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.

 sebster wrote:

This is a thing people keep saying. I think it is because they watched Braveheart or something.

Or they've read/watched anything fantasy. Seriously, it's a pretty common fantasy trope that a cavalry charge is the most powerful thing on the field.

It is powerful, if the enemy isn't equipped or prepared to fight cavalry. Its a psychological test, if the nerve of the soldiers being charged holds they can repel the attack, but if it fails they'll get run down.

Maybe Heavy Cavalry get impact hits only while Fast Cavalry get ASF only. Also I agree cavalry charges are meant to be powerful and a test of will. I was thinking that for certain tyoes of Cavalry, upon their charge a panic test must be taken by the enemy or they would take additional wounds(if impact hits were taken) or flee or something.

 The Shadow wrote:
I reckon that being charged by cavalry could add to combat resolution. Think about it, it'd be pretty scary being smashed into by these rapidly moving things that will trample you if you stand in the way or scatter you otherwise. I mean, there's already a combat bonus for charging down a hill. So I think saying that charging cavalry get +2 to their combat resolution, instead of the normal +1 would make things a lot better.

I constantly see this issue about how scary a cavalry charge is, but in WHFB you have scarier things than regular cavalry. As scary as that brettonian knight unit is, it's not a Gorghon, Giant, unit of Bloodcrushers or even something that actually causes Fear. I feel like people keep looking at cavalry in a historical frame, while ignoring that WHFB is NOT history. We should be looking at cavalry in the context of the game, not history.

Let's take 10 knights and slam them into a formation of 50 guys. Thats ten TONS of man, animal, and steel impacting a half-ton of infantry at over thirty miles an hour. Basically, imagine a decent-sized truck (and NOT a pickup) hitting a crowd.

Splat. Either the infantry get out of the way (and disrupt their formation), or the infantry get run down (and their formation disrupts anyway). For any sort of versimilitude, heavy cavalry should disrupt ranks on the charge, period.

Unless they have pikes - in which case they both kinda end up in a messy scrum of dead bodies.

And when was the last time you saw pikes in WFB?

Okay, I'll grant you that spears serve much the same role. Now... when was the last time you saw Brett or Empire spearmen? Or any unit except for an elf (who doesn't have a choice in the matter)?

Sword & board is a pitiful defense when a full ton of flesh and steel slam into you.

Edit: And don't get me started on the type of disruption suffered by a unit hit by ten tons or so of dragon or other large monster on the charge.

Right, cavalry are too powerful and spears are too weak. Lets fix that

Is there a new edition rumoured to come out soon?

roma wrote:
Is there a new edition rumoured to come out soon?

2015 was the number I have seen floating around, it's unlikely it would be more than a year either side of that based on the past release scedual.

 Vulcan wrote:
And when was the last time you saw pikes in WFB?
Now... when was the last time you saw Brett or Empire spearmen? Or any unit except for an elf (who doesn't have a choice in the matter)?

My Goblin Wolf riders.

Take that!

 Vulcan wrote:
Let's take 10 knights and slam them into a formation of 50 guys. Thats ten TONS of man, animal, and steel impacting a half-ton of infantry at over thirty miles an hour. Basically, imagine a decent-sized truck (and NOT a pickup) hitting a crowd.

Splat. Either the infantry get out of the way (and disrupt their formation), or the infantry get run down (and their formation disrupts anyway). For any sort of versimilitude, heavy cavalry should disrupt ranks on the charge, period.

Great idea, let's make all units in WHFB cavalry!

roma wrote:
Is there a new edition rumoured to come out soon?

I don't think it's been "officially" rumoured, whether from a leak from GW or from a reliable source, but going on the release dates for the last couple of Warhammer editions (around 4 years each I think?) we're getting close to a new edition.

The idea that cavalry were only ever effective in the flank is itself kind of a myth. It's only in the 15th century that you start seeing disciplined infantry repelling heavy cavalry, before that it wasn't at all unheard of for cavalry to smash into and break most infantry from the front. That said, WH is more like a 15th century battlefield than a 12th.

Honestly, I'd like to see cavalry (except fast) and everything bigger than them just get +2 rather than +1 to combat res for charging, and steadfast being denied if you're disrupted. Having spears, pikes, or halberds denies the combat res bonus if you get charged from the front. Maybe make it so that steadfast means you can't go below your base Ld, so if you're general is Ld 10, you are Ld 7, and you lose by 4, you still test on 7 when steadfast. Basically I'd like charges to be scarier but not killier.

@all the "in reality" comparisons: that doesn't matter at all. We're talking of the same game where next to the unit of cavalry, a giant manticore crashes down from the sky and breathes fire. So yeah, so much for realism.

A lot of suggestions here aren't actual suggestions, they're wishlisting by people who want cavalry to be good and, often, even overpowered e.g. allowing cavalry to break a unit on the charge (front). It's a prime example for a really terrible suggestions or rather wishlisting as it would completely break the game.

 Sigvatr wrote:
@all the "in reality" comparisons: that doesn't matter at all. We're talking of the same game where next to the unit of cavalry, a giant manticore crashes down from the sky and breathes fire. So yeah, so much for realism.

A lot of suggestions here aren't actual suggestions, they're wishlisting by people who want cavalry to be good and, often, even overpowered e.g. allowing cavalry to break a unit on the charge (front). It's a prime example for a really terrible suggestions or rather wishlisting as it would completely break the game.

What, pray tell, is broken about letting a 500pt monstrous cav unit break from the front but making it impossible for a 500pt unit of knights do the same? I want cav that is generally worth its point compared to an MI/MC/infantry hammer is all.

PS, "it's fantasy, so nothing in reality can be an example" is a terrible argument. It's fantasy, but certain things work like in real life. The weight of a charge is one of those things, and anyway, I personally wouldn't want cav getting any charge bonuses that monstrous cav and monsters don't also get. We shouldn't necessarily emulate realism, but that's because it's a game, not because it's fantasy.

the color purple wrote:


What, pray tell, is broken about letting a 500pt monstrous cav unit break from the front but making it impossible for a 500pt unit of knights do the same?

Why can't my 500 pts character break through a unit of 500 pts in 1 turn either?

Ask 7th players how "fun" that was, heroes running around everywhere, breaking units left and right.

Different units serve different purposes. A tarpit at 500 pts counters an elite unit at 500 pts. If people cannot deal with such things, they need to play different, easier armies like Lizardmen or Skaven, armies that do not rely on cavalry. Cavalry needs a buff, no doubt about it, but a lot of people are just wishlisting here while breaking the game.

If 500pts of cavalry can also smash into the front and destroy a unit like 500pts of MC, why would anyone take MC? They are meant to serve different purposes, surely.

Because MC are tougher and have lots more and higher strength attacks? MC should be better at grinding out if they attack alone, cav should be screwed if they get stuck in but better at manouver, and thus more likely to hit weak units/flanks. Basically, my baseline is a unit of 6+ knights hitting the flank of a core infantry should be very dangerous, whereas right now even crap like clanrats and night gobbos are capable of holding until they're slaughtered out of steadfast. Letting your units get flanked should be crippling, and big heavy cav units should be a threat even from the front to low-tier enemies. Screening your flanks from enemy cav, and screening your front, against certain builds, should be necessary.

Most cavalry are already screwed if they fail to break the enemy on the charge. Because most cavalry are a piddly str3 and rely on Lances.

 Sigvatr wrote:
@all the "in reality" comparisons: that doesn't matter at all. We're talking of the same game where next to the unit of cavalry, a giant manticore crashes down from the sky and breathes fire. So yeah, so much for realism.

There's realism, and then there's versimilitude. The idea that, simply by grouping up in formation, a group of humans could catch and hold a one-ton wrecking ball in place - or a ten-ton truck - is ludicrous unless you grant some sort of superhuman staying power.

Which is clearly NOT the case when they face other infantry.

The problem lies, I believe, with the very mechanic that Fantasy portrays Heavy cavalry to be. Current views are very much inspired by Arthurian and LOTR views of knights charging headlong into infantry, breaking their formation, breaking moral of standing and support troops, and finally running sown survivors.

The general who would command his cavalry to do this in real life is who we call the village idiot. Cavalry is mainly built around speed...hence two real-life tactics: 1. The hit n' run, and 2. the flanking maneuver.

Since we are taking about fantasy, I'll stay with the Arthurian Standard, with Gandalf's flashlight leading the charge into pikes...

If Heavy cavalry is given +1 AS, and Terror Charge, it would solve the Steadfast problem (looking at Brets). I would like to see fast cav gain +1 AS against shooting, along with a move, shoot, move tactic. This goes without being said: there must be a clear definition between the two (looking at HE). With the current book, HE has silver helms with the same role as princes of caledor....and Knights errant with the same role as KOTR.

I would like to see more mounted units with a ranged attack. The Mongols could shoot just as well as they could fight with a spear. The knights of olde knew the lance, just as well as the bow/spear/pistol.

Just my 2¢.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 sebster wrote:

This is a thing people keep saying. I think it is because they watched Braveheart or something.

Or they've read/watched anything fantasy. Seriously, it's a pretty common fantasy trope that a cavalry charge is the most powerful thing on the field.

Let them have their fun. That way when they think cavalry is awesome jezzails and some magic will be able to blow them off the battlefield .

Personally the only thing i have a problem with and yet don't is steadfast. I still think flanking an enemy should have an effect on steadfast or getting multi-charged or similar. I mean i play skaven and even i wish flanking wasn't nerfed as much as it was. I remember you guys had the idea it would add negative modifiers to the normally steadfast leadership. Maybe i'm wrong in thinking 7th in some ways had more tactics with flanking whereas 8th is more about big units of rank-and-file and magic or it seems to be. I really wish initiative mattered more in normal combats. Currently with only one attack for not base to base units in a combat messing up frenzy and death frenzy as well as other multiple attack units, 8th edition's BRB magic being ridiculous and initiative not mattering as much in combat unless units are small it seems to hurt skaven a bit. Then again maybe you all want that. Still think 'speed of asuryan' is too slowed with ASF basically giving all high elves infinite hatred on all their dudes almost all the time. I guess every army book has something stupid.

Why do people think skaven are so OP though? Maybe i don't play enough to know. It's not like my army has a slann casting 'dwellers' 4-5 times during a game and killing off all of somebody's characters and most of their army and then just shooting the remainder off the board. I still managed to do a good job in that game even with the skinks running around trying to flank and shoot everything to death that survived 'dwellers below'. 'Lore of life' with a slann right now is pretty dumb esp. with 'throne of vines', 'dwellers below' and 'flesh to stone'.

Skaven are extremely versatile, have the highest LD in the game, have very viable war machines, potent magic, overpowered, spammable core (Slaves) and stuff like the HPA that just makes me sick everytime I see its broken rules. Skaven have no actual weakness compared to other armies.

But yes, Lizardmen are, by far, the most overpowered army book in the game. Double Slann says hi.

I have to agree with both. I have found victory against both with my Dwarves, but at a heavy price. They both have really some overpowered rules and builds. I still think that Cold Blooded is one of the cheapest army special rules. It is basically a smaller version of Stubbron.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Skaven are extremely versatile, have the highest LD in the game, have very viable war machines, potent magic, overpowered, spammable core (Slaves) and stuff like the HPA that just makes me sick everytime I see its broken rules. Skaven have no actual weakness compared to other armies.

But yes, Lizardmen are, by far, the most overpowered army book in the game. Double Slann says hi.

ROFL Seriously dude? The highest leadership in the game?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Skaven are extremely versatile, have the highest LD in the game, have very viable war machines, potent magic, overpowered, spammable core (Slaves) and stuff like the HPA that just makes me sick everytime I see its broken rules. Skaven have no actual weakness compared to other armies.

But yes, Lizardmen are, by far, the most overpowered army book in the game. Double Slann says hi.

ROFL Seriously dude? The highest leadership in the game?

Yes, seriously. It's an army that consistently has Stubborn LD10 across a 3 foot + square of the board.

Why are you trying to break Slaves?

You ignore the slaves and go for the other stuff.

Not all of us Netlist, GT.

My main battle line tends to be multiple Clannies backed by Stormvermin and Plague Monks. It's an attrition battle that has yet to fail me, even in tournaments. I tend to have too many bodies on the board for people to just "go for the other stuff".

Now that said, I don't top table at events. My wins tend not to be Major Victories due to not generating enough VP outside of Scenario.

Has anyone wondered how an animal as heavy and as fast as a horse doesn't constantly get broken legs/hooves as it clomps around uneven terrain and such?

I have. So I asked some people and they said that horses do exactly like we do. If you're walking around your apartment barefoot and you step on a plastic 40K figure with his power chainsword fist pointed directly at your heel, you immediately shift your weight to your other foot and interrupt your gait to lessen the ouchness. Horses do that too when they sense they aren't stepping on nice firm ground. Except they got 4 legs and can switch weight a lot easier.

Horses have spindly little legs compared to their mass. With super high centers of gravity (compared to humans). If they start smashing through the jell-o that is a human body putting all their weight on our guts as we fall down, they're going to also fall down and/or start hurting themselves as they lose their footing.

They can knock people aside with no problem, but they simply aren't good at grinding people underfoot as you might think. They aren't bulldozers. Maybe draft horses with those hooves like watermelons, but those are super slow.

Draft Horses, slow? Only relative to other horses.

And those are actually the horses that were originally bred for war, and later repurposed to be work horses.


While they arn't running as fast, they do have more kinetic energy than a smaller horse would. Which will break apart infantry formations. Especially once horses started getting armor of their own.