Multiple infantry blocks

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 available! You can read all about it in the news.

The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

  • Multiple infantry blocks

    It could be just my limited sample size, but it seems to me that the meta of this game has drifted towards single models. Feeling very skirmishy.

    Lacking the distinct feeling of armies clashing.

    Infantry are no longer the back bone of armies with additional supporting elements. Infantry is the one or 2 of compulsory scoring core units. Followed by 4000 points of high mobility picks.

    I think this is in part due to the generous allowance in single model categories as well as the free reforms that single models get.

    But mostly due to objectives that are played in t9a.
    I feel these really allow for skewed builds replying on minimal scoring units, and scoring darts or scoring large infantry.

    I could be totaly off on the reason why we are seeing the meta in it's current state and am open to other reasons, but I personally think that the current list of objectives should be totaly revamped, using a minimum of 5 points of interest and no objectives that penalise having more scoring. Units without scoring already have benefits in the movement phase, there should be no penalty for taking extra scoring.
    I don't want a skirmish game I want a rank and flank game. The first word there is rank. For me that's indicative that at least 50% of your points should be into ranks. The rest can be into getting flanks.
  • If the meta has shifted as a result of the points changes, and monsters got discounts, then it means they were not seeing so much play before.
    It is a narrow line between "not over promoting single models" and "deliberately overcosting them".

    That said, I don't notice what you are saying in terms of changes over time.

    "Infantry are no longer the back bone of armies with additional supporting elements."

    What point in time are you referring to when this was the case?
    Was it the case globally or in your meta?


    For example, I have been able to compete better with higher infantry EoS in 2.0 than in legacy.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    What point in time are you referring to when this was the case?
    Was it the case globally or in your meta?
    my impressions from 1.3 - now. But I am acutely aware that these opinions are based exclusively on my own games. This minute sample set isn't even truly representative of my local meta much less globally.
    This is why I decided to make this post. To see if I was unique in this feeling?

    There are many other biases at play here, probably the largest being confirmation bias, I'm attempting to wade through this bias to see if this bunch has any merit.
    I don't want a skirmish game I want a rank and flank game. The first word there is rank. For me that's indicative that at least 50% of your points should be into ranks. The rest can be into getting flanks.
  • DanT wrote:

    For example, I have been able to compete better with higher infantry EoS in 2.0 than in legacy.
    perhaps Eos is in a better place infantry wise. I don't see much in my local meta. But for many armies I don't see infantry being well represented.

    To list a few, De, Se, ogres, vermin, warriors, koe, vc, ud, bh.

    This is in contrast to the armies that I think have an acceptable minimum saturation of infantry:

    Demons, saurians, ong, Eos, dwarfs, ID, HE
    I don't want a skirmish game I want a rank and flank game. The first word there is rank. For me that's indicative that at least 50% of your points should be into ranks. The rest can be into getting flanks.
  • I dont feel excited to use infantry, but also feel slightly pushed away from single models too. Fast, tough, good hp pool scoring seems to win out when thinking about lists recently
    Take a look at my painted army so far. Feel free to share a pic of yours!

    Pics of my ever expanding warriors army

    WastelandWarrior Painting League 2019

    WastelandWarrior Painting League 2020
  • I haven't noticed that trend from 1.3 to now.

    Of course, 1.3 did have the notable exception of the daft peasant list. So counting that maybe there has technically been a downward trend in the amount of infantry :P

    Out of interest, 2.0 saw a lot of complaints about how bad cavalry apparently were, quite generically across many books.

    I also remember receiving (during 2.0; I think 2018) a bunch of complaints about how monsters were rubbish compared to infantry :S

    Personally I'd worry about core tax more than specifically infantry, and I think that would naturally improve the things you want to change.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    Personally I'd worry about core tax more than specifically infantry, and I think that would naturally improve the things you want to change.
    well this is also a worry aspect. How can one get meaningful data on core tax when it's a mandatory field.

    It's a truly sticky problem, Internal balance of core units is calculatable from popularity an a tournament success. But external cost is tough since it must be taken.
    I don't want a skirmish game I want a rank and flank game. The first word there is rank. For me that's indicative that at least 50% of your points should be into ranks. The rest can be into getting flanks.
  • duxbuse wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    Personally I'd worry about core tax more than specifically infantry, and I think that would naturally improve the things you want to change.
    well this is also a worry aspect. How can one get meaningful data on core tax when it's a mandatory field.
    It's a truly sticky problem, Internal balance of core units is calculatable from popularity an a tournament success. But external cost is tough since it must be taken.
    Easy.
    You keep decreasing core points until some % of lists are meaningfully above minimum core.

    Of course, then some people will doubtless complain that their special troops aren't cheap enough compared to their core troops, which is essentially one of the arguments for core tax originally.

    But, if I was supreme overlord of the world, I would push core. I think it is a better and more interesting game, and that pushing core has a lot of nice little side effects (fluffier, helps battlelines, opens more builds...)
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE

    The post was edited 1 time, last by DanT ().

  • Personally, never liked core tax (or troops tax in 40k). As far as I understood, Core/troop tax was about selling models. And selling models that were typically worse than the other models in the army. Like space marine tactical squads....

    I'd prefer if the core choices were common in armies because they were actually the most useful unit in the army, rather than being a forced component.

    Special units should be units designed with a specialized role, with strengths in their intended role and weaknesses in other roles, not purely superior versions of core units.

    I think the DL armybook did a pretty good job of this, in the current incarnation (Beta 3)
    For Lexicon-team Project Blog: Updated lexicons
    If you need a mod: Moderator Request thread
    (I'm no mod, but seemed like a link that should be everywhere)

    Friend me on Pokemon Go: 4753 8292 4177
  • duxbuse wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    For example, I have been able to compete better with higher infantry EoS in 2.0 than in legacy.
    perhaps Eos is in a better place infantry wise. I don't see much in my local meta. But for many armies I don't see infantry being well represented.
    To list a few, De, Se, ogres, vermin, warriors, koe, vc, ud, bh.

    This is in contrast to the armies that I think have an acceptable minimum saturation of infantry:

    Demons, saurians, ong, Eos, dwarfs, ID, HE
    Daemons don't actually have any Infantry. It's almost entirely Beasts, with a small pinch of Cavalry and Constructs. The Infantry unit type is not something daemons can field at all.
    For Lexicon-team Project Blog: Updated lexicons
    If you need a mod: Moderator Request thread
    (I'm no mod, but seemed like a link that should be everywhere)

    Friend me on Pokemon Go: 4753 8292 4177
  • Chronocide wrote:

    Daemons don't actually have any Infantry. It's almost entirely Beasts, with a small pinch of Cavalry and Constructs. The Infantry unit type is not something daemons can field at all.
    Hahaha.
    Yes.
    So objectively, there is now less infantry on the field than in 1.3...
    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    But I think this is semantics, and the initial post was really about rank and file blocks with medium-large numbers of models :P


    In 1.3 I remember playing against MSU beasts, hellfist ogres, blasty cuatl+dinos, HBE with phoenices and lion chariot characters, etc etc.
    Heck the most important models in my 1.3 WotDG was the stupid shrines (which couldn't join units back then).

    Perhaps this infantry meta that other people encountered back then just passed me by?
    Someone could dig into past list archives (e.g. ETC) and try to make a comparison?
    But as I say, I suspect it will be things like the peasant list that drive any trends, and people moaned like hell about that so...
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    But I think this is semantics, and the initial post was really about rank and file blocks with medium-large numbers of models :P
    On that note, Daemons have relatively small unit max sizes. Core units are capped at 25 or 30, and non-core units don't get bigger than 15 models. We can still make the big blocks with attached War Platforms and big character bases, but it's pretty limited in actual model count per unit.

    Faced an EoS player the other day. My DL character general was awesome and defeated 2 champions and 1 BSB in challenges, but that stupid block of core Halberders won with combat resolution once I ran out of characters to challenge... I would have eventually won, if were not subject to Unstable via Supernal.

    Not complaining, but on the OP's subject, I think big blocks of guys still have a place in lists. At least they do against daemons.
    For Lexicon-team Project Blog: Updated lexicons
    If you need a mod: Moderator Request thread
    (I'm no mod, but seemed like a link that should be everywhere)

    Friend me on Pokemon Go: 4753 8292 4177
  • duxbuse wrote:

    perhaps Eos is in a better place infantry wise. I don't see much in my local meta. But for many armies I don't see infantry being well represented.

    To list a few, De, Se, ogres, vermin, warriors, koe, vc, ud, bh.
    In fairness KoE is a cavalry army so I wouldn't expect much in terms of infantry, if any. I don't take Infantry with KoE as it's slow and cumbersome and just gets in the way.

    R&F cavalry is something that I see in most (if not all KoE lists). Yes there are lists that have a hippogriff duke or a pegasus star and a number of chaff units but that list will also include at least 1 brick of core cavalry and probably another brick of Grails or Quests.

    I hear what you're saying though and I agree with DanT when it comes to core tax.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Chronocide wrote:

    On that note, Daemons have relatively small unit max sizes. Core units are capped at 25 or 30, and non-core units don't get bigger than 15 models. We can still make the big blocks with attached War Platforms and big character bases, but it's pretty limited in actual model count per unit.
    I think this is a good thing and I'd like to see the maximum numbers of units come down across the board. 60 or more models in a unit is just a huge amount of models and something we should be looking to avoid. We're not GW so a horde can be repreented as 40 models rather than 60. A massicve cavalry unit could be 10 models rather than 15, etc.

    That way there'd be more units, but slightly smaller and fewer deathstars.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • I agree that single models are very strong moving your full distance sideways is just really good. Some armies can spam single models units and this can be very strong for sure. OK for example does this very well. Personally I'm surprised mammoth hunters didn't get more of a points hike in the last update.

    That said I don't see a shift in the meta towards spamming single model units. Moreover if I did I wouldn't see changing objectives as the way to solve it I would suggest increasing the cost of the offending units instead.

    I would agree they has been a bit of a move away from multiple big units of infantry, but I personally think this is a good thing.