State of Cavalry in Warlord

[wildbill]

What about models like Thorvald the bear rider that has Cavalry? Would anyone object to giving him the ability to charge, whack down some model, and then finish his charge? Or allow him to have Breaker?

 

Wild Bill

I've played against the mighty bear probably around 2 dozen times, with 3 different people playing dwarves. I have never seen him used to someone's advantage. So from my perspective as an enemy, give him some love.

It's that big scary Onyx Chevalier I would be more worried about... I would still agree that he needs some love too though.

 

Well, all I have to say is you need to play against my bears. Sure, they'll get injured or even die. But they'll lay down an butt-whoopin' first!!!

 

Wild Bill

[bluethunder]

I've played against the mighty bear probably around 2 dozen times, with 3 different people playing dwarves. I have never seen him used to someone's advantage. So from my perspective as an enemy, give him some love.

It's that big scary Onyx Chevalier I would be more worried about... I would still agree that he needs some love too though.

 

This is my base list for 1500 points:

 

Group 1

1 x Count Lorenth

1 x Onyx Chevalier

3 x Onyx Zephyrs

1 x Kevis

 

Group 2

1 x Selthak

 

Group 3

1 x Merack

8 x Onyx Phalanx

 

Group 4

1 x Corvus

6 x Overlord Crossbowmen

 

 

 

Group 5

1 x Andras

5 x Overlord Spearmen

1 x Kevis

 

It is hellish... It is completely undefeated... and that cavalry unit is universally feared! They usually die but not before taking out 2-3 times their points. I tend to follow the doctrine suggested by jdripley. More often than not I attack from the flank in conjunction with a frontal infantry assault, always supported by archery, and spells.

 

I also tend to kit out the force with spells and items tailored for specific opponents and scenarios.

 

However, I have looked at all other cavalry and found them wanting. No other faction’s cavalry is as skilled, and they cost more for what you get.

[Reaperbryan]

Interesting ideas. I'm going to sound a bit repetetive here, but I'd love to hear the results of a few games in which a few of these ideas are tried out.

 

Personally, though, I do think that timing is crucial. Swarming your fast Cavalry to the front of the battlefield, and subsequently putting them in charge range of most of the enemy's melee models, his mages, and his archers, is asking to have them killed. Holding them back to rush in to tight spots as a way of adding bonuses, surgically striking, etc. has been more successful for me.

[shakhak]

@BlueThunder

I thought that the Chevalier was only a solo?

And I agree with what you said about other cavalry not being as skilled. The Zephyrs with their two attacks go a long way to help remedy the cavalry problem, it really turns them into really fast dervishes and speed is perfect compliment to two attacks; the same can be said about the Khamsin archers, which I've heard no complaints about.

 

Bring that list down to cincinnati if you want some real play testing :P

[ecs05norway]

I'd like to see this, too...

 

 

I heard a description of how a good general used a combined-arms force in some books, once. They described it this way: The infantry is a club. It goes in, it hits hard. The cavalry is a rapier. It gets in, it gets out, it makes the enemy hurt and gets away before they can do anything about it.

[wrightjd]

I am going to have to agree here with Shakhak, calvary in melee definitely seem to lack luster. Also paying for first strike on that MAV 2 model is a very very risky proposition. I've played with Lion Lancers in three games so far (with Sir Danel leading and Sir Damon bringing on the pain) and have never seen a Lion Lancer succeed in getting a first strike. The least amount of Lioin Lancers I've played with is 3 also. Sir Danel also rarely succeeds in his use of First Strike. I definitely think Lord Vandrian has about 100x more use than Lion Lancers or anything else, though I am going to be trying different uses of the Lion Lancers (such as combining them with knights and charging in when the knights engage).

 

Also, why is does every calvary unit have two damage tracks? Also I actually thought the Crusaders would have the awesome calvary, but their calvary are a joke compared to the Overlords. Less MOV, Less MAV, Less DV hurts.

[Ranzadule]

Try giving Danel the greater magic weapon. Sure it will double his cost, but it will at least double his effectiveness. I haven't tried it with him yet, but it is an auto-include with Damon the Impetuous.

[ecs05norway]

Going to see about playtesting them with Run & Gun style attacks. That and giving them the Height advantage over models of smaller base size seems to be the best way to go...

[drjsallison]

I have been using the Nefsokar Cavalry for a while now and to great success. Use the Archers to flank around cover and take out low DV casters and shooters while Lancers lead a charge toward the main force. When they get there, take out the ends of the formation and with First strike, there are only dead guys and safe lancers on the ends. The raiders come in behind the lancers and take care of anything dangerous out of the formation and close off access for reinforcements. The raider ability is great, because you can engage wimpy archers and try and force a move and break away to lend aid to the Lancers and Archers. Send in the heavy hitters for the main contingiant, using lots of attacks and a good DV to punch holes in the core force. Atifa is a boon in that she can keep up with the pack and lay some love on anyone who suffered from a lucky hit. Its really ugly if you can get her to cast hold on the center of a formation while the lancers chew the sides- no defensive strikes anywhere. I have used variations of this tactic a dozen times and every time it proves worthwhile (excluding any dice hate). Its all about how you use 'em.

[rgtriplec]

I have been using the Nefsokar Cavalry for a while now and to great success. Use the Archers to flank around cover and take out low DV casters and shooters while Lancers lead a charge toward the main force. When they get there, take out the ends of the formation and with First strike, there are only dead guys and safe lancers on the ends. The raiders come in behind the lancers and take care of anything dangerous out of the formation and close off access for reinforcements. The raider ability is great, because you can engage wimpy archers and try and force a move and break away to lend aid to the Lancers and Archers. Send in the heavy hitters for the main contingiant, using lots of attacks and a good DV to punch holes in the core force. Atifa is a boon in that she can keep up with the pack and lay some love on anyone who suffered from a lucky hit. Its really ugly if you can get her to cast hold on the center of a formation while the lancers chew the sides- no defensive strikes anywhere. I have used variations of this tactic a dozen times and every time it proves worthwhile (excluding any dice hate). Its all about how you use 'em.

 

 

- I think light cav is probably okay in their DV but heavy cav need to have a DV of 11 or 12, minimum. They are knights in armor on barded warhorses. I would just give them a new SA.

 

-TOWERING - The model attacks a smaller base sized model it gets MAV+1 when attacking and when being attacked by a smaller based model their attacker gets a MAV-1.

 

That would essentially give them the DV and MAV benifits that Shakhak mentioned but only against targets that they actually have an advantage over in height.

 

- Cav should also have a -1 defence against spearmen, as lancer and pikers types are historically the way to defeat mounted knights. They could give a PIKER SA to spearmen and halberds stating they get a +1 MAV against mounted or cavalry models.

 

- I don't think they should be breakers because breakers are essentially just changing their formation after mellee and not breaking through. They could have another SA where they are actually still moving through the line.

 

RUN-THROUGH - When charging if the enemy model is killed or stunned the cav model can continue its move if all its movement was not used in the charge. The remaining movement must be used in the same trajectory it is headed. If the charging model comes base to base with an enemy with its left over charge it get 1 attack at its normal MAV. The run-through is stopped by the second attack, any movement left after the second attack is lost as with a normal charge.

 

So if you have a 12 +4 charge and make the charge in 10, then kill your opponent you can move the remaining 6 leftover from your chargeand if you meet an enemy get another attack . That is realistically what happens in a heavy cav charge. A barded horse and rider don't stop to fight they slam into the line knocking holes in it. It should be like swingthrough or blowthrough. This would only be for heavy and not light cav as light cav were fast and used as flanker raider types but knights were the tanks of the battle, built for power not the speed.

 

I would remove cav's FIRST STRIKE and TOUGH and add RUNTHROUGH to heavy cav, TOWERING to all cav, and PIKER to spearmen types, cav would be much more useful and realistically more like cavalry.

 

FIRST STRIKE would be a trade off to RUNTHROUGH. You aren't getting the benifit of not getting defensive strikes against you but you are getting the benifit of breaking the line and a chance to kill another model if you come in contact.

 

TOWERING is realistic to cav as TOUGH is not. A knight should have benifits in battle from its warhorse which makes TOWERING good. TOUGH on the other hand is not realistic. If a wounded knight goes down he should stay down. I doubt many knights would be able to move after falling five five, in an 80 pound suit of armor, after taking an arrow or sledge hammer to the chest and then chase down their mount, and get on it in armor without any help.

[dewen]

I like the idea of the SA Cavalry or Mounted adding a +1 to attack a standard model and the standard model having a -1 to attack the cavarly model, which is similar to an attacker being on elevation. I would permit models with SA Reach to ignore the -1 to attack against the cavarly model and SA Piker maintain +2 to attack. I would not take away the +1 to attack from the cavalry model against a Reach or Piker model. He still has the altitude advantage. If something like this was made official, it would only require a change to the SA Cavarly or Mounted and Reach. I agree that play testing is definitely needed.

[spiritual_exorcist]

Although I agree that Cavalry is very niche in the game right now, and doesn't perform the same function as it has historically, I'm mainly worried about what such changes will to to the points costs of a model.

 

I doubt I'll have time to playtest this sort of thing, but rather than seeing Mounted give bonus' to attack and defence, I think I'd just rather see these values incorporated into the models innate abilities (MAV, DV), as they are fairly lacking in many cases anyway.

[cristomeyers]

I play a People of the Desert Winds list as my "fun" list. While I have yet to win a game with them, I've still had a lot of fun with it. I agree that the second damage track definitly needs tweaking. The only fluff reason I can think of to justify such a stat degradation is that the horse died and the rider was injured in the fall, in other words the worst case scenario short of the rider being killed.

 

A height bonus makes perfect sense, I just don't see it in the stats. Reach obviously negates this, but at the very least fighting against cavalry while on foot puts most of the rider's vital spots out of your reach while all of yours are within very easy reach. You might recall a scene from Glory, riding by on horseback attacking watermelons...

 

If nothing else, the Runthrough SA being batted around should go straight on to playtesting. One, it's realistic, and two, it helps to midigate cavalry's greatest weakness, getting swarmed, but not to a point that it would completely remove that weakness.

[rgtriplec]

Although I agree that Cavalry is very niche in the game right now, and doesn't perform the same function as it has historically, I'm mainly worried about what such changes will to to the points costs of a model.

 

I doubt I'll have time to playtest this sort of thing, but rather than seeing Mounted give bonus' to attack and defence, I think I'd just rather see these values incorporated into the models innate abilities (MAV, DV), as they are fairly lacking in many cases anyway.

 

I don't think it should bump the cost of cav up too much, if the other SA's are removed.

 

I didn't propose to bump up the MAV and DV because they should only get a height advantage against units they are bigger than.

[spiritual_exorcist]

Although I agree that Cavalry is very niche in the game right now, and doesn't perform the same function as it has historically, I'm mainly worried about what such changes will to to the points costs of a model.

 

I doubt I'll have time to playtest this sort of thing, but rather than seeing Mounted give bonus' to attack and defence, I think I'd just rather see these values incorporated into the models innate abilities (MAV, DV), as they are fairly lacking in many cases anyway.

 

I don't think it should bump the cost of cav up too much, if the other SA's are removed.

 

I didn't propose to bump up the MAV and DV because they should only get a height advantage against units they are bigger than.

 

 

I understand that, but many Cavalry models are weaker than most believe they should be from a DV and MAV perspective as a whole. While giving them an advantage against smaller units makes sense, it introduces a an exception to a ruleset that is supposed to be streamlined and simple. It wouldn't bother me much if a change was made in the direction you stated, I would just prefer, for the sake of simplicity that MAV and DV's be adjusted to levels that better reflect certain Cavalry's abilities.

 

Whether the second damage track is gotten rid of or not doesn't bother me, unlike many I like having models with 2 damage tracks, even if such a track is fairly weak. Although I very much understand the arguments against a second track.