DanT wrote:

What a difference a shape makes:
Tips on choosing formations in the ninth age fantasy battles
Do things always end badly when you square up to your opponent? Are your troops out of shape? Maybe picking different formations could help...

In this article, I will give some hints, tips and thinking points for choosing formations during your games. The tips will range from basic to more advanced and will be generally applicable for most armies. Note that this article is written from a gaming perspective; if your goal is units that look nice, and battlefield efficacy is not important, then I'm afraid this article will not contain much for you. But all power to you anyway! Also note that by "formations" I mean the choice of width and depth of a single unit, not the formation that an army is deployed in.

Basics
Let us start at the very beginning. What are the things that are affected by a unit's formation?

• Which models can fight (i.e. who will be in base contact), both for this unit and the units it fights against
  
• Steadfast and breaking steadfast
  
• Number of models that can shoot
  
• What gaps the unit fits through and how it interacts with terrain
  
• Line formation (8 wide): the unit gains extra FIER, and maybe extra SIER, but gets no combat resolution for ranks
  
• How many hits area attacks get on the unit
  

Key principle: combat maths
From this list of effects that formations have, the most important one is the "which models can fight" effect. The simplest way to start thinking about possible formations is to consider the maths of a specific pair of units fighting each other.

For example, pick an enemy combat unit from the last game you played (it needn't be the strongest or biggest). Now pick one of your units, deploy it at minimal width (normally 5 for standard and 3 for large) and calculate the damage that each side does. To start with, simply go with whatever formation the enemy unit was in (or mostly in) during your last game.

Now that you have done this, change your unit to line formation, and repeat the calculation. What changes? If the combat was good for you before, has it got better or worse? Does it change who can be steadfast?

Once you've got the hang of such calculations, you can think about generalising the exercise further by considering different formations for the enemy unit, and by considering entirely different pairs of units. Note that the point of this exercise is not to necessarily learn about which fights you win, but just to see how the choice of formation can influence fights. Things to think about or notice when doing such calculations include: is the width enough that every model from both sides can fight? Does it matter who charges? Who is capable (if anyone) of being steadfast at the end of the first round? Is someone likely to break in the first round? If not, how does the second round look?

See BOX 1 for a specific example of how a change of formation can change who wins a grind between two units.

BOX 1: Combat Example

Combat Example
Let us take 14 HBE swordmasters (7x2) and 40 EoS halberds (5x8). We will assume that steadfast units pass their break test, and that each unit gets the expected number of kills each round (we can of course remove these assumptions, but it makes the analysis more complicated and such is not the point of this article). See figure 1 for a representation of these fights.

All seven of the sword masters in the front row can fight (five lined up exactly vs five, and then the two corners can fight too) means 21 attacks, hitting on 2+, wounding on 2+, no saves. So 14.58 dead halberdiers. Lets call it 15.
Then ten halberdiers fight back on 4+/3+, and the swordmasters get a 6+ save. This gives 2.78 casualties; lets call it 3 dead sword masters.
The swordmasters win, and the halberdiers are steadfast.
Next round, another 13 halberdiers die and another 3 swordmasters die too. The halberds are steadfast again, then they basically all die in the third round. If they are lucky they kill one more sword master before dying. So the whole unit has traded for 6-7 swordmasters, and taken them out of the game for a few turns.

Now put the halberdiers 9 wide. Crucially note that all 9 halberdier files can fight against 7 swordmasters.
Again, in the first round the swordmasters kill 15 halberdiers, then the halberdiers kill 6.94 swordmasters; we'll call this 7. The halberdiers are steadfast, and it doesn't matter that they no longer have any combat res for ranks.
Next round, the swordmasters fight and kill 9.72 halberdiers (call it 10). The remaining 15 halberdiers kill 4.17 swordmasters (call it 4), meaning the halberdiers are steadfast again. At this point the halberds want to change to 5x3, because there are only 3 swordmasters left.
In the third round the swordmasters kill 4.17 and the halberds kill 2.78 and will have a rank: they might even draw combat! Either way, the last swordmaster or two will likely die in the fourth round.

Now, let us recap: the same two units fought in both cases. But who won was changed by changing the formation that one of the units was in!
This is the most basic point I want to get across in this article: choosing the right formation can mean the difference between victory and defeat.

Of course, I specifically chose an example where a formation change did make a difference. Nonetheless, if you pay attention to your games (either during or afterwards), you will see occasions where the basic matchup between two units could have been changed if either player had been in a different formation when the charge happened.

Choosing formations
Once you've looked at some example fights and how formations affect them, you will need to make some choices for your units, and have some possible formations in mind when you write your army list. Here are a few considerations when choosing units and their formations, and see BOX 2 for some rules of thumb to guide you if in doubt.

Players should consider what role they want the unit to have. Is the unit damage focussed? If so, wider is likely to be better. Is the unit focussed on having combat resolution from ranks, or having/breaking steadfast, or delivering characters? Then perhaps it wants to be minimal width in order to get maximum ranks. In general, units that are more damage focussed (particularly if they are standard sized with more than 1 attack) want to go wider. Equally, all other things equal, units in aggressive (wide) formations are likely to get the most from offensive buffs/hexes, and narrower units are likely to get the most from defensive buffs/hexes.

What size does the unit need to be to do its job efficiently? How many ranks can the unit shoot or fight in (this is two for most units), and therefore how many models can ideally shoot/fight? With bigger units, generally don't obsess too much over an exact number of models, this is often a red herring and it doesn't matter too much. Having redundant bodies is great, but not if it costs you something elsewhere.

Model size affects the minimum number of models required for a full rank. Generally, all references to units that are 5 wide apply to large sized units that are 3 wide.

Musicians make it much easier to change formation during the battle, so units that might want to change formation often will benefit from these.

Line formation (8 wide) is the threshold at which combat res is lost and FIER is gained. This means that 8,7 and 5 are normally the most common unit sizes to think about: as narrow as possible whilst getting ranks, as wide as possible whilst maintaining combat res, and then the minimum size to get FIER.

Six wide is a bit of a special case that is generally less common, and is typically seen for units with a medium number of models and a single decent attack per model, but where maintaining ranks might be important. For example, a unit of 12 cavalry, or 24 elite dwarfs, might want to be six wide.

BOX 2: Rules of thumb

If in doubt:

• Put small shooting units into 2 ranks, but as narrow as possible, i.e. such that every model can shoot.
  
• Big shooting units should mostly do the same as long as they are safe to do so (i.e. not about to get charged and broken).
  
• Put offensive focussed combat units 7 or 8 wide if standard sized (typically 8 wide for smaller more elite units, and 7 wide for big units that will benefit more from the combat resolution from ranks).
  
• Put defensive focussed combat units (those with weak attacks and/or a focus on static combat resolution rather than kills) 5 wide (or 3 wide if large).
  
• Offensive units of large sized models should typically be deployed in no more than two ranks. So 3-6 models should be deployed 3 wide, 7-8 models deployed 4 wide. However, if the model has more than 3 attacks, and/or impact hits/stomps/harnessed model parts are an important part of the damage output, consider going 4 or 5 wide instead. For example, in the currently popular UD lists, units of 4 winged reapers are often deployed 4 wide, and units of 5 cataphracts are typically deployed 5 wide.
  
• Large spear units often want to go 7 wide, to get maximum attacks and rank bonus. Small spear units probably want to go as narrow as possible, whilst allowing every (or nearly every) model to attack.
  

Complications
The combat maths and considerations above provide the basics behind choosing unit formations. Let us now consider some complications and additional things to think about.

1. Physical size of the units
The formation that a unit is in determines the physical extent of the unit on the tabletop. As a result, there are some additional considerations to take into account. The obvious one is whether a unit can fit through certain gaps on the table, whether between units, terrain, or both. Perhaps a unit needs to change formation this turn in order to charge through a particular gap next turn? In addition, some effects trigger based on the number of models whose centre is in a particular terrain piece, e.g. a hill. Perhaps a different formation lets you gain the hill bonus? Or prevents you from gaining it?

The frontage of units can also become important in situations regarding multiple charges: if your unit is super wide, it is easier for the opponent to throw lots of units into it and have them all fight. Conversely, if your unit is narrower, not only can the enemy not combo charge against it so well, but it also allows you to combine more of your own units into a single enemy unit.

One final note about the physical extent of wider units: such units may find it harder to align on a busy battlefield, and it is also more likely that a unit will end up in their zone of advance and thus preventing them from charging or marching.

2. Characters
Characters interact with unit formations in several ways, relating to which models can attack opposing characters. Of course, it is not always the right choice to attack opposing characters, but assuming you want to do so there are two things to consider.

Firstly, does going deeper allow extra attacks against specific models? This is normally a consideration for units with small numbers of models, for example units of 5-6 standard cavalry going 2-3 wide in order to focus their attacks on a specific character, or things like units of 4 chosen knights who might choose to go 3+1 rather than 4 wide, in order to direct support attacks onto a specific character.

The other thing to consider is whether the relative widths of the two units potentially reduce the number of models that can attack the character. For example consider, two units with the same base size, both 5 wide. If the opponent charges and has a character they want to protect on the corner, then they can align offset so that only one model in the front rank can attack the character. If you were 7 wide, the opponent must line up in such a way that three of your front rank can attack their character. Equally, if you are 5 wide and your opponent puts their unit 8 wide with the character on a corner, then they can charge in such a way that you cannot attack the character, and can only fight it by subsequently increasing the width of your unit (assuming you hold the charge).

This latter is a tactic you can adopt yourself as a way to help keep your characters safe. In some situations, with narrower formations, it is possible to ensure your characters can fight (or not fight) the enemy characters too. See figures 2 and 3 for some examples of how formations can interact with characters.





Figure 2: How formation width can keep your characters safe. Here, the red unit is charging, allowing the player to align as illustrated and thus keep their character safe. Not only this, but the blue unit cannot combat reform so that any of the models can attack the character. If the red unit was any narrower, there would be no way to keep the character safe.








Figure 3: How formation width can control characters. The red unit charges the blue unit. In scenario 1, the blue unit is 5 wide, allowing the red player to line up as shown, and then later make way with their character to anywhere in the front rank. In scenario 2, the character in the red unit has no choice of where he goes, and thus can only attack rank and file.


3. Extra reasons to go wider
If a unit has a lot of impact hits or stomps, or the harnessed models contribute a significant amount of damage, then the unit is likely to want to go wider, due to these things all requiring base contact. Also note that units with Stubborn/bodyguard/unbreakable typically don't require steadfast, so it is much less of a risk to run these unit wider.

Another good reason to go wider is when playing against area attacks, such as catapults. Deploying your key units wide enough denies your opponent the chance to land that "knockout shot" that could win them the game early on. Careful judgement must be used to not leave your units vulnerable to a charge though, perhaps just staying wide for the first turn, or until your support troops have killed the catapults/other area attack threats.

4. Extra reasons to go narrower
Small units with multiple attacks can be more resistant to flank charges due to a change of formation. For example, 4 chosen knights deployed 3+1. When this unit fights to the front, it has lost two strength five attacks and a stomp. However, if flanked, it gets an additional full models worth of attacks, making a big difference to which units can threaten to beat or pin this unit with a flank charge.

If the unit is low agility or expected to fight last, consider what casualties the unit might expect to take before it fights. There is no point carefully choosing a formation to allow every model to attack, if it is expected that the unit will often take casualties before it attacks.

Particularly for smaller units, who are unlikely to be steadfast or break steadfast anyway, consider whether you need to be full rank width wide, or whether it is advantageous to be narrower to fit through smaller gaps.

Also, even a unit that is generally better in line formation doesn't always want to be in line formation. The removal of combat res can allow some semi-resilient single models to hold up your unit unexpectedly: consider the halberd unit from the earlier example charging an orc boar chariot. Even in line formation, the halberds don't expect to do more wounds to the chariot than it does to them, and the +3 combat res for ranks is likely to make a big difference to whether the boar chariot breaks (potentially allowing a tasty overrun), or whether it holds for an extra combat round or two.

5. Special cases: Light Troops and war platforms
Light troops[/lexicon] are easy to change formation with, so it is often worth asking yourself what formation is optimal as you move them: perhaps a weirdly wide or narrow formation is useful. But don't get caught out by being in a funny formation and getting charged, or blocking your own units, or easily bouncing off the table when they flee because they have a weird footprint.

War platforms take up lots of space in units, which is often a good way to ensure steadfast. Consider what kind of war platform it is, what job it has and the properties of the unit it is in. If it is good at fighting sideways, then consider going wider with your unit such that the war platform sticks out at the back and is therefore able to fight across the gap if the unit is flanked. Also consider how the width of the unit can control charging enemies, particularly single models. For example, consider a vermin swarm pendulum in a unit of plague brotherhood deployed 6 wide (with the pendulum taking up 3 of these): any single model with frontage less than 60mm MUST line on the side of the pendulum with two brotherhood models. This can be used to keep a character safe, set up easier counter charges and other shenanigans.

6. Advanced plays
(A) The delay. Sometimes it can be advantageous to choose a formation that explicitly won't stop the opposing unit from being steadfast, such as if you want to break them in their turn rather than when you charge them. This might require a clever choice of initial formation and then a reform, but make sure you don't get caught out by an opposing counter-charge, and you still need to not lose the combat the turn you charge!

(B) The dart. Super narrow units can serve several purposes: it minimises attacks on them (perhaps they are stubborn or unbreakable, or just good enough to only lose by a few)-including stubborn, unbreakable, undead, roadblocks, damnation forsworn, but also allows them to maximise attacks on specific characters/models (e.g to assassinate wizard). It also allows good/easy wheels, making the units surprisingly laterally mobile.

(C) The omnipresent. Very long or narrow formations can allow units to be in range of two key battlefield points at once. This could be for example, being within general range whilst claiming an objective, or claiming an objective whilst getting a wizard into spell range of a specific target.

(D) The sweep. The idea behind this tactic is to deploy a unit very wide in order to prevent enemy units from getting around your battle line. This can be particularly useful if your opponent has done say a refused flank, but has some chaff/shooting/light units on their refused flank. A single unit of yours, deployed wide, can take up enough table space to protect your whole flank against those light units (literally sweeping them up whilst only requiring one unit to be diverted from the main advance into your opponent's army. This is particularly useful against avoidance lists. See figure 4 for an example deployment.







Figure 4: An approximate deployment illustrating "the sweep". Here, the blue cavalry unit has been deployed in a long line. This allows it to protect a wide area on the flank of the main battleline and sweep up the harassing units placed on this flank. As a result, the main battleline has been able to deploy closer to the centre of the table, without risk of the harassing units getting behind it.

Summary: Key mindset changes to take away

• Analyse formations after your games. Run through specific fights that occurred (or could have occurred). Where would a change in formation (by either player) have made a difference to the outcome of a fight?
  
• Don't do things by default or on autopilot. Pay attention to formations and keep asking yourself questions: should I change my formation, what is the gain, what are the potential problems, where should my characters go...
  
• Make lots of spare movement trays for different formations and bring them to your games