Specialist Arms Forum
Warmaster => [WM] Warmaster Fantasy Experimental Rules Feedback => Topic started by: kyussinchains on August 29, 2013, 01:55:51 PM
-
So it seems we fall into two camps with this, those who feel cavalry are overpowered/undercosted and those who feel the situation is fine and it's more of a learning curve to figure out how to deal with cavalry
I'm opening a thread to specifically discuss cavalry, their potency, weaknesses and possible special/house rules to mitigate their effectiveness
please have at it, and be as constructive as possible in discussing other players experiences :)
-
My experience; make sure you use terrain on the table. Simple as that really ;)
-
The truth is that's the TRUTH! If you want to reduce the power of cavalry just start using terrain. If your cavalry focused counterpart does not allow this then the problem is not in the rules.
This is really simple: in terrain heavy battlefield cavalry and monsters are pretty useless. In open field infantry is pretty useless.
The issue is tournament play - the organizers must inform beforehand that tables will contain much terrain and actually execute it. But it happens rarely and the discussion is starting again.
Another solution was suggested way back then by Rick Pristley. Please change only one thing: reduce armour save of cavalry by 1 point - just across all armies. Then you will see everything changing if you really struggle with accepting current rules. It is really very simple and elegant solution. But it hurts 8)
-
Increase the cost of all cavalry by 20 points if it has an armour save of 4+ or better?
Dave
-
I'm in the "use more terrain" camp.
We usually have 6 hills, 6 forests and 6 other pieces of area terrain (village/fields) on a 6x4'.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-iyucZqB4uPA/UW86lYNchEI/AAAAAAAAMjw/vOqZPK02udE/s640/IMG_0112.JPG)
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-EF-J5s4FMzE/T8ZMnU8lnyI/AAAAAAAALiI/-6Nup5TOd_I/s640/IMG_0029.JPG)
However, I'll add that we don't play Cav/Chariot heavy in my group. While most cav is -/-, we tend to play as if it were -/2. Might be worth considering that first before points get involved.
-
Is that right that the game mechanics discourages you to play battles located on plains or in desert? In my eyes the terrain heavy solution is a way of trying to solve the "broken" rules avoiding any changes. But it doesn't change the fact, that the rules are still "broken".
-
It strikes me that a gentlemen's agreement of a max of 3 of the generic 110 point cavalry per 1000 points might be necessary.
-
Hi,
I am a great fan of changing the support rule, which makes infantry stronger. Easy to change. Have done this in several test games with very good results and balanced games.
By the way I played Dwarves several years and under the current rule it is nearly impossible to fight in the open.
Cheers,
Jurisch
-
We probably play, on average, with more terrain than that picture illustrates.
We play with a lot of 'fields' which count as open ground but chargers do not get their extra attacks on troops standing in them (the rationale behind this is that crops and furrows would 'break up' charges). This special terrain rule was added so that infantry wouldn;t be mown down as easily by cav in the open.
We play the suport rule to make infantry stronger.
Despite all of the above the entire group agrees (6 veteran wargamers who own all the warmaster armies between us) that cavalry is too powerful for the points cost. The min/max idea seems to fudeg the issue as it involves taking away choices from players. Wouldn't a better idea be to re-point and make it a genuine decision, "Shall I take that brigade of knights or go for the two brigades of infantyy?" At the moment its a no-brainer, always plumb for the heavy cavalry.
Scenarios and special terrain set ups can help emasculate the power of cavalry too but at some point our group got bored of having to do this to make the game balanced.
Dave
-
Infantry support buff has been mentioned but not elaborated on.
Do you mean each infantry stand counts as +2 towards combat resolution instead of +1?
-
No, you count support before casualties.
@Dave - A points increase is going to take away options from the player too. On average how many cav units are you guys playing with in a 2k game? A 3k? If you're taking 6 units in a 2k the only thing 130 point cav is going to do is reduce them to 5 cav.
The other thing to consider is maybe the points aren't balanced for games above that. No point system is completely accurate, and a 6k game is going to have thee times the points discrepancy at 2k.
-
Fair enough, yes I haden't thought of that. We tend to play BIG multiplayer games e.g. 6-10K a side and sometimes bigger.
As to the number of cavalry being taken, it completely depends on the army type, the player and his collection.
Looking at one of my old, used army lists; If I was fielding 4K of my O+G army, I would probably field 12 units of Boar Boys, 6 units Goblin Chariots and 6 Wolf Riders.
My friend fielding his 4K Brettonian list would have a total of 20 units of Knights/Grail Knights (ouch). It seems harsh to him to say sorry mate, you can't field all those units you spent hours painting up?
I guess there will never be consensus so we'll just have to have group based house rules.
Dave
-
There seem to be 5 main options for ‘solving the cavalry problem’.
1) Crank up the points cost to reflect their power on the table. This is simple but would require all army lists to be amended.
2) Set maximums more strictly within the army lists. Needs all lists to be amended and would leave some players with redundant minis.
3) Keep costs the same but change cavalry stats in some way. For example, reducing all armour by one. But this will also require wholesale amendment of the lists.
4) Change the game mechanics to help out the infantry. The obvious one is counting support before removing casualties. But if cavalry are allowed to easily ‘swarm’ round by pinning in front and then hitting the sides of infantry even if they’re not starting from a flanking position, then the support is usually negated.
5) Use more terrain. But in the absence of a set terrain system, that means ‘he who sets the table’ may get an advantage.
After reflection, my suggestion is to count support before removing casualties.
And make two units the maximum size of a cavalry brigade.
Mounted troops ought to be harder to command than infantry and so if someone wants to take lots of cavalry; they will then need to spend a lot more on command to wield them effectively.
Any thoughts? Anyone want to playtest?
-
the brigading option sounds worthwhile playtesting
-
Very interesting. My first thought was that this would clash wih the Skaven brigade rule. Only they don't have cavalry so it would fit right in.
On second thought, DE Cold Ones are still pretty nasty even if you only get two in on the charge. Besides, having more cavalry brigades will most likely only mean that your infantry gets less prioritised and left behind ironically leading to even more cavalry focused battles.
-
Random though
we could consider instead om making the brigades smaller, to make the units larger.........
Cost would go up, units would need to stay in line- in contact
Considerations ?
-
Dave, is the maneuverability of Cav the issue? Because they can hit a flank easier?
How are you playing flank charges (and this remind me, we should also nail down flank charges in general)?
Rulebook - If the closest point of the unit to be charged is a corner, find the shortest distance to the charger and if more of their frontage weight falls to the flank they charge the flank, otherwise they charge the front.
Ancients - The frontage of the charger has to be fully in the side 90 degree arc
Other - Something else
----
Some other things that helped from the Playtest Weekend:
- Infantry got a round of pursuit if they hit cav in the flank/rear.
- Infantry got to pursue cav in dense terrain (we allowed cav to enter forests and build up areas)
- Count support before casualties
-
Maneuverability of cavalry is more of a issue in that it can concentrate more quickly and decisively at the 'schwerepunkt' than infantry because of its increased move. This is particularly the case when playing against High Elves. The number of times I've had a brigade of Silver Helms and a brigade of chariots completely smash one of my flanks....... I mean the strategic flank of my army, rather than individual unit's flanks. We are playing original warmaster rules for the flanking rules.
There's also the old "switcharoo" strategy where you spend a couple of turns ordering a two to three cavalry brigade cavalry horde to concentrate with your general and then smash up a slowly developing infantry attack. The game seems to often degenerate into a repeat of the battle of Waterloo. I launch my cavalry (Scots Greys) and annihilate your attack. Then you launch your cavalry (Duth and Polish lancers). Whoever has the last 'fresh' brigade of cavalry i.e. the most cavalry tends to win...
Now if only the infantry could form square..... :)
Dave
-
Maybe we could invent a rule that infantry can 'dig in' if it is still for an entire round and in open ground. This might negate enemy charge bonuses?
Dave
-
Would a subsequent order be a good abstraction for that? You order your brigade up with one order, on the next, you order them to dig in. They can't move, but count as defended?
Maybe limit this to basic infantry without a shooting attack? Representing spearmen/halberdiers setting their weapons?
-
I think it's worth a try!
Dave
-
I wanted to trial Infantry being allowed a single round of pursuit against cavalry/chariots that it flanks.... might try again after our current campaign.
I do like the idea of appropriate infantry (spearmen, halbardiers and other 'pole weapon' users) being able to claim a defended position against frontal assault by cavalry/chariots.
-
At yesterday's tournament (see events threads), I gave further thought to this issue. On further reflection, I think smaller cavalry brigades would slow the game. And one of the joys of WMF is that it's fast play.
So, based on observation of my behvaiour and that of my opponents, I reached the conclusion that one of the core advantages that cavalry have is the fact that they can 'strike' from 30cm distance and therefore avoid the command penalty for enemy within 20cm. Therefore I wish to amend my suggestion made earlier in this thread. My 'simple solution' to the 'cavalry problem' is:
To count support before removing casualties.
And make 20cm the charge range for cavalry and chariots.
-
Sounds really interesting to me
-
We played now several times with the change of support. And that works perfect.
-
An idea just struck.
What happens if an inf stand that is defending(=not charging) and supporting isn´t supporting in the way of the WM rulebook, but instead supports in the way of the WFB rulebook?
Meaning: a supporting stand will strike in the ensuing combat phase just as if it was in base-to-base contact with the enemy.
So if the supported stand is btb, the supporting stand will get to use all its attacks aswell.
This (may) mean:
No existing rules (but inf support) have to be changed.
No "they get to support before they realise they are dead".
No "digging in". (but I like this idea).
No "inf actually CAN run down retreating riders".
But a big YES to supporting the rules.
Meaning: almost all existing rules regarding charge, flank, pursue, so on, adds/deducts attacks to the ensuing combat phase, all but support.
With "support" meaning "extra attacks", it will add to the rule set:s intention.
This just came up while wearing my sofa down on this saturday evening, so there is no playtesting done or discussion held with fellow warmasters. :)
-
Is it not the case chariots and cavalry are always dangerous to infantry (the very reason musket weilding troops did form square)
The real problem from my point of view battlefields were never billiard tables, We place a tree and a farm a couple of hills and think we have created something to what troops dealt with on the field. we need to add a whole lot more terrain for the troops to fight in, take cover in. If chariot/Cavalry brigade are ruling the roost in a game then our tables must be close to portraying the Battle of Kadesh beautiful open flat land perfect for their operations
add trees walls, ridges, impenatrable hedges, gulleys and this will make the Caalry think more and give the Infantry more options
Edgar
-
Just a thought, the problem could be not also in the lack of terrain (I agree with edgar1st), but in way of choosing an army. If more of 50% of the points of your army goes for heavy cavalty... well maybe that is the start of the unbalanced cavalry problem.
Even the mongols or nomadic armies that are based in cavarly do not reach 50% of heavy cavalry.
Just a thought, do not know how the people who see a problem in the cavalry made their list or... if they see a problem in the cavalry or the problem is only in the heavy cavalry (knights, orcs boar, cold ones, etc...)
-
The problem on the top of the pyramid is the fact, that heavy cavalry (using the official rules) is cheaper than infantry in comparison of efficiency. That obviously makes people to take as many cavalry as they can, which heads towards second problem - some armies don't have cap for heavy cav. Most of previously mentioned solutions are only sub-problem solutions, trying to make it up for infantry but not to mess with the main problems as they are ment untouchable. In fact there are only two ways of solution - either change the lists (which seems no one dares to do) or change the rules (which on the other hand no one has problem to do - e.g. support rules - funny :-) ). But the way of trying to play a balanced game by swarming the table with terrain is only admitting, that the mechanics are really "broken".
-
I agree with Aldhick
Heavy cavalry have all the benefits, good attacks, good defence and good move. And their points cost does not reflect this. In WMA shock cavalry is 125-135 pts, and that is with WMA infantry getting the support rules benefits, and just 2 rounds of fighting.
At the minute the choice tends to be 2 infantry units or 1 knight unit. If it was 3 infantry or a knight, then I might consider more infantry.
Getting points exactly right is hard - but when a choice is automatic it is an indication that the points are wrong. Erring on the side of too expensive for heavy cavalry would be fine, as it would help address jchaos' point that the proportion of heavy cavalry was generally quite low, as it was resource expensive.
-
"Getting points exactly right is hard - but when a choice is automatic it is an indication that the points are wrong"
Spot on.
Dave
-
I've yet to start playing warmaster - have a couple of armies but epic's taking up my time right now.
How bad is the cavalry situation as it stands? If it's as broken as everyone seems to think it is, it really should be fixed. Would a small points increase across the board do it?
-
There are three things that make heavy cavalry very cost efficient I think:
Excellent movement
Small frontage
Resilience
Excellent movement: As they don't have to be within 20cm of their target (-1 Ld to the test) when given the order to charge they have a greater chance of pulling of a multiple order charge and setting up flank attacks.
Small frontage: Means that they can pull of the earlier mentioned flank attacks to greater effect.
Resilience: 4+ save in combination with infantry not being allowed to pursue makes only other heavy cavalry the obvious counter. Also, their superior movement lets them stay further away thus making pulling of flank attacks with infantry against them even harder due to multiple orders. Attacking them head on will give them more attacks than the attacking infantry which is a bad idea. Again, even if you get the flank attack off, they only have to endure one round of combat before they run away (and hit you in the flank next turn).
-
I agree with all of what Aquahog says
I would suggest 140pts for the standard knight profile.
-
We are discussing the "common" knight here which exists as the Empire Knight, the High Elf Silver Helms, the Kislev Lancers etc. etc., but what about cheaper cavalry like the goblin wolf riders or boar boys?
-
Too me its the 3/3/4+ cavalry that are too cheap - these are Knights to me
Boar Riders (and Demon Cav) are interesting - they get an extra attack, but loose out on defence - this tends to make then a touch weaker than knights, but still very good - perhaps 130pts
More expensive Cavalry like Cold Ones and Chaos knights would get a bump in points, but not sure to where.
Wolf Riders are tat - they are fine at 60pts
Camel Riders are perhaps the only lighter cavalry that could do with a small points increase - as they are very good value at the minute.
-
Wolf Riders are tat - they are fine at 60pts
One of my regular opponents fields an 2000-3000pt orc and goblin army that's basically the minimums + a whole horde of these pesky buggers.... they can be devastating in numbers :(
-
It's interesting that people are calling for a price increase on a unit that often costs more than double that of an infantry unit. In essence, you already pay a hefty premium for the abilities granted and Cav can't utilise terrain.
If any change is to occur, I like Dave's suggestion of counting support beforehand. It's simpler and doesn't effect how many units you may have.
-
Wolf Riders are tat - they are fine at 60pts
One of my regular opponents fields an 2000-3000pt orc and goblin army that's basically the minimums + a whole horde of these pesky buggers.... they can be devastating in numbers :(
As honestmistake notice there are many ways of playing rather than going for max in heavy cavalry. So beware of changing points from only one point of view. Just my opinion.
-
Some of my thinking is influenced by WMA where shock cavalry are much more expensive, and infantry get the benefits of support counted first, support moving, and limited rounds of combat.
It's cool that someone has managed to make a light cavalry army work in WM - but it's not common at all. In Hail Caesar I particularly like horse archers in an army.
A decent set of points should enable multiple strategies, not tip the balance in favour of one over the other.