Re: [WM High Elf] Cavalry discussion

[forbes]

Kyussinchains Edit: splitting this into a separate thread as it merits further discussion, but is off original topic of WM High elf list discussion

Knights are too cheap.

This applies to all lists that have knight style units, ( 3 attacks,  3 wounds, 4+ save, 30cm move, short based, 110 pts).

They should cost a fair bit more 1 knight unit will kill 3 halberdiers that cost 135pts.

Really with most WM armies it is take the compulsory infantry, then lots of knights, and a few specials / war machines. Elf players never take more than the minimums of infantry. If a unit is an auto choice on a force selection then it is too cheap.

[Dave]

That sounds like you're not playing with enough terrain. I usually take 8 Spearmen, 4 Archers and 2 Knights in my armies and they do well for themselves. Nothing for the infantry to hide in (or to break Cav against) will make Cav king.

[kyussinchains]

Dave do you play with the WM ancients rule of max 2 rounds of combat per turn?

[Dave]

I have them, never played them. I thought it was max of three though? Same as # of orders to unit.

[forbes]

That sounds like you're not playing with enough terrain.

I have read this comment often on this forum - and frankly don't know what to make of it.

In the games we played (past tense) we seemed to have a lot of terrain, both in absolute terms, and definitely in relation to game reports posted on blogs.

Infantry would either make it into a wood or village - or they would get caught in the open by cavalry getting many moves to the infantry.

If they made it to some terrain, then what? They can hide uselessly in the terrain. Or can attempt to leave the terrain, which can have command roll problems.

If they manage to charge some cavalry then what? If they manage to win a round the cavalry can't be pursued, so they will counter charge the next turn. If they don't win then the cavalry will use their short base advantage and good saves to likely win.

Considering that WM Ancients has upped Knights to around 135 pts and significantly limited their numbers then I really would be in favour of upping the points. As supports work much better in WMA then infantry is better under those rules compared to Cavalry, and Knights cost more compared with WMF.

[Dave]

The best anti-cav tactic infantry has it to sandwich them. Hit them from one side with a lot of support and put Another unit 1cm away. If the cav looses it's destroyed. Same goes for sandwiching them against impassable terrain or another combat.

If it's really bad though, you can always try putting a more restrictive max on them.

[forbes]

The buttocks of death is the best combat tactic in the game - so much so that in of itself it creates problems.

Yes if you can line it all up it works - but its still probably easier to set the trap up with cavalry rather than infantry.

We can house rule anything we like - but I thought the point was to try to achieve some consensus on moving the lists and rules forward?

[Dave]

It definitely is, but there's got to be some agreement on where "forward" is. I'm saying that Cav isn't that bad in our group, and giving some reasons as to why I think that's the case. I don't think upping their cost across the board is warranted.

[forbes]

Its good to hear that for your group WM still works as a rule set.

For our group we just aren't playing it anymore. And considering that a few years ago we had 8 players each with 2-3 large armies, and we were playing frequently, some small games and some large multi-player games. One of the last time most of us played was the big game Paul organised at Warhammer World last autumn. We want to like WM - but there are too many issues for us now.

The dominance of cavalry is one of them.

In my head n points of troops should be as good as any other n points of troops. It shouldn't be necessary for infantry to have to hide in terrain, or that they can only win by tactics. I'm more than happy that a single infantry unit is beaten by knights, but not that 3 are.  Yes if you play with good tactics then you troops will do better, but it seems wrong that if you don't do this your infantry die horribly.

[Dave]

How is the Cav getting to three units of infantry? Are they in columns? In lines it get through two at max, and then you can trap it.

[captPiett]

Correct me if I'm wrong Forbes, but are you saying that a player shouldn't be penalized for using poor tactics? Used properly in their own ways, n points of infantry does equal n points of cavalry. The difference is tactics. If an infantry brigade is poorly placed, i.e. flank exposed, then it should get ridden down by its equivalent in points (or less, actually) in cavalry.

[forbes]

No I'm not saying that you shouldn't be punished for poor tactics. Of course a flanked unit should be punished.

What I am saying is that an infantry brigade (costing more points) shouldn't just roll over and die when charged frontally by knights.

If the only way to win with infantry vs cavalry is to hide in terrain, and setup ambushes (which are dependant on command dice succeeding) then it seems a much simpler and more reliable choice to take more knights.

[Edmund2011]

How is the Cav getting to three units of infantry? Are they in columns? In lines it get through two at max, and then you can trap it.

I am curious too.

I play WM and WMA, and seem to me balanced the points of cavalry for each ruleset.

In WM cavalry is good for attacking, and infantery for defending. In my opinion a lot of cavalry can give you the capacity of delviring heavy blows in the open, but your BP will be low, and you will be restrained by terrain, not only to attack enemy in cover, but to move over the table.
 

[Lex]

That sounds like you're not playing with enough terrain. I usually take 8 Spearmen, 4 Archers and 2 Knights in my armies and they do well for themselves. Nothing for the infantry to hide in (or to break Cav against) will make Cav king.

Agree, and as Dave states, your terrain footprint is probably very light. Consider where most fighting would be done? Look around the areas where you live and travel. It LOOKS like there is large swatches of perfectly flat terrain?? (well here in Holland it would not be large, and there is definitely some perfectly flat patches), but in general most battlefield would have limitations which are not brought out on tabletop (yet).

One of the primary targets for the Warmaster Playtest Weekend this november is to establish a new baseline for the definitions of terrain, in such a way that it will balance that Dominance-of-knights vs infantry and not tax the players to bring oodles of terrain!

Be patient Grashopper(s)

[Aquahog]

One of the primary targets for the Warmaster Playtest Weekend this november is to establish a new baseline for the definitions of terrain, in such a way that it will balance that Dominance-of-knights vs infantry and not tax the players to bring oodles of terrain!

Be patient Grashopper(s)

Intriguing.