8th Ed - Deathstars

[Bitterman]

How so? Don't the models simply get replaced by characters? meaning that if there are 4 models to be replaced, they are replaced by the champion and/or the characters, but once those slots are taken no more will be able to attack?

Fine, 4-6 plus any and all characters up to a maximum given by the number able to get into a combat position minus the attacks of the R&F replaced by characters... was that really worth the pedantry? The point is: you can no longer avoid Grimgor Ironhide (or whoever) by charging his unit in the flank, and once you do they're still steadfast anyway. Good manouevre to get into that position is not rewarded.

Not necessarily. Who's to say you don't have a supporting unit in the front that outranks, or at least matches the opponent?

Well if you have that the flanking unit is surplus to requirements anyway. So it's all about a race to build the biggest unit you can manage and stomp across the board without needing to manouevre. The size of a unit is far more important than what you do with it. Which is exactly my point, yes?

Flanking charges by 5 cav models are no longer enough to send 50 spearmen running. I'd say that's fair enough.

I'd disagree (you should try taking part in a battle re-enactment just once, it will change your thinking), but let's assume it is; now consider that a flanking charge by 40 spearmen probably can't send 50 spearmen running either. Still fair enough? Unit size > everything else.

[Dalamar]

He won't be able to move to the flank if he'll already be fighting in the front.

Supporting units will mean more now and they will not be able to win battles on their own.

You seem to be forgetting that ranks and stalwart count at the end of the round now. Do enough wounds with your flanking unit combined with the ranks on your frontal unit, and you will remove the ranks yor opponent had in advantage and they'll run.

Who gets their flanker in first wins, otherwise it's a slow grind of two units pushing forward.

[Mr. anderson]

Fine, 4-6 plus any and all characters up to a maximum given by the number able to get into a combat position minus the attacks of the R&F replaced by characters... was that really worth the pedantry? The point is: you can no longer avoid Grimgor Ironhide (or whoever) by charging his unit in the flank, and once you do they're still steadfast anyway. Good manouevre to get into that position is not rewarded.

Sorry, wasn't trying to nipick there. I just wondered whether there is some rule that lets characters fight no matter what.

Regarding maneouvering to get out of the way of Grimgor... Well, I don't think he would be standing at the front of a unit patiently waiting his turn if there's skullz to be smashed in at the flank. Any ork standing in his way is probably going to let Grimgor through to avoid a similar fate.

So it's all about a race to build the biggest unit you can manage and stomp across the board without needing to manouevre. The size of a unit is far more important than what you do with it. Which is exactly my point, yes?

I wouldn't put it quite that drastically. Maneuvring is extremely important still because you won't be able to afford more than one or two big units. Additionally, Getting a unit of, say, 15 witch elves in the front while charging with a combination of chariots and perhaps some cavalry in the rear/flank will still annihilate whatever unit you charged (unless it was 40 chosen chaos warriors of khorne. In that case, goodnight). Maneouvring is now important to get to those infantry blocks.

As to whether a battle re-enactment would change my view, I don't know because I've never done or seen one. But I think if cavalry is outnumbered 10:1 they will eventually get bogged down and be stuck, and then overwhelmed. If there are 10 cold one knights, for example, especially if led by a hero, I think they'll still annihilate a unit on the charge.

[Alaster159]

So far I have played 2 games of 8th ( both vs. Lizards) and don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming to be an expert or anything, but death stars, as powerful as they may be, have been weakened, even if slightly, simply by the "step up" way of fighting.

Flanking is a huge benefit to your tactics vs. said units simply because it adds to your killing power and subtracts from theirs. If u charge a unit of spear men to the side of Grimgors unit for example you have effectively taken away a number of attacks equal to his rank size. not to mention that most of the time their flanks have fewer people then there front. add that on top of the + 1 for a flank, taking away his ranks, and the fact that you get 2 ranks worth of attacks yourself goes a long way to helping a small spear man unit hinder a larger elite unit, even a death star....

And as far as the cavalry charging into a unit and smashing it to bits. I will admit that they would, heavy cavalry in real life was enough to break most infantry. That being said, war hammer is not real life, but a game of tactics, so needing to combine your cavalry with your spear men on the charge while not realistic, fits with the overall feel of the game. Whoever out maneuvers there enemy gets to team up their units against enemy units and has a good chance of smiting that unit.

All and all it seems death stars won't die in 8th, but the exhaust port has been widened a bit more.

This rant brought to you by the letter Y, and the number 3.

[Dalamar]

heavy cavalry in real life was enough to break most infantry.

They were also charging in numbers bigger than... 5 <.<

[Bitterman]

heavy cavalry in real life was enough to break most infantry.

They were also charging in numbers bigger than... 5 <.<

And against numbers bigger than 30. Hey, it's a great idea actually - let's make the minimum unit size for cavalry 500, and the minimum unit size of infantry 1000! GW get to sell more figures and it's a more realistic game, everybody's happy. Might take you your entire life just to paint one unit, but it's a small price to pay, right?

Or... recognise that wargames have an implicit scale.

[Mr. anderson]

Bitterman, do please keep it civil. There are certain rules that reasoned argument has to be based on. Sarcasm is not one of them.

The inherent scale of wargames would imply that if you multiplied both forces by whatever the scale is, you'd get realistic ratios (and those wouldn't change. And I'll wager a flank charge of sufficiently elite cavalry will even in warhammer break 30 spearmen. But we were talking about something like 40+ men, and even in real life, ad odds of 10:1 or higher, cavalry charges were inadvisable.
The fact remains, that in warhammer, 5 cavalry men will cost 200 points or some such (most likely less, unless they're the crême de la cême). And for a block of 40 elven spearmen (or 50 human equivalents) you'd be paying along the lines of 350 points. Thats between 1/3 to 1/2 more. And that doesn't justify being able to completely devastate said unit without any support.

[Dalamar]

recognise that wargames have an implicit scale.

Which GW stated once, long ago (before they retracted it) that 1 model represents about 10 men.

So a unit of 400 infantry should not be broken by mere 50 cavalry.

And truth be told, those 50 cavalry would probably win in the end after a very long, protracted fight due to their superior armour.

[Bitterman]

even in real life, ad odds of 10:1 or higher, cavalry charges were inadvisable.

You'd better tell Alexander the Great that, before he takes on Darius at Gaugamela.

(Is that sufficiently civil? In either case I didn't swear, I wasn't rude, and anyway sarcasm is actually a quite legitimate tool of debate I think you will find... I think you're being a bit over-sensitive).

[Mr. anderson]

You'd better tell Alexander the Great that, before he takes on Darius at Gaugamela.

It depends on the cavalry and infantry. Also, estimates of the numbesr involved at that battle vary greatly, and it is generally agreed that the Persian infantry was of poor qualaity for the most part. This implies lower morale, thus they will break much more readily and won't fight back as effectively. In our case, the soldiers involved are professionals, and there are effective ways for infantry to counter cavalry charges.

and anyway sarcasm is actually a quite legitimate tool of debate I think you will find... I think you're being a bit over-sensitive

I strongly dislike sarcasm as a means of discussion. It doesn't improve the tone and atmosphere at which the discussion is held. Sarcasm only inflames temperaments. It has its uses, but in this case it is misplaced.
I wasn't being over-sensitive. I was just reminding you that I'd like this to remain friendly. And sarcasm doesn't contribute to that.

[Bitterman]

It depends on the cavalry and infantry. Also, estimates of the numbesr involved at that battle vary greatly, and it is generally agreed that the Persian infantry was of poor qualaity for the most part. This implies lower morale, thus they will break much more readily and won't fight back as effectively.

Exactly my point. Under such circumstances, do you not see how it is possible that 5 Chaos Knights can defeat and run down 40 Spearmen that they charged in the flank?

Granted, "our spearmen are professionals" and Darius' levy weren't; that's why the spearmen stand a better chance of holding than, say, Skavenslaves. It's just still not that certain. The relative profiles of the troops involved show that our spearmen are average-to-good quality, Chaos Knights are extremely super-elite quality at least as far above Alexander's Companions as DE spearmen are above Persian levy, and under those circumstances it is completely reasonable for the cavalry to stand a decent chance of winning - just as a few elite real-world cavalry could beat lots of poor real-world infantry.

The profiles and points costs work together to represent exactly the situation that we see from the example of Gaugamela, to whit, when small elite units are sufficiently better (in game terms: more points, better profile) than the large mainstay units, they can and should stand a good chance of winning. Especially if you hit them in the flank, etc. That's not something that needs fixing, "oh it's ridiculous that 5 cavalry can beat 40 infantry" - it's exactly representative of a situation a real-world general had to contend with. That kind of thing happened. Not reliably, for sure, it took the genius of Alexander to win Gaugamela, but it happened.

[Edit] I know the next argument... of course, even with Steadfast, the cavalry could still win if the infantry are unlucky. That's the point, though, isn't it? The steadfast infantry roll badly on their Ld test, oh, you've fluked a win! I'm pretty sure Alexander didn't win Gaugamela by the Persian levy rolling a double-6 on their Ld test, so why should we have to rely on it in-game? Alexander fought a brilliant and skilful battle to defeat an army many times the size of his own (all the estimates agree on that if not the exact numbers) - if I manouevre a unit of cavalry such that I can charge the enemy in the flank, shouldn't that be rewarded, instead of dismissing the possibility that they might actually win as ridiculous and unrealistic?

[Mr. anderson]

No you don't know my next point. I never use unlikely scenarios to support my case. Doesn't come across very well.

do you not see how it is possible that 5 Chaos Knights can defeat and run down 40 Spearmen that they charged in the flank?

I can see them winning in the end, especially if they are chosen and khorne or some such. Just not the turn they charged. It would take more than one turn to kill them all.

And as Dalamar pointed out above - 50 cavalrymen will not straight away break ten times their number. It's just not going to happen. The cavalry will get stuck in, then the enemy will reform to face them (any professional unit will do that. They won't wait there staring straight ahead waiting to be slaughtered).

The point costs represent exactly their comparative value (more or less, anyway). However, this is a game and not real life strategy. You can equally argue that alexander didn't have much control over his army once the attack started (making him a more brilliant general, mind you) so warhammer is far from a simulation.

My point the whole time was simply that they shouldn't be able to flank charge and expect to win in the first turn. It takes longer than that.

[Ant]

@Bitterman: You seem to be forgetting that the cav unit in the flank WILL still win. They have a 2+ save and will be taking only 5ish attacks back since support attacks are only from the front. SUre, it may take more than 1 round of combat, but that enemy unit WILL break, and the knights will lose next to no models (unless they get unlucky). You still get the +1 for flank, you stop the enemy getting support attacks and the enemy unit no longer gets an outnumber bonus. There is also a ~30%chance of the spears breaking in the first round (assumming no characters, but characters are MEANT to swing things if they are involved).

Also, as has already been pointed out, 5 chaos knights cost much LESS points than 40 spearmen. So what are you complaining about? If you took a bigger unit of cav you could cancel theur ranks too, and get more attacks.

As far as I can see cav is still devestating if they get a flank charge, and some cav (chaos knights, blood knights, lance formation brets with 4+ ranks etc) is still devestating to the front as well. All that has been done is that infantry, played well, now has a chance to hold these charges and a reason to be taken in addition to cav units. I can only see this as a good thing.

[Bitterman]

@Bitterman: You seem to be forgetting that the cav unit in the flank WILL still win.

Assuming there are no other models on the table, yes. Pinning the Knights in place for three or four turns so they can get flanked and attacked in turn (remember the infantry keep Steadfast until they drop down to fewer than 10 models, which could take some time if they started with 40!) despite having been outmanouevred, is far too much of an influence... it's just a question of "get big unit, put it somewhere on the table, don't care about getting outflanked, it will be an automatic tarpit". That's the problem I have with this; should knights instantly run everything down, even with a frontal charge, without trying? Obviously not. Should knights sweep infantry aside if they manouevre skilfully and get a flank charge? I contend that yes, the likelihood should be that they should.

Also, as has already been pointed out, 5 chaos knights cost much LESS points than 40 spearmen. So what are you complaining about? If you took a bigger unit of cav you could cancel theur ranks too, and get more attacks.

Firstly, from memory, 5 Chaos Knights with the Mark of Khorne and FC are around 300 points... 40 Spearmen with shields and FC are also around 300 points. So units of broadly equal points cost, one has outmanouevred the other, and it can't reliably defeat the other. I don't see what that's encouraging, apart from to buy a whole heap more models. Shouldn't skill in manouevre be rewarded?

Secondly, and much more importantly - alright, take another 5 Knights to get a +1 rank bonus, +5 attacks, and cancel the infantry's rank bonus. They are still Steadfast even with no rank bonus. So now you've got a 500 point unit that's outflanked a 300 point unit and is still going to take three or four turns to defeat them.

As far as I can see cav is still devestating if they get a flank charge, and some cav (chaos knights, blood knights, lance formation brets with 4+ ranks etc) is still devestating to the front as well. All that has been done is that infantry, played well, now has a chance to hold these charges and a reason to be taken in addition to cav units. I can only see this as a good thing.

I think it clear that, since no matter how many casualties the cavalry cause the infantry are highly likely to be steadfast and have typically a 60%+ chance of holding (which screws up those Bretonnians far more than Chaos Knights, by the way), "devastating" is an optimistic word for it.

I also think it obvious that the infantry don't need to be played well. Even when outmanouevred and charged in the flank - they're still Steadfast. It doesn't take much skill to just put a big unit on the table.

Are cavalry a teensy bit too good in 7th Ed? Yeah, probably - they're just faster infantry with a better armour save. Some adjustment to the balance was needed. These rules - Steadfast in particular, and the fact you keep it even if you lose your rank bonus in particular - have gone far, far too far the other way.

[Bitterman]

Let me give an example of why I find this so ridiculous.

5 Chaos Knights of Khorne in 1x5, from memory about 250 points, charge in the flank 30 DE Spearmen in 6x5, from memory about 240 points. Assume everything else on the table is dead or something.

I believe initiative on either side is the same, but let's assume the DEs do nothing - best possible case for the CKs.

Chaos Knights go nuts, they get massively stuck in, and with 3 attacks each plus 1 from their horses (which aren't frenzied in 8th Ed) they do 20 wounds - everything hits and wounds, wow! What a devastating charge. +1 for flank = final combat resolution 21. DEs score 1 (for standard) and lose by 20, but they're Steadfast so have a 70%ish chance of standing. Everything has gone as well as it could possibly go for the Chaos Knights, and they still only stand a 30% chance of meaningful success. There's only 10 DEs left alive, but they're very likely to stand.

Now let's adjust it slightly. Assume the CKs bought a champion and he hit and wounded too. Uh-oh - now there's only 9 DEs left alive! That's not enough for a rank bonus! Steadfast is lost, and the DEs need a double 1 (once chance in 36) to stand.

So a difference of one point in combat makes a difference of 60% to the result of that combat. CR 21 isn't enough to do much at all, CR 22 hands you an almost-certain win. How does that make sense?

The CR system already represents units with more ranks and more numbers in a better situation having more chance of standing (the CKs getting a CR of 20+ would be pretty unlikely in a real game...). But those bonuses fall apart if good manouevre mean you're outflanked. Now, you almost always stand, until you take 1 more casualty at which point you almost always flee; and that applies regardless of whether you're flanked or not. I just don't see how there's any logic in that at all.

[Venkh]

If ranked infantry are a little too good for a couple of editions then so be it.

Non stubborn/unbreakeable infantry have been the whipping boys of the game since I restarted Warhammer 8 years ago.

Ranked units should be the mainstay of any fantasy army with skirmishers, warmachines, monsters and cavalry added for flavour.

6th and 7th completely failed in this respect with games reveloving around who's special forces could beat the others and finish off the ranked units waddling along in the rear.

Ill wave all that off without a tear and look forward to a new and more satisfying game

[Bitterman]

Fair enough: I respect your pragmatism. (To a limited extent, I agree that ranked infantry aren't quite good enough in 7th; I just think it's swung too far the other way, and I'm not keen on the idea of spending hundreds of pounds extra on each of the six armies I already own, just to make the units "big enough" for 8th Ed).

[Ant]

and the fact you keep it even if you lose your rank bonus in particular - have gone far, far too far the other way.

I agree 100% with this. 2 ranks of cav in the flank should break an infantry unit.

However, I can also see why they haven't done this - It would mean that small infantry units (15 skaven slaves for example) or cheap fast cav (10 Wolfriders who can now get to the flanks with no trouble at all with the extra 12" move) would be breaking these big units with 1 flank charge. I think this would be more broken than the current situation. At least with what you have now the cav in the flank will win eventually (remember support can be brought in from both sides, and a fresh ranked unit in the front of the flanked unit should often mean it then loses steadfast). I think the current situation requires more tactical thought than the alternative and so is the lesser of 2 evils. This is a close thing in my mind though and is not what I'd have gone for if I'd have written the rules: I'd have gone for losing rank bonus means you lose steadfast, but fast cav/skirmishers can never break ranks no matter how many ranks they have themselves.

And overall I still see it as much, much better than before. The above is just one niggle I have with it. And I believe it is your main issue with it too. It remains to be seen, but I believe that it won't be nearly as big a deal as you think it will be, mainly because there are a lot of disadvantages to having big uits as well as thye new advantages.

Incedentally, I think brets are likely to do quite well. Since they only need 3 models for a rank, largish knight units should be negating steadfast pretty regularly. And the extra reforms and cheap peasant blocks give them many more options if they do get stuck in combat.

[Bitterman]

Incedentally, I think brets are likely to do quite well. Since they only need 3 models for a rank, largish knight units should be negating steadfast pretty regularly.

True, but only to an extent: Knight units are limited 5-15 (and in fact, any more than that would be ridiculously unwieldy) so they have a hard maximum of 5 ranks. Much more than other cavalry of similar numbers, but much less than a good-sized infantry block can achieve. Those 8x5 Spearmen would not be concerned by that in the slightest. 5x5 Spearmen? Yeah, OK, they'd be rather more nervous. So I guess a lance is considerably better than most other cavalry at defeating medium-sized infantry units, but still stands very little chance against a large one.

Personally I think long and thin formations are silly anyway (and I say this as a Bretonnian player; I love Bretonnians, I don't love the lance) and Steadfast seems to be an encouragement to make formations as long and thin as possible.

And the extra reforms and cheap peasant blocks give them many more options if they do get stuck in combat.

This is certainly true, though I suspect it will be more than cancelled out by the vastly increased likelihood of needing those other options. I did feel at times (as we probably all have) that Bretonnians are a bit too good at just running down anybody and everybody with a frontal charge - fair enough; but a lance of Knights getting on a flank really, really should be rewarded with an emphatic victory, and if it isn't (even with the option to reform) they're going to struggle.

[Mr. anderson]

Steadfast seems to be an encouragement to make formations as long and thin as possible.

Not really. What encourages these formations is the fact that cou can attack with all your models on the flanks in addition to the one at front, and get rank bonus for a 3-wide formation. This is due to the lance formation, not the new infantry rules.

As for your example with the spearmen and the chaos knights. That supports my point of view that a large unit shouldn't be broken on the charge. Being in the flank hands the chaos knights a certain win, come the next combat phase and they have taken no damage whatsoever from said combat.
It is a bit silly that one model makes such an enormous difference but that's warhammer for you. Somewhere there are going to be silly aspects that don't make much sense.

[Killerk]

first of all

I would like to notice a fact. The rules are released, there is no point on arguing if they should be the way they are. If you want a miniature game with good rules, don't play WHFB. It's that simple. I do it all the time.

second - the rules are as they are, let's focus more on what is the best way to use them to our advantage. Be it a new deathstar or not. I have this feeling we will be seeing a deathstar in 99% of the battles, after all huge unit's are now even harder to defeat, characters can move to where ever the fighting is! Could making a deathstar be any easier? probably will, in the next ed. .

But let's focus on
1. making our better then the enemy's.
2. making our list's more competitive, (our fragile troops just got hampered, but still our 6 point warriors are one of the most cost effective in the game)

[Dalamar]

I would like to notice a fact. The rules are released, there is no point on arguing if they should be the way they are. If you want a miniature game with good rules, don't play WHFB. It's that simple. I do it all the time.

I will have to disagree with this stament because to me WHFB rules are just what I wanted them to be. 8th edition looks like I'll be having the most fun. Large units, devastating monsters and murderous magic, while combats don't last a single round.

And bring on deathstars. When they're hit with -d3 S and -d3 T from Lore of Shadow they suddenly become covered with reactor vents.

[Uriain]

Something which I have not seen really mentioned yet is that your "40 man" spearmen unit, is either going to be in a 5x8 (for the stubborn) or a 10x4 (for horde)

Your 5x8 set up is annoying, no doubt, but your taking so little attacks back from the side that your heavy cavalry should (by rights) mop up that unit in a turn or two.. thats 2-4 combat phases. Using your Khorne Knights as the example, they will be cutting the proverbial swath, and those "stubborn ranks" will quickly melt away.

If they set up in "horde" style, then you will break even quicker. 4 ranks will melt rediculously fast.

Lastly, lets not forget, while the "only two units on the field" scenario is great for a pocket look at the mechanic of Stubborn infantry.. if you ONLY have a unit of 5 Cavalry in the flank, then you shouldn't be expecting to walk through something.

I view the Darkelves as a similar army to 7th. You have to hit in conjunction with other units (infantry and chariots/monsters, Cavalry and Charriots/monsters etc). You have to focus fire your shooting (which has gotten better) and magic to take out targets which can possibly disrupt your plans (like those blasted hellpit abom's) and tip your hat to lady luck that you dont whiff on the important charges/casts..

*shrug* thats just me though

[Gee]

...

I view the Darkelves as a similar army to 7th. You have to hit in conjunction with other units (infantry and chariots/monsters, Cavalry and Charriots/monsters etc). You have to focus fire your shooting (which has gotten better) and magic to take out targets which can possibly disrupt your plans (like those blasted hellpit abom's) and tip your hat to lady luck that you dont whiff on the important charges/casts..

*shrug* thats just me though

Hear Hear.

People listen to Dalamar and this man. They actually understand 8th.

[Eolelfslayer]

I suppose you say "death star" but you actually mean something else, right?
To us, those born in the sixties, a death star is a very specific thing, associated to a famous SF franchise.
As opposed to the "other" franchise, the one with pointy eared guys.
What could a death star have in common with warhammer? I guess it, eventually, could be more of a 40k thing, but whfb?
Also why on earth it should "smell of cheese"?
Cheese?
I am not even sure they have cheese (or surrogates) in SW but heck, death stars move in the void, no smell at all there (and no sound, ok, but that's space opera!).
???????