|
Post by knoffles on Feb 10, 2018 6:49:59 GMT
I have to agree that storm of chaos was one of my favourite expansions ever released by GW. It was mainly down to the slayer army. I do think all editions from 3rd onwards had great parts (though I consider 5th as more of a 4.5 Edition). The one thing I love about 8th above almost everything else is the random charge (and to some extent premeasuring). I like many players had got to the stage where you could pretty much guess ranges accurately without measuring so random charges really helped add something new. (but I can see why some players wouldn’t like it). The change back was probably the single biggest thing which put me off 9th.
|
|
|
Post by gregwarhamsters on Feb 10, 2018 8:59:51 GMT
There are things in 8th I'm not a fan of and yes its bias around the armies I play.
Steadfast is probably the most common of these, (Gw ploy to add more models some may say)but what with the step up rule my Bret knights now find it almost impossible to win straight combats.
As an example, I charge a fully ranked up unit, typical in 6/7th say 5x5 I kill the first rank. Now if the bonuses are similar, number of ranks, standards etc I'd win by 5 and hopefully you'd run.
Considering the cost of each respective unit,(a Knight is 24 points) this sounds fairly reasonable to me. Historically knights did run down infantry units.
Now I like stepping up and I think this cancels out the need of steadfast, I charge goblins, kill loads, they don't kill me so they run. I charge elite infantry, they hit me back, combat ends in a sort of draw, they hold.
Sure I could come up with many examples between the systems (incantations and the magic phase) but we've moved on and after all I'm still playing 8th so it can't be that bad.
Greg
|
|
bigal
New Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by bigal on Feb 10, 2018 13:01:09 GMT
I think the biggest rule change that I hated the most was that a unit that charged no longer got to swing first.
|
|
|
Post by gregwarhamsters on Feb 10, 2018 15:15:25 GMT
Warhammer has never looked at historical evidence of what weapon do. Personally I think lances should either get impact hits, maybe a bit too much but they should get ASF just because they're longer than the average weapon system.
Great weapons striking last? Take a two handed sword, its wielded in a figure of 8 around the swordsman, show me anyone stupid enough to step inside this area of effect.
Thing is how complex do you want to make it?
Greg
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on Feb 10, 2018 16:10:00 GMT
I actually like steadfast and step up as I hated to see a 400 point infantry brick driven off by 100 points of knights. Made MSU fast moving cavalry less guided missiles of doom then they were in 6th/7th. I used to love throwing flesh hound units in the flanks of all sorts of things as they often caused the break test.
Game mechanics already made lances effect two aspects of causing wounds (to wound and armor rolls by virtue of higher strength).
Bret’s were much worse but sneaky good in various ways. Brian Moyer won a crossroads GT with them IIRC. Access to common magic items helped them a lot and they could get ranks cheap in their Lance formation. Also put some tanks characters up front and it was very hard to hurt the unit back.
|
|
|
Post by gregwarhamsters on Feb 10, 2018 19:05:07 GMT
Also put some tanks characters up front and it was very hard to hurt the unit back. increasing the point value of the unit so no longer that 100 point cav unit vs 400 pt infantry. I agree in part but the two changes to combat resolution makes huge changes on the battlefield
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on Feb 10, 2018 21:48:42 GMT
Absolutely. Brets and other cav were broken in 7th. They were much more in line with other units point for point in 8th.
|
|
|
Post by magicjuggler on Feb 11, 2018 0:42:00 GMT
IIRC, cav if 7th was easier to counter if you screened as you couldn't actually redirect vs a flee reaction.
What if instead of Steadfast, you could ignore your Rank Bonus worth of ld penalties?
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on Feb 11, 2018 1:55:17 GMT
Pretty sure you could redirect a charge in seventh. Been a long time mind you! Honestly 8th largely works. Bret’s had a book that was super old and no new minis since sixth ed meaning players had no draws to start playing them. Hordes were powerful in 8th but cavalry still had their place particularly Empire character busses, and various Elven shenanigans. Monstrous cav took much of the shock cavalry role, I suspect Bret’s would have had monstrous cav options if they had a book in 8th.
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Feb 12, 2018 1:05:21 GMT
Warhammer has never looked at historical evidence of what weapon do. Personally I think lances should either get impact hits, maybe a bit too much but they should get ASF just because they're longer than the average weapon system. Great weapons striking last? Take a two handed sword, its wielded in a figure of 8 around the swordsman, show me anyone stupid enough to step inside this area of effect. Thing is how complex do you want to make it? Greg While I agree that GW should not strike last, it's not for the reason you think. Doing a figure-8 pattern with something that large makes you predictable. Your opponent knows exactly when to step in and let the air out of you, and the momentum of your weapon makes it effectively impossible to block them. No, GW should not strike last because of their length. They can hit someone using a single-handed weapon while still outside their reach. It really is that simple. If anything, hand weapons should strike last, after pike, lance, spear, polearms, and great weapons. My main beef with previous editions was the charge rules. I didn't play many games in 6-7E, because they bored me. Both sides shuffled around the 'just barely out of charge range' line, trying to bait the other side into a failed charge. Booooorrrinnng. Bretonnia can do surprisingly well against a big horde. 10-wide 20mm means 200 mm of front to charge. That means, with care, four lances of knights can charge it all at once. Against 25 mm, it theoretically becomes possible to charge with five lances (never seen it happen; you'd need a really big game to have the points for five lances worth having). I charged four big lances into a horde of chaos warriors once, and they had to roll a 4 to hold. Sadly, a three came up on the BSB reroll, but still. Anything less than chaos warriors would have needed 'insane courage' to not run, and four cavalry pursuit rolls almost guarantees destruction. Down side is, you probably won't have enough left to do it again. Standard Bretonnian tactic is maneuver, isolate the biggest thing you can kill on the charge, kill it... and run and hide the rest of the game to preserve points. Sigh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 16:50:00 GMT
Does no one want to add infantry to a Bretonnian list? I know it's the "knight army" but (And I know this is just personal opinion) large blocks of infantry are awesome and it seems like a large block of 50ish peasants in a combat alongside a unit of knights is the way to go here. Sure they'll give up some extra combat res but will it be enough? Use the ranks of the supporting infantry to break the steadfast of whatever unit the knights are charging.
At least that's how I'd play Brets in 8th edition.
I didn't play a lot in 6th and 7th for much of the same reasons gjnoroh did: I like infantry combat but watching large (for the time anyway; 25-30) units of infantry driven off by 5 knights all the time and then watching the movement shenanigans trying to bait enemies into a failed charge was just...BORING. I never want to go back to that. Random charge distance was a godsend and something that needed to happen. It also had the (intended?) consequence of longer charge distances (on average, it's still possible to roll those low numbers, something that I like), meaning most of the time combat can be joined 1-2 turns sooner than previous editions.
|
|
|
Post by Snyggejygge on Feb 15, 2018 20:57:21 GMT
Seriously a unit of 5 knights wont break a unit of 25 infantry. The knights have 10 attacks in total with the horses, they cause an average of 4 wounds, the infantry has 3 ranks + outnumbering, so most likely it's a draw. That is unless you get a flanking charge, but that means you've outmanouvered your opponent, which is what this game should be about.
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on Feb 15, 2018 21:51:17 GMT
The point about cavalry power was in relation to seventh ed before steadfast I think in 8th there wasn't a problem with cav power. Break ranks from the flank or rear. +1 charge +1 Flank vs +1 for outnumbering Cav more likely to win on the direct combat damage particularly on the charge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 22:50:01 GMT
Let's math it out: 11 WS4/5 attacks attacking WS3 (usually how these matchups went down. also unit champ - Chaos knights/elite 2A knights. If the knights had 1A you'd see units of 6-7 knights for maximum attacks against a minimum frontage) 11*(2/3) = 7.3333 hits Those knights were usually S5+ due to lances/special rules 7.333*(5/6) = 6.111 dead (la/shield = no save) 5 horse attacks at WS3 (if higher then slightly better) 5 * (1/2) = 2.5 hits S3, but most elite cavalry had S4+ mounts: 2.5 * (1/2) = 1.25 wounds la/shield for a 5+ save 1.25 * (2/3) = .83333 For a grand total of 7.9 dead on the charge. from 5 knights. + charge vs 2-3 ranks (standards cancel) + outnumber. And you didn't even have to outmanuever your opponent to do it. Around here everyone always directs an attack or two at the unit champ so there's not even a guarantee that he'll survive to take his two swings. That's another reason 6-7th editions sucked: you usually didn't even get to throw dice to try and kill your opponent before you lost your block. He got to throw all the attack dice, you threw two dice for the break test, then removed the unit The "less elite" cavalry: 8A @ WS4 8 * (2/3) = 5.3333 hits S6 due to the lances 5.3333 * (5/6) = 4.4444 kills 7 horses attack: 7 * (1/2) = 3.5 hits horses are S3 3.5 * (1/2) = 1.75 wounds light armor/shield 1.75 * (2/3) = 1.166666 wounds. So a unit of "non-elite" cavalry were doing 1.1666666 + 4.4444444 = 5.6111 wounds to a unit on the charge. Combined with the charge bonus vs ranks + outnumber they stood a better chance of sticking around but a -1 or a -2 is still a pretty big deal depending on the army. You did nail on the head one of the things that I DIDN'T like about 8th - it didn't penalize you hard enough for getting flanked. There wasn't as much motivation to protect your flanks anymore as you could still be steadfast even whilst flanked and you had to have too many flanking models (2 complete ranks!?) in order to even receive the benefit of taking away the enemy rank bonus. Which is a shame.
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Feb 15, 2018 23:45:01 GMT
The point about cavalry power was in relation to seventh ed before steadfast I think in 8th there wasn't a problem with cav power. Break ranks from the flank or rear. +1 charge +1 Flank vs +1 for outnumbering... And none of that matters because the infantry is Steadfast and tests on unpenalized Ld, usually using the General's Ld, and getting a BSB reroll. Thus they hold 90% of the time even when hit on all four sides, the cavalry is pinned down, and itself gets flanked and killed. Steadfast really kills the usefulness of cavalry as a combat unit. Even Bretonnian cavalry, getting ranks of three, can only do so much given their INCREDIBLY low unit caps of between 9 and 15 models. Sure, throw three characters in and now you have six ranks. In a game where cheap untrained infantry can have ten ranks and more.... Well, you see the problem.
|
|