, they gain +1 hit (granting a max of 4 for a regiment with 3 additional ranks and outnumbering).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some other rank ideas.

The minimum width of a rank to gain Rank effects depends on the quality of the regiment.

Each regiment has a descriptor that determines this, and its maximum unit size.

Horde: 6 wide, 12-30 models max
Mainstay: 5 wide, 10-25 models max
Elite: 4 wide, 4-20 models max

Cavalry: 4 wide, 4-16 models
Monstrous cav/inf: 3 wide, 3-12 models

Most core units will be mainstay or horde (some exceptions perhaps for things like chaos warriors and long beards), while special and rare will be elite.

Cav don't get an extra buffer rank, and will start losing RB when they get casualties.

As horde regiments are going to be cheap, they will lose their RB privileges quickly due to wider frontage requirements.

I would just take 6th as is, and add:

The FBIGO & give ground combat results.

Instead of auto-attack-first when charging, give a flat +2 or +3 Ini.

AP bonus from Strength starts at S5 instead of S4, so armour matters, but without the complications of TOW.

then you get the perfect WHFB imho.

SU-152 wrote:
I would just take 6th as is, and add:

The FBIGO & give ground combat results.

Instead of auto-attack-first when charging, give a flat +2 or +3 Ini.

AP bonus from Strength starts at S5 instead of S4, so armour matters, but without the complications of TOW.

then you get the perfect WHFB imho.

Interesting. Do you believe these will help infantry balance against cavalry?

I'm unsure about flat initiative bonuses. Dwarfs who are already disincentivised to charge because they're slow would be even less so if they only got +2 to initiative. Even +3 is striking simultaneously with elves (although 6th doesn't allow simultaneous combat so you'd have to change that too). Striking first is a big incentive for low initiative armies. If they know they're going to strike second even when they charge it makes them play far less dynamically.


Fbigo is definitely a clever addition to give a little more granularity to losing combat so I'd see it in 6th working really well. Give ground imo is a lot of effort for very little in game outcome. You'd have to build game scenarios around moving the enemy off things for it to be useful.

Hold, fall back in good order and flee seem like plenty of outcomes.

Totally agree on ASM starting at 5.

Interesting. Do you believe these will help infantry balance against cavalry?

Yes indeed. Cavalry not auto-strike-first plus FBIGO makes infantry hold better!!!

Fbigo is definitely a clever addition to give a little more granularity to losing combat so I'd see it in 6th working really well. Give ground imo is a lot of effort for very little in game outcome. You'd have to build game scenarios around moving the enemy off things for it to be useful.

Yeah give ground could be just ignored. Hold, FBIGO and flee are enough!

I'm unsure about flat initiative bonuses. Dwarfs who are already disincentivised to charge because they're slow would be even less so if they only got +2 to initiative. Even +3 is striking simultaneously with elves (although 6th doesn't allow simultaneous combat so you'd have to change that too). Striking first is a big incentive for low initiative armies. If they know they're going to strike second even when they charge it makes them play far less dynamically.

Well it makes sense that a dwarf wielding a 2hw strikes after an elf, even when charging.

Idk, maybe charging bonus +3 Ini and give the same to great weapons but negative -3 Ini.

Frankly, absolutely nothing! 6th is perfect just the way it is, warts and all. Don't try to fix what isn't broken.That's how we got 7th, 8th and now TOW, and I still prefer 6th.
That being said, perhaps outright refusing to change anything would have resulted in us never getting 6th at all. That's something to think about! Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that 6th ought to be preserved as something unique and special and that any proposed changes to the edition would ruin it. Let 6th be something we can all return to and save the changes for a whole new edition.

SU-152 wrote:
Yes indeed. Cavalry not auto-strike-first plus FBIGO makes infantry hold better!!!

given that most cav that are problematic are I4 or higher, They're still going to be hitting first anyway. The highest initiative in the core regiments is 5 for the elves and chaos warriors. Even at +2, bretonnians and empire knights become I5, meaning they hit every infantry unit in the game first on the charge except chaos warriors and elves. IMO the issue with infantry isn't the difficulty of those particular factions surviving charges.

Chaos knights, elf cav, grail knights are all I5 anyway. Questing knights are I4 and Blood knights don't appear until 7th but are I4. So whether you have auto strike first or just follow initiative, this doesn't change that most of the devastating cav in the game are going to be striking first anyway.

SU-152 wrote:
Well it makes sense that a dwarf wielding a 2hw strikes after an elf, even when charging.

Idk, maybe charging bonus +3 Ini and give the same to great weapons but negative -3 Ini.

It does, but it also depends on how you're describing the initial charge vs protracted combat. You can rationalise it any way you like. For instance, you can say the strike first reflects that a target is bracing to receive the attack knowing that if they don't they'll get pushed out of formation. It's less about just waiting to strike at someone. This was one of the reasons I was looking at the rank bonus as a form of impact clash strikes made by both sides before you shift to the initiative order.

From a game perspective, given how much of the game is about moving into position to charge, making low I armies get no reward for managing to get off a charge is a really 'feels bad' experience. And for armies like the dwarfs who already get crap for just playing gunlines, it actually mechanically encourages you to ONLY play gunlines. Spend all that effort to set up a charge (with a charge range of 6" is not easy) only to have your target mow you down? Why bother charging? I can just have lots of gunlines that stand and shoot at you instead.

LorantheWise wrote:Frankly, absolutely nothing! 6th is perfect just the way it is, warts and all. Don't try to fix what isn't broken.That's how we got 7th, 8th and now TOW, and I still prefer 6th.
That being said, perhaps outright refusing to change anything would have resulted in us never getting 6th at all. That's something to think about! Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that 6th ought to be preserved as something unique and special and that any proposed changes to the edition would ruin it. Let 6th be something we can all return to and save the changes for a whole new edition.

Totally understand and I'm more or less happy with 6th ed. However GW did publish rule updates and changes throughout its run, and many people still find some issues with the mechanics. My goal here would be to have an 'errata' style change to the existing game, the minimum requirement to tweak it so that the game is improved without drastic change. Unlike GW who is incentivised to make sweeping changes to justify a new edition, we have the capability to massage the existing rules as minimally as possible to keep it virtually the same but improve.

For instance, the 7th ed change to casting dice so that you can't swap them, each wizard keeps their own dice. that's such a small change with a big outcome, it could have easily appeared in a 6th ed errata doc.


What I'm looking for is an errata to infantry that allows them to be more effective, without any big changes to the rules. Infantry just don't have the presence to be as effective. A small errata like 'if cav charge a regiment that outnumbers them (unit strength), they suffer -1 to hit but only to the front', would make it harder for cav to have overwhelming charges at will. Given that cav preferred to roll up the flanks, this would actually drive players to try and set up flank charges with their cav to avoid frontal charge difficulties.

As a concept, having just generic 'being outnumbered inflicts -1WS/to hit to the front' actually would impact elite infantry as well, so you can't rely on sending 10 greatswords against 40 goblins and expect them to walk through them. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Personally I like the RB being a reflection of the power of a regiment, and it already exists so can be used in a variety of ways. I'm not wedded to any particular method, I'm just interested in seeing how minimally you can change the rules to improve things just enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So far the tweaks I can see adding value are:

Fall back in good order
7th ed wizard dice restrictions
S5 is start of modifiers (unless you have a special rule like blackpowder)


The last tweak that imo should smooth the divide between units is how to keep charge incentive, while also making it harder for cav to trounce everything.

Here's a tweaked version of the original WFB 6th ed summary sheet with the modifications discussed so far.

As you can see, I'm really trying to go for 'appeared in a WD errata' type of change, rather than trying to remake the edition. The game was so close to being perfect, if some of the deficits can bet tweaked slightly, then the game improves.

Charge move giving a fixed bonus (4"?) instead of doubling movement would go a long way towards giving infantry more of an equal footing.

When Brets could fail a charge against my Boyz and still be outside of their charge range it felt so unfair...

It's an interesting concept and I have no problems with it at all.

I'm not sure if really solves the scenario you describe though. Brets m8 +4 is still 12, while Boyz are m4+4 is 8. You'd still be 4" short all the time.


If I were to do that I'd probably make it +6" to split the difference. It would have the effect of making units a bit faster to get into combat while also reducing the threat range of most cavalry.

My group plays 6th right now, and the only changes we've made is to add in the Power Dice rules from 7th where a wizard can only use generic pool dice or the dice that they themselves generated, and the Insane Courage rule from 7th.

What if anything do you do to balance cavalry and infantry? Minimum infantry requirements?

Or are you just not worrying about it? Interested to hear how everyone enjoys the game as is when the over performance of cav vs Infantry was one of the main complaints

(Pulls out my old WAB BRB):

So I always like FBIGO and Give Ground rules from the Warhammer Ancient rulebook. Likewise, I do like the Disengage Rules and Fire and Flee.(not a combat rule but F&F is an interesting concept) Adding Insane Courage is a good step as well. All or some combination would make for more interesting combat phases, especially adding the concept of a "Drilled" unit that would have access to some of these rules for a cost in points or built into the points already.

As far as Magic goes, I do like JT's way of assigning the magic dice. I would also remove all of the special lores for a lot of the factions, especially for Chaos and the Elf factions. Given them a signature spell, sure, but you don't need a whole new lore. Likewise more factions would get more access to the original 8 lores. Some will have to stay like Necromancy, or a WAAGGH lore, but slimming down redundant lores is needed.
I would revamp some of the individual spells here and there, and get a few runes added for my dwarves, but that would be nit picking.

Despite all of this I would much rather play 6th edition as-is, rather than all of the other editions put together. I just got the TOW BRB, so I want to reserve judgement from that for now.

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned some kind of infantry buff or cavalry nerf.

Is the conventional wisdom that there's an issue with underpowered infantry and overpowered cavalry wrong?

Just curious how people deal with this perceived issue.

Insane Courage is one of my most disliked gaming rules of all time. It's such an anti-rule, goes against everything a game should support.

It only triggers when one player made really good moves (building up a CR advantage so big that it matters) and then...punishes him for doing so randomly 1/36 of the time ! While rewarding the player who played badly (allowed this to happen) at the same time.

For me it's preposterous game design. Games should reward good moves and punish bad ones, not do the opposite (and specifically targetting particularly excellent moves to boot)!

It leaves both players with the distaste of "I didn't deserve this" and robs them of the fun and satisfaction of seeing a masterfully executed strategy bear fruit.

I mean with 6th Ed as a base, I’d probably import movement, magic lores and leadership for combat and charge bonus based on movement value

From 8th, 2d magic pool, step up and supporting attacks.

Hellebore wrote:What if anything do you do to balance cavalry and infantry? Minimum infantry requirements?

Or are you just not worrying about it? Interested to hear how everyone enjoys the game as is when the over performance of cav vs Infantry was one of the main complaints

Hellebore wrote:I find it interesting that no one has mentioned some kind of infantry buff or cavalry nerf.

Is the conventional wisdom that there's an issue with underpowered infantry and overpowered cavalry wrong?

Just curious how people deal with this perceived issue.

That's because I wasn't online yet to answer. I don't add buffs because they're not needed. I've mathed it out in SEVERAL places, even on here, where a 5 man cav unit basically breaks even against a unit with a full 5 Combat Resolution. That means that you only have to wound the Knights ONCE to win combat. Those aren't great odds for the Knights. I mitigate the cav experience by running Spearmen or units with ridiculously good armor. I don't really have problems. Now Knights with a rank bonus? Well, those get every spell/ballistic shot I can get on them, or I bait a charge and flee so I can flank.


Think about it like chess: the Queen is the most valuable piece on the board until victory demands her sacrifice.

Cyel wrote:Insane Courage is one of my most disliked gaming rules of all time. It's such an anti-rule, goes against everything a game should support.

It only triggers when one player made really good moves (building up a CR advantage so big that it matters) and then...punishes him for doing so randomly 1/36 of the time ! While rewarding the player who played badly (allowed this to happen) at the same time.

For me it's preposterous game design. Games should reward good moves and punish bad ones, not do the opposite (and specifically targetting particularly excellent moves to boot)!

It leaves both players with the distaste of "I didn't deserve this" and robs them of the fun and satisfaction of seeing a masterfully executed strategy bear fruit.

It's also a speed-bump to Autobreak from Fear. The nice thing is that you don't have to do that, nor do you have to criticize others for choosing to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

itsonlyme wrote:
I mean with 6th Ed as a base, I’d probably import movement, magic lores and leadership for combat and charge bonus based on movement value

From 8th, 2d magic pool, step up and supporting attacks.

There is NOTHING salvageable from 8th. If 8th was the only way to get games in? My stuff would be on ebay immediately.

I wouldn't call it a speed bump to autobreak if it only works randomly 1/36 of the time - it's never worth being taken into account when planning anyway.

Autobreak from fear may absolutely need a re-work and balancing, but IC is as far from a reasonable, dependable solution to this problem as it can be.

As everyone in our group disagrees, I'll feel confident that we're on the right track.

 Just Tony wrote:

Hellebore wrote:What if anything do you do to balance cavalry and infantry? Minimum infantry requirements?

Or are you just not worrying about it? Interested to hear how everyone enjoys the game as is when the over performance of cav vs Infantry was one of the main complaints

Hellebore wrote:I find it interesting that no one has mentioned some kind of infantry buff or cavalry nerf.

Is the conventional wisdom that there's an issue with underpowered infantry and overpowered cavalry wrong?

Just curious how people deal with this perceived issue.

That's because I wasn't online yet to answer. I don't add buffs because they're not needed. I've mathed it out in SEVERAL places, even on here, where a 5 man cav unit basically breaks even against a unit with a full 5 Combat Resolution. That means that you only have to wound the Knights ONCE to win combat. Those aren't great odds for the Knights. I mitigate the cav experience by running Spearmen or units with ridiculously good armor. I don't really have problems. Now Knights with a rank bonus? Well, those get every spell/ballistic shot I can get on them, or I bait a charge and flee so I can flank.


Think about it like chess: the Queen is the most valuable piece on the board until victory demands her sacrifice.

Cyel wrote:Insane Courage is one of my most disliked gaming rules of all time. It's such an anti-rule, goes against everything a game should support.

It only triggers when one player made really good moves (building up a CR advantage so big that it matters) and then...punishes him for doing so randomly 1/36 of the time ! While rewarding the player who played badly (allowed this to happen) at the same time.

For me it's preposterous game design. Games should reward good moves and punish bad ones, not do the opposite (and specifically targetting particularly excellent moves to boot)!

It leaves both players with the distaste of "I didn't deserve this" and robs them of the fun and satisfaction of seeing a masterfully executed strategy bear fruit.

It's also a speed-bump to Autobreak from Fear. The nice thing is that you don't have to do that, nor do you have to criticize others for choosing to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

itsonlyme wrote:
I mean with 6th Ed as a base, I’d probably import movement, magic lores and leadership for combat and charge bonus based on movement value

From 8th, 2d magic pool, step up and supporting attacks.

There is NOTHING salvageable from 8th. If 8th was the only way to get games in? My stuff would be on ebay immediately.

Can't say I agree at all, while not perfect, it has some good ideas.

itsonlyme wrote:I mean with 6th Ed as a base, I’d probably import movement, magic lores and leadership for combat and charge bonus based on movement value

From 8th, 2d magic pool, step up and supporting attacks.

I don't get step up or even how people see the logic in it. It messes with the advantage of the charge, it messes with the point of initiative sequencing. It says that slower units have enough time to move new troops into the same combat but the faster troops don't?

Just Tony wrote:
That's because I wasn't online yet to answer. I don't add buffs because they're not needed. I've mathed it out in SEVERAL places, even on here, where a 5 man cav unit basically breaks even against a unit with a full 5 Combat Resolution. That means that you only have to wound the Knights ONCE to win combat. Those aren't great odds for the Knights. I mitigate the cav experience by running Spearmen or units with ridiculously good armor. I don't really have problems. Now Knights with a rank bonus? Well, those get every spell/ballistic shot I can get on them, or I bait a charge and flee so I can flank.

Think about it like chess: the Queen is the most valuable piece on the board until victory demands her sacrifice.

I was talking to everyone as there been very little comments on this area at all.

So a 5 man cav (say Empire as they're pretty average) is 115ts (155 with full command). For 120 (145 with full command) you get 20 halbardiers. You can only have 7 of them in btb but you won't have full bonus. So if they're in ranks of 5 to get the rank bonus chances are they won't have anyone alive to cause that one wound. 6 att hitting on 3+ wound on 2+, that's around 4 wounds. 5 horses score 1 or 2 additional wounds. So that's the first rank wiped. To get the chance to tie or win, those halbardiers would need to be a much larger unit, to get both the +3 ranks and enough frontage to try for at least one wound. By that point they're a lot more expensive than the knights they're fighting. They'd need to add +8 troops to get 4 ranks of 7 to maximise the number of potential attacks back. The unit is over 200pts by that stage and is 28 models to have a chance against 5 cavalry.

Now this is on a vaccum but it's happened enough over the years that its come up consistently as an issue.


But there are different discussions about different things. There's the potential issue of msu cav, and there's the deathstar cav. They all have different challenges.




What this has told me is that the answer might be just in how you determine who can attack and who can lap around.

As there's very little incentive to make regiments wider because rank bonus is more valuable, if you changed to way you define who can attack you might see different play styles.

For example ,if you said that rank bonus comes from 4 wide, but you can always make attacks up to 8 wide, regardless of btb, you now have tactical choices of width vs depth.

It also makes wider regiments more of a challenge to small cav, because they run the risk of not landing a decisive blow.


Also given the momentum of cavalry, they would naturally fold the opposing infantry regiment around them. So you could say that infantry may lap around cavalry whether they won combat or not.

Certainly it looks strange that 5 cav get to lock 20 industry in place when there's nothing stopping them moving around the sides.




Edit: I think that part of it might be that people would prefer to fight to win combat rather than stack rank bonus. Allowing them to fight with more people on the front rank means they're more likely to rely on fighting to win rather than buying ranks.

If you could fight with all 8 front rank regardless of btb, it means they're less likely to fill out enough ranks to get +3, but will be able to be more aggressive.

Although given that the game allows you to have wide frontages it could be weird to have a two theoretical 10 wide units only striking with 8 guys.

Another way to do it would be either your opponent's front rank + half, or double. Ie your opponent has a width of 6 models, up to 9 or 12 of your front rank can strike back. Unsure which would work better. Given that the rules are effectively opponent's width +2 (for corner to corner) this isnt that different.

Or another way would be to use unit strength of the target. Up your opponent's front rank US of your front rank can make attacks.

Ie 5 cav is US 10 so an infantry of up to 10 wide would be able to attack back. This has the advantage of working for monsters as well. 3 ogres can be attacked by up to 9 models in your front rank for example.


Hmm will have to test this, but it has a potential to self balance because cav are us 2.

 Hellebore wrote:

itsonlyme wrote:I mean with 6th Ed as a base, I’d probably import movement, magic lores and leadership for combat and charge bonus based on movement value

From 8th, 2d magic pool, step up and supporting attacks.

I don't get step up or even how people see the logic in it. It messes with the advantage of the charge, it messes with the point of initiative sequencing. It says that slower units have enough time to move new troops into the same combat but the faster troops don't?

The problem with the front rank not being able to fight back, more often than that, this shifts the focus to cavalry heavy, high movement armies of msu units. step up did mean that instead of your chosen knights ramming into a unit, killing the front rank and basically auto winning, they might take a little damage in return. Main issue with 8th was the horde rule.

I understand the potential issue, I just think that there are other ways to solve it that don't undo half the other rules around ranked combat.

It's kind of a half way between 40k 'everyone fights ' and wfb front rank only.

No one has a problem with an entire unit being wiped before it can fight back in 40k.

If you did a 'whole unit strikes then the opponent's whole unit strikes ' you'd still see the cav winning. Which to me says the rule is unbalanced. One of the consequences of striking on initiative is that you die before you get to strike.

Your cav example would average out to 4 hits from the Knights with 3 wounds more statistical. This means that with the horses 1.25 wounds you don't have a consistent front rank wipe. You also chose halberdiers, which is a far less likely unit to survive a charge. The same math with Spearmen makes things more dire for the Knights. Even Swordsmen fare better in that instance than the Halberdiers.


You also neglect fleeing as an option to get the Knights to fail charge and BE charged on the next turn where their lances give no benefit. This example also makes sure that WS on the charged unit is inferior, thus netting the odds again more in your favor.


The reality is that Knights weren't wiping units singlehandedly unless they were ran ranked, and usually were shuttling a blender Lord if they were doing that kind of clearing.

I don't think just always run away or only use spear men are particularly good answers. Every army has a basic troop that just uses a hand weapon and if the solution is that you just shouldn't use them, well it's not much of an answer.

Flee should be a tactical choice not a necessity. I appreciate it, but not as the main action you perform. I can see why people wanted something like step up if they were told to just run away all the time.

Combat imo should be the first solution and other things secondary. A game where you have to keep running away to deal with your opponent all the time is not one I'm going to enjoy.

The stats in my example are virtually a coin flip - they'll either do 3 or 4 wounds +1-2 horses on average. A unit having a 5050 chance of losing combat without acting is not a fun experience.

 Moscha wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
I'm glad they've brought WFB back, I'm just not a massive fan of the increased complexity in ToW.
leheartedly agree, 6th Ed is for me the best edition of WHF ever released by GW, taking in consideration the overall quality of the ruleset combined with army books/army lists.

...

Static combat resolution should be enough on itself, so I think the solution would be to limit the output in active combat res, or at least put the correct price tag on units which can deal an absurd amount of dammage.

I think that infantry could perfectly fight on two ranks without much issue to the grander picture. In a nightmarish scenario where you're charging a unit that is fighting against you with a 3+, 2+ (longbeards for example), 12 attacks end up being 7 total wounds. And that's a world where you somehow didn't kill a single dwarf. There's the fear that wider units will control the meta, but with movement being restrictive for big blocks and how charging works compared to 8th, it's not much of an issue.

For example, you charge a unit of 8 wide saurus with some humble knights of the realm (so a nightmare case ), let's say you kill 5 in an absolutely horrid roll. You'd get around 8 returning wounds all things considered (so around 5 death knights if the gak rolls stop). Not too bad considering it's one of the worse scenarios that could happen. That block of saurus could be a hassle to deal with if it was buffed, with characters and what-not, but it's also moving 4", almost never turning and being target practice for artillery.

Infantry that fights in two ranks already isn't changing the game too much: spears are good but not universally used and Sisters of Slaughter are not the most common DE hammer. The only armies could be an issue are O&G and Dwarves, but that's two outliers in over 15 factions, so not much of an issue on my eyes.

Hmm, two rank fighting for infantry specifically, but not for anything else?

Would you see them using their normal weapons? I can see a halberd being used over the top of the front rank, or someone stabbing past them with a sword.

I have difficulty imagining a great axe or hammer being effective from the second rank though. Very hard to strike with effectively.

It would be the great weapon units that would be the biggest challenge with 2 ranks fighting. They charge and do 10 s5 attacks which would decimate enemy infantry.





Or would you see the supporting rank using a hand weapon attack?

 Hellebore wrote:
I understand the potential issue, I just think that there are other ways to solve it that don't undo half the other rules around ranked combat.

It's kind of a half way between 40k 'everyone fights ' and wfb front rank only.

No one has a problem with an entire unit being wiped before it can fight back in 40k.

If you did a 'whole unit strikes then the opponent's whole unit strikes ' you'd still see the cav winning. Which to me says the rule is unbalanced. One of the consequences of striking on initiative is that you die before you get to strike.

Fantasy isnt 40k, which is much more of a skirmish game, so with 40k, you don’t have large units moving forward in blocks, they tend to be in lose formations. It’s also just daft, that in such formations people don’t just step towards. The way they changed it, is even more silly, the entire front rank may make a single attack, no matter how many wide? The old supporting attack rule just makes more sense.


I charge, you die was always the worst part of early editions,the effects of that are being seeing repeated in the tow. This is why brets dominated 6th Ed as well, this is mainly why wives gained asf, because it was the only way to make their infantry work.