Hordes, Busses/Columns & MSU

    Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat's Up, Ninth Agers!!! New issue of the Behind the Scenes blog! More rules sneak peeks, a glimpse at the future layout of army entries, and a duel between characters with the new rules.

    • to be honest, a model should be able to get close to the enemy to actually attack.

      So a 40 man line charging a 5 man wide unit and all 40 man may attack is weird.

      All models that are few inch away from the enemy unit should not be able to do surrounding attacks.

      And as measuring inches is too complex, a rule based on files should be appropriate.

      Either additional x (e.g. 2 or 3) files per side not in contact may attack or just make it as many files as there are files in contact.

      Rules Support

      SE Community Support

      Local Moderator


    • I have 2 points to add in regards to comments above...

      1st in relation to the long line of models or conga... it would not be a problem to add a generic ruling that any unit cannot have more than 5 times the number of ranks than files or 5 times the number of files than ranks.

      Basically a single rank would only allow max 5 models, 2 ranks would increase to 10 models, 3 to 15. So if someone wanted to do a silly 20 model front rack they would need to have 80 models in the unit. The same rule applies to bus formation and prevents the stupid conga line thing too.

      2nd point is that a unit or model should not have more extra attacks than can fit is base size. Do example a dragon on a 50 x 100 Base being attacked by 20mm models shouldn't be attacked (in base to base) by more than 13 models.

      I would also like to point out that if this kind of ruling is brought in then there will be the argument that by surrounding the enemy you are exposing your flank to attack and therefore charging the 'front' of a unit which is hitting a model is not in b2b with should have multiple bonus.

      I would also like to add that I think horde rules should only apply to certain units or armies which use such types of attack. It would bring more uniqueness to those armies and help to increase the use of horde units.
    • Twisted Magpie wrote:

      another thought would be to restrict horde rules to core units.
      Why?

      This alone does not solve anything and it makes no sense for mass armies which can field large non-core units. It also makes no sense in background: The most basic troops can swarm around the enemy, but an elite unit in the same formation can't?

      I also want to point out: Being wider than the opponent and encircling them is not a "type of attack". It's basic behaviour for "melee". After all the combatants are fighting each other, not maintaining a nice rectangular formation while swinging their weapons (or as it is right now, standing around doing nothing, because "not in base contact").

      From your previous post: I like the 2nd point, as it makes sense. Question for me is whether the added complexity is worth it in this case. I'd say yes, but others may think differently. For the 1st point: The rule would certainly solve some issues. On the other hand for wide formations: What would you do with casualties? Would they need to be taken away from front rank to keep a viable formation? This can lead to very unintended effects (e.g. in close combat, you start 10 wide, then lose some models (again at a hard breakpoint) and lose your second rank). Somehow some of your troops move out of combat immediately, maybe a character can even flee certain death. I don't like it, because it's too artifical and again introduces a weird break point (I can field a 7x2 formation, but when 8 models die, the front rank immediately has to contract?).
      My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/

      #freekillerinstinct
    • Idea: Make Horde Formation something that only works for Spears and Halberds.

      It's pretty logical - big units of polearms/spears getting more attacks seems perfectly reasonable, no?

      See, HW/Shield always goes bus, and Great Weapons/Flails in horde are just... no, this should not be a thing. But it means it's not an elite/non-elite thing - it's "units equipped with formation weapons" vs. "units equipped with one-on-one weapons" thing.
    • @WhammeWhamme

      Your argumentation makes only sense if Hordes get FiER. But for weapons which have more reach we already have an appropriate rule. It's called FiER (d'oh, that was easy).

      The discussion here is around the fact, that horde rule is an approximation for a wider formations which in a close combat would encircle the enemy (after all the outer soldiers would not just stand there on an imagnitive line and keep a perfect rectangular shape, while in a combat).

      For this scenario the weapon of choice does not really make a difference, when the soldiers on the flank of the wider unit will just walk up to the enemy to attack them.
      My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/

      #freekillerinstinct
    • Over ages wider formations were preferred to deeper. There were only really a few units deployed deeper then wider - like the medieval 'lance' formation, which quite possibly did not strike as column: head of the lance, consisting of best armed knights stroke while bow armed lighter riders provided valley prior to impact.

      Now back to our game. Here having wider formation then opponent gives you very few bonuses (a couple of supporting attacks). Having deeper formation gives you steadfast and up to +3 combat resolution bonus. Which results in deep units beng preferred over wide ones. The fact that second unit cannot provide support to wide unit fighting in front of it also has some impact.

      I do not like the idea of horde. Why a single horde 10x5 (20mm bases) is to have any advantage over two 5x5 units on 25mm bases? It makes no sense.Those two units will have wider frontage and shall get bonus not the horde. For me it is wider frontage that shall decide.

      I understand that a lot of players will be reluctant to introduce anything that will result in constant reforms with units adjusting their width to gain some bonus over enemy. It will slow down the game and will be bad for our models. But on the other hand if we are to introduce fixed units widths why to bother with single models at all? Lets glue them to 100x100 bases and move those around assigning them 8-25 hit points...

      For me the only thing which could reduce the risk of game deteriorating to constant reforms is drastically increasing the cost of the reform. Get rid of swift reform. Force Ld test to perform any reform at all. And then we can talk about solutions like giving the side which has wider engaged frontage then the enemy +2 combat resolution or a unit which is outflanked loosing steadfast / being penalized with -1 def WS.
    • JimMorr wrote:

      For me the only thing which could reduce the risk of game deteriorating to constant reforms is drastically increasing the cost of the reform.
      Well said, I do however not think "constant reform" would be a problem. If you do that you can't march or charge. This means if the enemy has more "pull" than you (extreme example would be a gunline) you need to march to him, even if your formation is not perfect. Also if getting the charge is important you cannot swift reform all the time, as you won't get any charges.

      I would even say, this is a bonus: Choosing the right formation during deployment is crucial and dependant on the opponent. Dropping everything to snatch first turn comes at the risk of having bad unit widths. On the other hand the tactical decision: Swift Reform or March/Charge is something that would involve skill.
      My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/

      #freekillerinstinct
    • DarkSky wrote:

      @WhammeWhamme

      Your argumentation makes only sense if Hordes get FiER. But for weapons which have more reach we already have an appropriate rule. It's called FiER (d'oh, that was easy).

      The discussion here is around the fact, that horde rule is an approximation for a wider formations which in a close combat would encircle the enemy (after all the outer soldiers would not just stand there on an imagnitive line and keep a perfect rectangular shape, while in a combat).

      For this scenario the weapon of choice does not really make a difference, when the soldiers on the flank of the wider unit will just walk up to the enemy to attack them.
      if your going to take a more realistic view then you may consider that a horde unit which is gaining more from 'surrounding the flanks' is then opening up their own flank to an enemy.

      I don't think realism is going to help in this discussion. After all, it's a game with rules designed to balance.

      Therefore there must be good pros and cons to both hording and not. I agree that at the moment bus formation is better sure to bonus on combat resolution.

      So suggestion...

      No more bonus to combat resolution for ranks.

      Horde only available for certain armies and units.

      Horde rule: when the front rank has 3 or more models in it than any opponent unit is the front then all models in the front rank and supporting models may do so. If charged by an additional unit in the front then the charging unit counts as having charged a flank in the combat resolution for that round only.

      Therefore there is a bonus and penalty.
    • New

      Twisted Magpie wrote:

      I don't think realism is going to help in this discussion. After all, it's a game with rules designed to balance.
      I don't aim for realism. I aim for the "Horde Rule" to be a good model for something that is happening on the battlefield. In reality after all all models act at the same time not take turns. For my taste the rule I proposed is a good model and approximation for two units with different width in formation clashing with one another.

      I would support a change to the rules: The player with the wider formation may choose between: "Stay in formation" and "Encircle the Enemy". A unit encircling the enemy treats every charge happening against it as a rear/flank charge.

      It is simple enough for me, but for my taste it could be left out and I would still like the rule. You could also define certain unit to not have the option to "Stay in Formation" because they are not disciplined enough.

      Twisted Magpie wrote:

      Horde only available for certain armies and units.
      This one however makes absolutely no sense at all. We are not talking about something complex. We are talking about the most simplest action here available to a soldier: "go there and hit something". While the rule is still only a model, the model is very unintuitive. Why is unit X able to "go ahead and hit something" and another unit Y is not, when staying in formation is the much more complex action?
      My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/

      #freekillerinstinct
    • New

      DarkSky wrote:

      Twisted Magpie wrote:

      Horde only available for certain armies and units.
      This one however makes absolutely no sense at all. We are not talking about something complex. We are talking about the most simplest action here available to a soldier: "go there and hit something". While the rule is still only a model, the model is very unintuitive. Why is unit X able to "go ahead and hit something" and another unit Y is not, when staying in formation is the much more complex action?
      i suggested this because it would be a nice special rule for some armies to have more combat advantage.

      After all a disciplined army would not open up their flanks in a circling action if there was the risk of being counter charged themselves. It would make no sense for them to leave themselves open to it.

      The sense of horde should be the idea of models cramming in so that there are far more of them his the enemy than they get hit back. Which is why the current rules add additional ranks. There are only certain armies which fit that kind of feel.

      I'll tell you why I suggest this... when I first began playing just played a high elf player with Skaven. He always had the upper hand, when I started hording I gained a better combat phase and the battle balanced a lot more. However he in return just horded his spearman and I last the advantage without any way to get it back.

      Therfore it makes sense in the way of giving armies a unique style that this rule would be beneficial to some armies and not others.

      Goblins for example, or zombies.
    • New

      @Twisted Magpie I understand your reasoning for the cramming. However for me these are two different things.

      One is fighting hordish style: Everybody just tries to reach the enemy and hit them. Feels very right for Vermin or Zombies.
      Two is what I thought we were talking about here: A wider formation fighting a narrower formation and the outer models not just standing there doing nothing, while the other ones fight.

      Honestly I think "One" would be better implemented if it was a separate thing: Hordish units have this rule: They get to have more attacks (maybe even all models), but they lose rank bonus or something (after all, they are not in any formation anymore). So benefit: More attacks. Drawback: They are unordered, so it needs to be balanced.

      Personally I would not like to mix these two things into one rule, as fundamentally these are two different things.
      My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/

      #freekillerinstinct
    • New

      DarkSky wrote:

      @Twisted Magpie I understand your reasoning for the cramming. However for me these are two different things.

      One is fighting hordish style: Everybody just tries to reach the enemy and hit them. Feels very right for Vermin or Zombies.
      Two is what I thought we were talking about here: A wider formation fighting a narrower formation and the outer models not just standing there doing nothing, while the other ones fight.

      Honestly I think "One" would be better implemented if it was a separate thing: Hordish units have this rule: They get to have more attacks (maybe even all models), but they lose rank bonus or something (after all, they are not in any formation anymore). So benefit: More attacks. Drawback: They are unordered, so it needs to be balanced.

      Personally I would not like to mix these two things into one rule, as fundamentally these are two different things.
      I totally agree, both are important.

      I also agree that they should not be in 1 rule.

      Perhaps 'horde' should be the named rule for those armies who can use extra ranks in this manor. (I'd love to see it as all ranks... reduce offensive weapon skill to 2 to balance).

      Any rules for additional front rank attacks should just be in the attacks rule section.

      'Units with a larger front facing get to fight with additional files on the edge equal to the amount that could for into Base to Base contact along the flank. When charged in the front when in combat the charging unit counts as having received a flank attack for the first round of combat only.'

      With this ruling there is a natural penalty for running large front faces that can't be negated. It also means that if the only extra files you have are on one side of the unit (perhaps because of terrain or another unit) then you don't just get all your front ranks attacks.