Rank und File Bonus too small?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

  • Adam wrote:

    So still after 13 pages there has been not a single example of a well performing lists with max sized elites and no concrete example of what example lists do you all intend to see.
    Also you claim my examples to be wrong basing them on some your personal deffiniton of MMU that you still failed to show even a single example of conforming list. So basically you are avoiding argument while claiming some sort of victory, quite laughable actually, but then again I am yet to see a coherent, fact based argument from you.
    yes, you are still off topic after 13 pages people trying to explain it to you.

    this has nothing to do with buffs or some paperwork during army creation.
  • cptcosmic wrote:

    Adam wrote:

    So still after 13 pages there has been not a single example of a well performing lists with max sized elites and no concrete example of what example lists do you all intend to see.
    Also you claim my examples to be wrong basing them on some your personal deffiniton of MMU that you still failed to show even a single example of conforming list. So basically you are avoiding argument while claiming some sort of victory, quite laughable actually, but then again I am yet to see a coherent, fact based argument from you.
    yes, you are still off topic after 13 pages people trying to explain it to you.
    this has nothing to do with buffs or some paperwork during army creation.
    Yeah, so just chasing nonexistent problems with flawed arguments, and that is my claim until I see ANY example of data showing that such problem exists.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
    Sea Guard homebrew: Sea Guard
  • echoCTRL wrote:

    Wesser wrote:

    echoCTRL wrote:

    Try and build such an army with multiple full sized blocks of infantry. The reason you cannot is because of points. There arent enough points available to build an army that has multiple large blocks of infantry. If you had enough of the units you wouldnt need more special rules. The units would function correctly.
    Depends what you mean by "large". When I started in 4th/5th 25 guys were a pretty big unit for most races, and I think a lot of people would like elites to be about 20 guys and normal troops about 30 guys again. Sadly with how killing power has escalated this would take a big revision of the game.. like dropping Supporting Attacks. Why do you say we would have to drop supporting attacks? Do you mean only dropping supporting attacks from normal 5 wide formations so elites would have to go 8 wide to get a supporting attack? I like having access to larger model counts for some units. Trash units are only good because of how many models you can take.
    Yes, Line Formation would just give Fight in Extra Rank

    Mostly I agree with you though on the numbering. My issue is access. I feel like Core should be 2400 points out of a 6000 point game.
    Yes, but then Core needs to be able to carry its weight. Some armies do better than others

    And then we need all units to be good or at least interesting at something. Let me give you an example:

    My VC army never spends a point more than necessary on Core. Why? I like Skeletons and Zombies (at least when Fireforge gets on with Living Dead) and want to play the models, but with models that are only good for being chopped up its a) not terribly interesting and b) not winning games.

    My Goblin army rarely have below 40% Core. Why? I like Goblin models and want to play them. Forest Goblins have a nice niche with their poison, and Cave Goblins have nets and Mad Gitz, which (while overcosted) are interesting options to play with.


    Well not all armies can be as interesting as Goblins are. I don't personally like how undead are portrayed in our game, but skeletons are a solid unit from an opponents perspective. Skeletons with halberds are a pretty good grinding unit; at least when I face them with my KoE I have to commit an elite unit or use specific tools to face them with my own Core units. I think that says a lot of good about skeletons.

    I disagree... Skeletons thrive on KoE, because they are well suited for soaking Few/High Strength hits, but Skeletons (halberds or otherwise) are a good unit at getting grinded. They most certainly do not grind well - indeed unless aided by magic or buffwagons they will lose a grind to virtually anything (My last game I lost a unit of 50 to a Chosen of Lugar - in 2 player turns).

    Between the whole staying in range of march and raising, not being able to flee, not being able to play anvil, not being able to win combats on their own VC Core is pretty limited in how it can play because ultimately it winds down to raising and tarpitting.

    I'm not whining about power level here. Ghouls and their poison got punch against the right targets, and through buffwagons and Vampires it's possible to Deathstar Skeletons to a degree. The problem is that Zombies and Skeletons especially are boring, because they are passive in nature - they don't punch, they get punched (in fact in my last 3 games my entire Core section has - win or lose - accounted for 1 dwarf, 2 RAA and 1 OK Bruiser). So ofc people only take the minimum possible and try to make that work.


  • cptcosmic wrote:

    Adam wrote:

    Yeah, so just chasing nonexistent problems with flawed arguments, and that is my claim until I see ANY example of data showing that such problem exists.
    making a claim based on off topic things is not going to work :D
    it is not only off topic but those are not even your own experiences which are causing survivorship bias
    You still didn't produce any argument backed by any data that shows "rank and file bonus being too small" which is what this topic is about. And you still keep avoiding it like a plague. So it is quite clear that you just do not have any such examples.

    Also I try not to argument with my own experiences to reduce bias. It is always best to use findings of people best in field instead of random blokes from the internet. Right now you behave like a flat earther yelling that earth is flat because he has never seen it's curvature with his own eyes.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
    Sea Guard homebrew: Sea Guard
  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Adam wrote:

    Right now you behave like a flat earther yelling that earth is flat because he has never seen it's curvature with his own eyes.
    :whistling: How is that any different to you saying the units are fine because you've not seen a situation where they're not?
    Because my claim is that TOP players make them work well ergo they can work, and it is based on data (top finishing lists from large tournaments, and battle reports of top players).

    Also I have seen many people sucking with core (or any other piece of their army, like cannons, monsters, magic, chaff and so on) but that doesn't mean that this particular piece was bad but rather that they misused it.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
    Sea Guard homebrew: Sea Guard
  • Adam wrote:

    I already posted Szaitis and Abrassus lists with 3x20 skeletons or Gasior list with 33 ghouls and 32 BG. This whole topic raves about some mysterious "elite infantry max size units" butchering poor core left right and center. I'd love to see some lists that actually have that and place well on serious events.

    In the meantime I will post Furion list with:

    485 - High Prince, General, Queen's Companion, Spear: Sliver of the Blazing Dawn, Longbow: Moonglight Arrows, Destiny's Call
    740 - High Prince on Dragon, Great Weapon, Longbow, Lucky Charm
    565 - Mage Master, Asfad Scholar, Master, Divination, Book of Meladys
    662 - 27 Sea Guard, MSC, Banner of Speed
    190 - 5 Elein Reavers, Bow
    280 - 20 Citizen Spears, MC
    180 - 3x1 Sea Guard Reaper
    380 - 5 Knights of Ryma, MC
    657 - 24 Lion Guard, MC
    4499

    Good enough for MMU?
    That right there is the problem. 2 medium sized core infantry units, used in a support role (I'm going from his comments, but I believe @Furion uses them pretty much the same way everyone else does, scoring, supporting the real combat units by negating steadfast, and acting as a roadblock by sitting them in front of enemy zoners daring them to charge spears in the front, not as main combat units, perhaps he can confirm/deny?).

    3 medium sized units is not MMU. Meanwhile the heavy lifting in that list is all done by shooting, magic, KoR, Dragon prince and the LG.

    Also, where has anyone raved about "Elite infantry max size units butchering core???

    It has been repeatedly stated that elite infantry is the one target core infantry doesn't suck quite so massively against. At this point you are literally arguing against claims which no-one is even making.

    Stygian wrote:

    So this thread is about making specifically core infantry of mmu size better more viable?
    Not just MMU, not strictly just core either (although mostly core in reality), but basically making basic (ie not monstrous, not S5+ etc) infantry viable as actual combat units, not just scoring, tarpitting, or negating steadfast so that the big-boys can break the enemy.

    Allowing people to build armies which look like a classic fantasy army, like a horde of regular orcs, with a scattering of trolls/giants/whatever, swarming over the enemy army, rather than a big block of orcs standing on an objective cheering while their super-killy warlord on his uber-monster/chariot/whatever and some monsters run around killing everything. Or disciplined ranks of gleaming HE spearmen advancing below a hail of arrows from their archers to engage the enemy, not a few spearmen nervously facing off some enemy cavalry while a handful of knights, a couple of pheonixes, a dragon and some bolt throwers do all the killing.

    MMU is simply the worst hit part of basic infantry, since small cheap units tend to be used for sacrificial scorers/chaff, while big units are more useful as tar-pits, steadfast scoring etc.
  • Adam wrote:

    Because my claim is that TOP players make them work well ergo they can work
    1. survivorship bias. concentrating on cases that made it, without understanding them, while overlooking those that did not.
    2. game rules. ofcourse they have basic troops, everyone has basic troops, you have to take them.
    3. offtopic. not the basic troop won those games, but the support and characters that carried them, which is an entirely different story. this playstyle is not equally available to all armies aswell.
    4. argumentum ad infinitum. repeating the flawed claims over and over does not make it credible.

    The post was edited 4 times, last by cptcosmic ().

  • CariadocThorne wrote:

    Adam wrote:

    I already posted Szaitis and Abrassus lists with 3x20 skeletons or Gasior list with 33 ghouls and 32 BG. This whole topic raves about some mysterious "elite infantry max size units" butchering poor core left right and center. I'd love to see some lists that actually have that and place well on serious events.

    In the meantime I will post Furion list with:

    485 - High Prince, General, Queen's Companion, Spear: Sliver of the Blazing Dawn, Longbow: Moonglight Arrows, Destiny's Call
    740 - High Prince on Dragon, Great Weapon, Longbow, Lucky Charm
    565 - Mage Master, Asfad Scholar, Master, Divination, Book of Meladys
    662 - 27 Sea Guard, MSC, Banner of Speed
    190 - 5 Elein Reavers, Bow
    280 - 20 Citizen Spears, MC
    180 - 3x1 Sea Guard Reaper
    380 - 5 Knights of Ryma, MC
    657 - 24 Lion Guard, MC
    4499

    Good enough for MMU?
    That right there is the problem. 2 medium sized core infantry units, used in a support role (I'm going from his comments, but I believe @Furion uses them pretty much the same way everyone else does, scoring, supporting the real combat units by negating steadfast, and acting as a roadblock by sitting them in front of enemy zoners daring them to charge spears in the front, not as main combat units, perhaps he can confirm/deny?).
    3 medium sized units is not MMU. Meanwhile the heavy lifting in that list is all done by shooting, magic, KoR, Dragon prince and the LG.

    Also, where has anyone raved about "Elite infantry max size units butchering core???

    It has been repeatedly stated that elite infantry is the one target core infantry doesn't suck quite so massively against. At this point you are literally arguing against claims which no-one is even making.
    It's not even 2 medium-sized core units. That's a minimum CS block (so small, not medium), and a near maximum SG block (so large, not medium).

    MMU CS would be ~30 bodies. MMU SG would be ~20, certainly no more than 25.

    But yeah, the list is basically hero-hammer.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    It's not even 2 medium-sized core units. That's a minimum CS block (so small, not medium), and a near maximum SG block (so large, not medium).
    MMU CS would be ~30 bodies. MMU SG would be ~20, certainly no more than 25.

    But yeah, the list is basically hero-hammer.
    In all fairness, I said 20-25, maybe 30, so I can't blame him for using the definition I gave. And honestly, even if it is minimum size, I'd still call 20 of anything a medium sized unit personally.
  • CariadocThorne wrote:

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    It's not even 2 medium-sized core units. That's a minimum CS block (so small, not medium), and a near maximum SG block (so large, not medium).
    MMU CS would be ~30 bodies. MMU SG would be ~20, certainly no more than 25.

    But yeah, the list is basically hero-hammer.
    In all fairness, I said 20-25, maybe 30, so I can't blame him for using the definition I gave. And honestly, even if it is minimum size, I'd still call 20 of anything a medium sized unit personally.
    Well, in that case MMU CS are viable. But I wouldn't call an MSU build MMU. (Ask @Herminard about his 'spartan' HbE list).

    I ran a similar DE list (minimal DE legionnaires is only 15 though, and I mostly ran minimal units) in CR9 2, and went 0-20, 18-2, 18-2. Not shabby for a list that's 80+% core spears. (Olaron Captain, fighty Oracle Master, non-mount Altar as only non-spears in list).
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ