Hordes, Busses/Columns & MSU

    • That is why I called it phalanx: the way it works it is best formation for well trained troops. I can imagine it used by wasteland warriors in a 10x3 unit. For me it is OK, but:

      I think the name 'horde' suggests it was meant for 'bottom line' to represent unorganized masses swarming over defenders. Which it does not. We can keep the phalanx, but we should design a new horde then. The 'new horde' should somehow add quality to those weakest troops without boosting stronger troops. Adding more attacks is not the right option as it will always boost better troops more then weak.
    • I support the idea of allowing all r&f miniatures on the two front ranks which are not in base to base contact, to make supporting attacks, and removing the horde rule, while stabilising a maximum wide for units (10 models, 6 for monstrous, etc).

      In combats with one unit in each side it won't be much different from a horde unit against a 5 wide unit. But in multiple combats it truly represents units involving the enemy without giving too much extra punch to models with multiple attacks.
      Undead Legions should be back from the grave! With blackjack. And hookers!

      In fact, forget about Undead Legions...
    • Monjis wrote:

      I support the idea of allowing all r&f miniatures on the two front ranks which are not in base to base contact, to make supporting attacks, and removing the horde rule, while stabilising a maximum wide for units (10 models, 6 for monstrous, etc).

      In combats with one unit in each side it won't be much different from a horde unit against a 5 wide unit. But in multiple combats it truly represents units involving the enemy without giving too much extra punch to models with multiple attacks.
      agree.

      It's weird that two hordes fighting each other each have 30 attacks while 2 5 wide units fighting a horde only have 20 attacks and 2x2 5 wide units in a multiple combat only have 20 attacks im total each.

      Rules Support

      Local Moderator


      Finally it's there: "TOTAL WAR - The Ninth Age - Realm of the Sylvan Elves"
    • Monjis wrote:

      I support the idea of allowing all r&f miniatures on the two front ranks which are not in base to base contact, to make supporting attacks, and removing the horde rule, while stabilising a maximum wide for units (10 models, 6 for monstrous, etc).
      I wouldn't go for stabilizing a maximum width, seems a bit artificial restriction. And would have to be defined per base width with complex rules describing what happens when there are different base sizes in the unit, War Platforms, etc. Better restrict max number of un-engaged files in front rank + any FiERs that can deliver supporting attacks. Like '4' for infantry/cavalry, 2 for Monstrous Infantry...
    • New

      I can't remember if I've posted this here already or not...

      If frontages don't match up, unengaged models in the front rank should envelope the sides of the enemy unit, assuming there's room. No need to move any models - each rank of the enemy provides 1 'space' that a model could be in, and thus one additional front rank model counts as in b2b. Envelopement can be blocked by engaging those models, or by placing a unit such that there is a model directly in front of the unit (and at least as close as the model it would envelope).

      xxxxxxxxxx
      ooooo
      ooooo
      ooooo

      -underlined models are unengaged.
      -there are 3 enemy ranks, and thus 3 additional models can envelope the side. (the bold models count as in b2b)

      xxxxxxxxxx
      ooooo
      ooooo aaaaa
      ooooo aaaaa

      -underlined models are still unengaged
      -unit a blocks some of those models from enveloping the enemy. Only the bold model can envelope (the underlined space is closer than unit a)
      -the italicized models are blocked by unit a.
      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.
    • New

      JimMorr wrote:

      Monjis wrote:

      I support the idea of allowing all r&f miniatures on the two front ranks which are not in base to base contact, to make supporting attacks, and removing the horde rule, while stabilising a maximum wide for units (10 models, 6 for monstrous, etc).
      I wouldn't go for stabilizing a maximum width, seems a bit artificial restriction. And would have to be defined per base width with complex rules describing what happens when there are different base sizes in the unit, War Platforms, etc. Better restrict max number of un-engaged files in front rank + any FiERs that can deliver supporting attacks. Like '4' for infantry/cavalry, 2 for Monstrous Infantry...
      In the actual manual there are already such "complex rules to determine when a horde is formed, specifications with each Type of Unit and previsions for the cases of unfitting bases (specially for characters).

      Those rules can be easily tweeked for this purpose, just eliminating the Fier granted by the Horde Formation.
      Undead Legions should be back from the grave! With blackjack. And hookers!

      In fact, forget about Undead Legions...
    • New

      Squirrelloid wrote:

      I can't remember if I've posted this here already or not...

      If frontages don't match up, unengaged models in the front rank should envelope the sides of the enemy unit, assuming there's room. No need to move any models - each rank of the enemy provides 1 'space' that a model could be in, and thus one additional front rank model counts as in b2b. Envelopement can be blocked by engaging those models, or by placing a unit such that there is a model directly in front of the unit (and at least as close as the model it would envelope).

      xxxxxxxxxx
      ooooo
      ooooo
      ooooo

      -underlined models are unengaged.
      -there are 3 enemy ranks, and thus 3 additional models can envelope the side. (the bold models count as in b2b)

      xxxxxxxxxx
      ooooo
      ooooo aaaaa
      ooooo aaaaa

      -underlined models are still unengaged
      -unit a blocks some of those models from enveloping the enemy. Only the bold model can envelope (the underlined space is closer than unit a)
      -the italicized models are blocked by unit a.
      This seems to be the best solution so far. Comprehensible, realistic, simple enough and balanced. :)

      let's try some more examples.
      x o normal attacks
      x o supporting attacks
      x surrounding (supporting) attacks
      x current FieR for horde rule
      x o no attacks



      max. wide unit versus small unit
      xxxxxxxxxx
      xxxxxxxxxx
      xxxxxxxxxx
      oooo
      oooo


      max. wide unit versus bus
      xxxxxxxxxx
      xxxxxxxxxx
      xxxxxxxxxx
      ooooo
      ooooo
      ooooo
      ooooo
      ooooo
      ooooo


      wide unit versus conga-line (bye bye conga-line ;) )
      xxxxxxx
      xxxxxxx
      o
      o
      o
      o
      o
      o

      Rules Support

      Local Moderator


      Finally it's there: "TOTAL WAR - The Ninth Age - Realm of the Sylvan Elves"
    • New

      @Squirrelloid I was thinking about something like that myself and I think it's a great idea. The problem is the same as my previous suggestion (half unengaged files counts as in b2b) except that it is dependent on more parameters.

      Using the same symbols as @DJWoodelf above.

      zzzzz
      zzzzzxxxxxxxxxx
      zzzzzxxxxxxxxxx
      zzzzzxxxxxxxxxx
      ooooo
      ooooo
      ooooo
      ooooo
      ooooo
      Cuatl, mounted on an alpha carnosaur, equipped with multiple sun engines. Would name it Krulos.

      “When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
      C.S. Lewis
    • New

      TheSpid wrote:

      @Squirrelloid I was thinking about something like that myself and I think it's a great idea. The problem is the same as my previous suggestion (half unengaged files counts as in b2b) except that it is dependent on more parameters.

      Using the same symbols as @DJWoodelf above.

      zzzzz
      zzzzzxxxxxxxxxx
      zzzzzxxxxxxxxxx
      zzzzzxxxxxxxxxx
      ooooo
      ooooo
      ooooo
      ooooo
      ooooo

      I don't see a problem with your example. You get hit in the corner by a large unit and it's going to turn your flank and defeat you in detail. Historical infantry engagements demanded you meet the front of your opponent's battle line, because getting your flank turned would make you lose.

      Note that in my proposal, having a unit to the 'o' unit's right would prevent many if not most of the envelopment attacks. (In addition to being able to charge into the engagement itself on your next turn).
      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.
    • New

      Squirrelloid wrote:

      I don't see a problem with your example. You get hit in the corner by a large unit and it's going to turn your flank and defeat you in detail. Historical infantry engagements demanded you meet the front of your opponent's battle line, because getting your flank turned would make you lose.
      Note that in my proposal, having a unit to the 'o' unit's right would prevent many if not most of the envelopment attacks. (In addition to being able to charge into the engagement itself on your next turn).
      I understand the problem.

      A front charge technically turns into a flank charge just because another friendly unit is already in combat to the front AND the charged unit may not even attack back. So that could even be worse for the charged than if it was directly charged to the flank.

      Furthermore imagine a 10 model wide unit touches the corner of a 10 model deep unit. The distance between some models could be too high to call this reasonable and balanced. In the extremum the distance could even exceed the movement or even the march speed.

      This proposal just needs a restriction, e.g. max. 3 files to each side may do surrounding attacks.

      Rules Support

      Local Moderator


      Finally it's there: "TOTAL WAR - The Ninth Age - Realm of the Sylvan Elves"
    • New

      DJWoodelf wrote:

      This proposal just needs a restriction, e.g. max. 3 files to each side may do surrounding attacks.
      shameless selfquote

      JimMorr wrote:

      Better restrict max number of un-engaged files in front rank + any FiERs that can deliver supporting attacks. Like '4' for infantry/cavalry, 2 for Monstrous Infantry..
      Looks like the same solution will be achieved from two different starting points

      However I can see a risk of abusing those rules:
      Unit 1 (shield + hand weapon) charges W leaving only corner. Then unit 2 (a glass cannon) charges. That glass cannon can deliver most attacks while opponent almost. cannot strike back

      WWWWWW
      WWWWWW
      WWWWWW

      WWWWWW
      111111122222
      111111122222
      111111122222
    • New

      eh, what you're calling abuse I call versimillitude and historical. Want that to not happen to you? Don't let them do it. Screen the flank with your own unit. I specifically propose blocking those enveloping attacks with a unit to provide counterplay. Failure to screen your flanks is your fault, not abuse by your opponent - you had it coming.
      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.
    • New

      Squirrelloid wrote:

      eh, what you're calling abuse I call versimillitude and historical. Want that to not happen to you? Don't let them do it. Screen the flank with your own unit. I specifically propose blocking those enveloping attacks with a unit to provide counterplay. Failure to screen your flanks is your fault, not abuse by your opponent - you had it coming.

      JimMorr wrote:

      Squirrelloid wrote:

      eh, what you're calling abuse I call versimillitude and historical.
      Note that it will lead to 'corner hunting': it will be more profitable to charge opponents corner from front then their flank (Flank Strikes Back...) which I believe would be a flaw in the rules.
      this could kind of bypass the sense of front arch and flank arch when too many files may attack while just few or even one file is in direct contact.

      Rules Support

      Local Moderator


      Finally it's there: "TOTAL WAR - The Ninth Age - Realm of the Sylvan Elves"
    • New

      JimMorr wrote:

      Squirrelloid wrote:

      eh, what you're calling abuse I call versimillitude and historical.
      Note that it will lead to 'corner hunting': it will be more profitable to charge opponents corner from front then their flank (Flank Strikes Back...) which I believe would be a flaw in the rules.
      Flank charge gives Disruption and +2 resolution. Still, monsters and chariots and mega-characters always could "corner hunt" and some can do the equivalent of a docen of strong attacks.
      Undead Legions should be back from the grave! With blackjack. And hookers!

      In fact, forget about Undead Legions...
    • New

      Monjis wrote:

      Flank charge gives Disruption and +2 resolution. Still, monsters and chariots and mega-characters always could "corner hunt" and some can do the equivalent of a docen of strong attacks.
      For a glass cannon more important will be delivering attacks without being strike back.

      A solution might be allowing flank Ws from 3rd and 4th rank to make their supporting attacks vs 2. Overcomplicated becomes?
    • New

      JimMorr wrote:

      Squirrelloid wrote:

      eh, what you're calling abuse I call versimillitude and historical.
      Note that it will lead to 'corner hunting': it will be more profitable to charge opponents corner from front then their flank (Flank Strikes Back...) which I believe would be a flaw in the rules.
      But to pull it off you have to block the front of the unit - otherwise you have to maximize. (Also, they get to do it back to you if you do manage to only engage the corner somehow).

      But seriously, how does screening your flank not solve any possible abuse? If you get 'abused', it's your own fault for letting your opponent do it.
      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.