Multiple infantry blocks

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

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!

  • New

    I reiterate that anyone who wants the game to move in this direction, should comment appropriately on the ID book.

    There is no need to address this with core rules, it can be done book by book.
    In fact, it is probably simpler and easier (and certainly faster) to do so.
    Moreover, the core rules aren't going to be adjusted for some time. But the LABs are influence-able right now.

    But it can only happen if the feedback is clear, and is received by the project.
    Shouting in the wind in this thread is fine, but concrete actionable feedback on an in-beta LAB is something entirely different :)
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • New

    DanT wrote:

    I reiterate that anyone who wants the game to move in this direction, should comment appropriately on the ID book.

    There is no need to address this with core rules, it can be done book by book.
    In fact, it is probably simpler and easier (and certainly faster) to do so.
    Moreover, the core rules aren't going to be adjusted for some time. But the LABs are influence-able right now.

    But it can only happen if the feedback is clear, and is received by the project.
    Shouting in the wind in this thread is fine, but concrete actionable feedback on an in-beta LAB is something entirely different :)
    Man, I'm a slow person. Until I get the time to have played against ID often enough and studied their book in depth it will be long past the beta stage. I know I entered T9A because I want to play a RnF game, nothing of that fancy modern skirmishing stuff, thank you. But articulating that concern within the context of the ID book is far beyond me.
  • New

    I think you are missing my point.

    I'm not saying DONT discuss here.

    I am saying that the best and most concrete way to move the project in the direction you guys want is to engage with each LAB (or LAB guideline) as it arrives vis-a-vis these issues.

    The project has frozen the core rules. Agitating about the core rules and expecting change in the short-medium term is unreasonable.
    But the same global direction changes can be achieved by engaging with the LABs, through the processes that the project has explicitly put in place to absorb and use community feedback.
    By not using those processes, one is shooting one's own agenda in the foot.

    Feel free to not do so of course, but if you guys really wanted to work with the project to achieve these goals, I think that is by far the best, most concrete and most likely to yield results way of doing it.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • New

    I agree with @DanT. It cannot hurt to post it in the ID section. But I cannot say that I think the books goes into the wrong direction. If have no experience with ID and my impression was that there are some pretty solid R&F choices and strategies. But what I can and will do is to post that IF this criticism is correct, I agree that T9A should not go this way, because I share the general concern. That can be done by anyone without expertise on ID.
  • New

    DanT wrote:

    The project has frozen the core rules. Agitating about the core rules and expecting change in the short-medium term is unreasonable.
    I agree. For me this is more of a v3 discussion than anything else.
    We all know this won't change in the BRB.

    Additionally I don't agree with you, that this (fundamental issue) can be solved on a book by book basis.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    Community Engagement


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • New

    DarkSky wrote:

    Additionally I don't agree with you, that this (fundamental issue) can be solved on a book by book basis.
    As a trivial example, increase eliteness of all infantry, decrease eliteness of all single models, and put extra caps on all single models.

    I'm not saying this is a good solution, but it seems trivial to me that this issue can in principle be solved in the LABs.

    I mean consider legacy, the core rules (6th-8th) were far less flawed than the army books. The late 7th ed books that were considered to have been an abomination could have been made very differently, and then maybe people would view "7th ed" as an entity much more kindly...

    But I have said my bit, I will leave you all to it :)
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • New

    I'm not sure this can be "solved" by the army books, at least not without horrific special rules bloat, but the scale of the issue can be reduced, and perhaps more importantly, we can potentially ensure that new books don't make the problem worse.

    I'd certainly encourage everyone to take @DanTs advice and leave feedback relating to this in the appropriate ID feedback thread. I certainly will be doing so once I've had time to really look at it properly.
  • New

    I think DanT is correct this can be solved by individual books. And the ID book actually goes there.

    Buffed infantry units.
    Anti single model anti large rockets.
    Limited mobility monsters and even gunnery teams.

    These have received quite critical reviews. But these further the infantry part of the game IMO.

    On the VC examples, I'm not a VC expert so I'm asking, but is that army the best example when it lacks Marching? Undead have issues with non march infantry so I wouldnt expect either faction to invest heavily in the slowest unit type.
    "Realistically (unless you're DanT or some other genius) you need characters.." -Sir_Sully

    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
  • New

    Firthunands91 wrote:

    Yeah no one charges a solo cowboy in most situations, they charge a cowboy to soak damage together with hard hitters clipping the corners of infantry to avoid getting hit back. And of course, raising models is a general way of soaking damage, but being able to raise a champion every player turn to negate 4-5 wounds from a cowboy can be quite game changing.

    I'll copy some winning VC list from my meta again, and move away from the thread, but please, show me those lists with standard infantry combat blocks doing stuff other than being a support scoring piece. Otherwise it seems like only one party is backing up their point where the other shows no evidence of their claims.

    1st. Winner of LBM, from Spain.

    875 - Vampire Count, General, The dead Arise, 4 Spells, Skeletal Steed, Shield, Heavy Armour, Great Weapon, Eternity Gem, Death Cheater, Wizard Master, Occultism
    465 - Necromancer, 4 Spells, binding scroll, binding scroll, Wizard Master, Evocation
    360 - Barrow King, BsB, Skeletal Steed, Dusk Forged, Alchemist´s Alloy
    125 - 2x 20 Zombies
    145 - 2x 20 Zombies, M
    116 - 2x8 Dire wolves
    128 - 9 Dire wolves
    460 - 2x1 Dark Coach 490 -
    2x1 Shrieking Horror
    4500


    2nd. Winner of Ccon, from Italy

    950 - Vampire Count, General, The Dead Arise, Skeletal Steed, Arcane Knowledge, Great Weapon, Heavy Armour, Shield, Eternity Gem, Death Cheater, Wizard Master, Occultism
    800 - Vampire Count, Spectral Steed, Heavy Armour, Shield, Lance, Adept, Evocation, Blessed Inscriptions, Legend of the Black King, Dragonfire Gem, Monster Hunter
    125 - 20x Zombies
    125 - 20x Zombies
    390 - 34x Skeletons, M, S, C, Banner of Relentless Company
    136 - 8x Dire Wolves, C
    136 - 8x Dire Wolves, C
    450 - 1x Dark Coach
    450 - 1x Dark Coach
    490 - 1x Shrieking Horror
    420 - 9x Barrow Knights, S, C, Banner of Speed
    4497

    3rd. Highest Scoring VC on top 5 team of Gal Maraz, Spain

    Vampire Covenant
    920 - Vampire Count, General (The Dead Arise), Independant (Monster Hunter), Skeletal Steed, Wizard Master, Occultism, Shield, Heavy Armour (Death Cheater), Great Weapon, Eternity Gem
    410 - Necromancer, Wizard Master, Evocation, Binding Scroll
    155 - Banshee
    155 - Banshee
    155 - Banshee
    310 - 28 Skeletons, Standard Bearer (Banner of the Relentless Company), Champion
    230 - 15 Ghouls, Champion
    130 - 21 Zombies
    116 - 8 Dire Wolves
    116 - 8 Dire Wolves
    460 - Dark Coach
    460 - Dark Coach
    160 - 3 Ghasts
    378 - 4 Vampire Knights, Musician, Champion
    345 - Varkolak

    I'm not sure what you mean by corner clip here. Clearly, if you charge a cowboy and one other unit into a combat, you have to maximise and thus can't "corner clip" with the other unit. Plus, for raising champions to negate an average of 4-5 wounds every player turn requires the cowboy to be doing 9-13 wounds every round of combat as you can only raise the champ every other player turn and, even in the challenge, you still get to kill the champ. Assuming the cowboy kills about 4 models every combat round you negate a highly intimidating 1.5 wounds, on average, per player turn, using the champ raising trick.

    On to the lists. First of all, none of these have wraiths, which are apparently one of the reasons VC were so good. Although I don't think wraiths are unusable, but they're not screaming deals for their point costs and kinda require loading up on magical moves. It's also interesting that the first list you posted doesn't even have a unit with a champion. As well, two of the three lists have a unit of 30ish skeletons with command and a magical standard. This doesn't scream "min-sized unit only used for scoring". The banners are, albeit, the relentless company, but if the players truly did not expect these units to see combat, and only took them to score, I see absolutely no reason to take the 8-14 extra skeletons.

    I will admit these lists are quite similar. For a different approach look at the list @eggsPR took (I think it was the last North American Masters but could be wrong) with a large unit of ghouls, a large unit of barrow guard, and two on foot vampires. I can't remember if he won, but know he finished well.
  • New

    Vamp87 wrote:

    For a different approach look at the list @eggsPR took (I think it was the last North American Masters but could be wrong) with a large unit of ghouls, a large unit of barrow guard, and two on foot vampires. I can't remember if he won, but know he finished well.
    Yes he did but that was more of an exception rather than a trend. And in either case the ghouls and barrowguard are there for protection for the vampire and points denial, more than any relevant combat threat.

    Most lists look far more similar to the above.
    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.
  • New

    duxbuse wrote:

    Vamp87 wrote:

    For a different approach look at the list @eggsPR took (I think it was the last North American Masters but could be wrong) with a large unit of ghouls, a large unit of barrow guard, and two on foot vampires. I can't remember if he won, but know he finished well.
    Yes he did but that was more of an exception rather than a trend. And in either case the ghouls and barrowguard are there for protection for the vampire and points denial, more than any relevant combat threat.
    Most lists look far more similar to the above.
    If you think he took two vampire lords worth close to 1800pts and close to 2000pts of infantry all for point denial (not to actually kill stuff) and then got a bunch of 20-0's I honestly don't know what to say.

    Yes, it was not a trend. My point was not that unusual VC lists are a trend, in fact they're definitionly not a trend by virtue of being unusual, but that one can be competitive with a variety of VC lists which requires no demonstration of trends..
  • New

    Vamp87 wrote:

    If you think he took two vampire lords worth close to 1800pts and close to 2000pts of infantry all for point denial (not to actually kill stuff) and then got a bunch of 20-0's I honestly don't know what to say.
    well I'd love to hear if the infantry came even close to the number of wounds that the vampires did. Obviously having ranks and standards is something characters can't do. But pretty sure all the offense is the characters.

    This has nothing to do with wether it's good or bad in terms of getting points off the enemy. But mearly indicative that infantry arnt doing the heavy lifting. The are not the "core" of the army. They are support units.

    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.

    But the advantage of being in a flank. (Charge, flank, big flank) can already offset the advance of 3xranks. And then you can take all the other flank bonuses. Enemy loses steadfast and loses supporting attacks, and it's clear to me that you should optimise your lists to engage your enemies flanks. But this isn't ranks and flanks the game it's become flanks the game.
    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.
  • New

    duxbuse wrote:

    Vamp87 wrote:

    If you think he took two vampire lords worth close to 1800pts and close to 2000pts of infantry all for point denial (not to actually kill stuff) and then got a bunch of 20-0's I honestly don't know what to say.
    well I'd love to hear if the infantry came even close to the number of wounds that the vampires did. Obviously having ranks and standards is something characters can't do. But pretty sure all the offense is the characters.
    This has nothing to do with wether it's good or bad in terms of getting points off the enemy. But mearly indicative that infantry arnt doing the heavy lifting. The are not the "core" of the army. They are support units.

    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.

    But the advantage of being in a flank. (Charge, flank, big flank) can already offset the advance of 3xranks. And then you can take all the other flank bonuses. Enemy loses steadfast and loses supporting attacks, and it's clear to me that you should optimise your lists to engage your enemies flanks. But this isn't ranks and flanks the game it's become flanks the game.
    Now, I could be wrong, but I believe the infantry units were both played in line formation and ghouls have no standard. As to what did more damage I'll let you do the math on this one: 24 S4 AP1 attacks with +1 to hit and lethal strike or 5 S6 AP3 attacks. Tough call on which will do more damage. I'm sure all the offence is in the 5 attacks and the 24 attacks were just a bonus that were only rolled for lols and even then only when time permitted it. Same thing with the ghouls 31 attacks with re-rolls to hit and poison.

    Honest question: if all the offence was in the characters, why not take sword and board skellies and call it a day? Why take units with better offensive stats and similar defensive capabilities?

    But you do now, at least, admit, that this was not all taken for point denial.

    It's interesting you should bring up that at least 50% of your points should be in ranks because, the list that is currently under discussion, has about 50% of its points in R&F. I also don't know if this should be the norm. Perhaps the norm should be something like 33% characters, 33% R&F, 33% support and flankers? Because this is a fantasy game, and powerful heroes are a thing, having 50% of every army come from R&F would leave very little in terms of flankers , monsters and support units which should obviously play some role.

    I'm not sure what your point is about flank charges. Of course you should try and get flank charges. I don't think anyone here was arguing about the importance of flank charges or that, even in infantry focused lists, you need faster units on the flank.
  • New

    Vamp87 wrote:

    But you do now, at least, admit, that this was not all taken for point denial.
    I was merely trying to say that points denial was one component, not the only reason to take them.

    Vamp87 wrote:

    Same thing with the ghouls 31 attacks with re-rolls to hit and poison.
    And how many of these do you get when you are charged by a cowboy, or a single monster or a chariot. How many do you get if you are hit in the flank. Looking at theoretical max attacks obviously make the infantry seem good. But in my experience that rarely happens and means your already winning.

    More likely only 4, 20mm models are in base contact, so I expect the vampire to do at least comparable damage. Perhaps more against armoured targets, perhaps less against soft targets.


    Vamp87 wrote:

    I'm not sure what your point is about flank charges. Of course you should try and get flank charges. I don't think anyone here was arguing about the importance of flank charges or that, even in infantry focused lists, you need faster units on the flank.
    My point was that in its current state the game incentivises maximising points expenditure in units that are able to set up flank charges over points spent on having ranks. For me I would like this tuned to be closer to 50/50. I would currently estimate it to be 80/20.



    Vamp87 wrote:

    It's interesting you should bring up that at least 50% of your points should be in ranks because, the list that is currently under discussion, has about 50% of its points in R&F. I also don't know if this should be the norm. Perhaps the norm should be something like 33% characters, 33% R&F, 33% support and flankers? Because this is a fantasy game, and powerful heroes are a thing, having 50% of every army come from R&F would leave very little in terms of flankers , monsters and support units which should obviously play some role.
    For me non-solo characters make up ranks so that's fine. Almost all support characters wizards/prelates/cult priests etc. I have no issue with.

    But solo characters that run around on large/gigantic mounts are points spent on flanking units. I also like having powerful characters Im not saying they go away. But they should come from the flanking allowance. If you have a dude on a dragon (~1000 points) you shouldn't expect to have another 2000+ points of adv7+ units. In my vision you should only have about another 1250 points of fast movers.
    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.
  • New

    I don't think forcing restrictions on the number of fast units is a solution. Ensuring that those faster units have drawbacks is a much better solution.

    For example, light troops have some very obvious drawbacks, most notably that they can't negate steadfast. Combined with the tendency for light troops to be relatively fragile, there is no problem. They can't negate steadfast to break you on the charge, and they tend to lose the grind badly.

    Heavy cavalry don't have those drawbacks, but they don't have the advantages of light troops, and their footprint makes maneuvering tricky for large units (units small enough to escape this don't break steadfast, and while they are more durable, they still tend to lose the grind quite badly).

    It is primarily single models which don't conform. They have the mobility of light troops, but they aren't usually anywhere near as fragile, and often have significant grinding capabilities
  • New

    CariadocThorne wrote:

    It is primarily single models which don't conform. They have the mobility of light troops, but they aren't usually anywhere near as fragile, and often have significant grinding capabilities
    And monster ranks
    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.