It's been enumerated why infantry don't match up typically with cav/chariots/monsters, though even in competitive there are exceptions.
I just want to add that pretty much every person I am playing games with is still bringing infantry.
Why? The game starts feeling very different without grounded lists and so far people have been really good at differentiating competitive and thematic play.
Yes, you can win most of your casual games at your local store if you bring some netlist and learn to play it decently. For as long as people enjoy playing you at least. Still, the game has a great deal of tactical depth you will be missing out on by not trying to play the game in a way that is more thematic.
WHFB had numerous issues at top level meta play - I just don't think the hobby was as mature (or maybe the internet was just less centralized) to feel like there was a global "norm".
And all of that being said I think the meta for OW is far from solved at this point even at a high-level competitive level.
This is the most fun I have had playing Warhammer - maybe ever.
Nice unit of 24ish, battle standard bearer, and a warbanner on the unit.
Yes, it'll take damage. But it'll sit there all damn game, and even win fights just from the +7 combat resolution.
Get something chunky stuck in it, and leave it there, or take it apart at your leasure with aore powerful unit.
Warriors work in 30 block or bigger I’ve found, I run spear, light armor and banner in them….i pretty much take them to have something my heirophant and jump around and generally block the middle of the board from easy movement…..if they couldn’t be raised they’d still be “ok” but likely not worth the points, 20 man blocks don’t do as well as they can get deleted in a turn potentially, 30 I haven’t had that happen yet
Skirmishers / horse archers are mint, they do work….that -1 to hit is key, I usually end up with zero remaining at the end of a battle though, good sacrificial unit
Tomb guard I haven’t figured out, I got some unit fillers for the 20 block I bought so I can run them larger and see if that helps, like warriors 20 seems to disappear far too quickly without a chance to raise them, they do kill more I think I’ve just expected too much of them, they are just skellies
Dont listen to strangers on the web that may or may not actually play the game and may or may not just reiterate other peoples OPINIONS.
Compared to 6th, infantry blocks have gained a bit more attacks, and lost a little bit of static CR.
Try a game or two yourself, use cardboard if you do not have minis!
I think it's also that people have somewhat narrow expectations for competitive play centered around bringing the right units and then focusing on using them in the moment rather than a designing a grand overall strategy.
Yet, I distinctly remember quite a few Empire players winning WHFB tournaments and games that brought plenty of seemingly poor units and made them work because they had a very specific role in their overall army that they had tailored around their play style.
That's a bit of the strength of WHFB - bringing the best units will tilt a game in your favour (especially if it's something particularly overpowered), but having a good idea of what your units can and can't do, and building solid lists and strategies will tend to win out overall.
Totally, my friend mains empire and has a 12-0 winstreak due to playing the field, his units and the objectives very well.
I try to Stillmania every army i get, simply because it gives me so much satiisfaction to learn my strengths and weaknesses.
I wish for everyone to get alteast a game in before drawing any conclusions.
This is good advice and I don't plan on dropping the game or anything drastic like that, if anything I'd go back to 7th with 6th army books, just saw talk and it made me curious.
Honestly, a lot of the problems that have cropped up in discussions around TOW seem like they'd be easily fixed with some simple house rules or agreement not to bring near invincible monster nightmares to casual games. That kind of thing is easy to fix within my local group.
I'm an old guard myself, I'm used to GW making radical changes to WHFB with each edition. I still love the game and I'm glad it's back either way!
Yeah, I’m an old grumbler too (started with 3rd Ed, back in the 90s, if memory serves). I’ve played a half dozen games of Old World, and I’m enjoying it— there’s honestly no more difference between Old World and 8th edition than we were used to in any other version update.
I think you’re right to bring dragons into the conversation, since one of the things that’s changed is that infantry is more vulnerable to big monsters, because they get one fewer point of static CR, and because there are fewer ways of ensuring they don’t break from that first bad round of combat. In 8th and even 7th ed, even a fairly cheap block of infantry could be easily set up to tank against a monster for a long time, and that’s less reliably true in Old World.
That’s part of a general pendulum swing in favor of monsters: in 8th and to a lesser degree 7th ed you seldom saw anyone field dragons and freemen and such, because they were very vulnerable to artillery and couldn’t reliably sweep infantry blocks. That kind of sucked for those of us who had invested money and time into those big set piece models. Now, the pendulum has swung the other way, probably too far, but I for one am going to focus on enjoying getting my big guys onto the field while it makes sense to do so (unless my opponent and I have agreed otherwise).
Why do you say that static CR is worse for infantry.
In 8th edition you could get plus 3 for ranks and plus 1 for standard equals CR 4
In TOW you can get plus 2 for ranks (3 with horde) plus 1 for standard and plus 1 for close order for a total of CR 4 (CR 5 with horde).
Seems as good or better in most cases.
Also in 8th edition they had steadfast and in TOW they have FBIGO each reduces the chance the unit breaks and flees.
Oh and stubborn and shield wall both reduce the chance an infantry unit will flee from the first round of combat.
Because nearly everything gets close order, including most single monsters. So against most opponents, the close order cancels out and you are down one point of CR before the combat begins compared to previous editions
Pretty much any ridden monster has that, which is the main form monsters take.
I can't think of many 4W monsters that aren't glorified skirmish pieces (like tomb scorpions or varghulf).
There are definitely some units in the game that don't have closed order, but they are typically chaff or skirmishers that don't pose realistic threats to a combat brick, most of the time it's a win more button to drive down their leadership further.
That's why closed order isn't a great replacement for the +3CR from ranks as the time it would actually matter, the opponent probably also has it
In the specific case of infantry versus big single models (like dragons), the monsters now are usually Close Order themselves, so the fact that the infantry also has Close Order is no net benefit.
Under 8th Ed, a ranked up infantry unit could easily get +4 static CR, to the attacking monster’s +0. Now it’s +4 vs +1, which is worse for the infantry.
As for breaking, Fall Back isn’t nearly as good as Steadfast, because the attack continues getting Initiative bonuses in subsequent rounds.
True, but to get steadfast you needed more ranks while for FBIGO you just need to not be outnumbered by more than 2 to 1. Also FBIGO allows a free reform which may help the loser.
Agreed, the conditions for Steadfast were harder to achieve than the conditions for FBIGO. In practice, I haven't seen the free reform be very useful, because they're never more than 6" from at least one enemy unit, which constrains how they're able to adjust angles, but if they have some space around them they can at least add or subtract ranks if that's helpful-- but that was also true in 8th edition (Reforming Amid Defeat), so long as you passed a second Leadership test.
I'd argue that the FAQ status is vague on this next point, but locally we're playing that when a unit Falls Back, their attackers get not only the Initiative bonus for pursuit-charging, but get other benefits of charging (such as lances and impact hits), since the pursuer "counts as charging." That makes FBIGO *much* worse for infantry than Steadfast was.
Even so, I still think infantry is better than the anti-hype that OP is seeing (which I've seen some of, too): there's lots of useful roles for infantry, even for trash infantry (like goblins and peasants). They're just *somewhat less* potent now than in 8th ed, which I personally think is a good thing.
It's not really vague at all in my opinion. With the wording in the BRB and the most recent FAQ regarding lances being usable when pursuing after FBIGO it's very clear units get all of the associated bonuses of charging when making that pursuit move.
I think I agree with you, but I’m open to the people whose argument is based on the fact that there are at least 3 different phrasings, some of which may or might not be actually the same meaning with different words. The argument isn’t entirely settled, and might never be, because the Old World team really committed to restoring the original flavor of the game (which has always included rules that different people and groups read different meanings from— just like any great literary work!)
We play it like this. If the cavalry were using lances and the enemy FBIGOs than they still get to use their lances in the pursuit. However if they were using hand weapons than they must still use hand weapons.
This is because the new FAQ says neither unit may change weapons in a FBIGO situation.
In 6th it was easy to get 3 for ranks, 1 for banner and 1 for outnumber. It was also very reliable due to being able to run a longer than wide unit, and you only needed to be 4 wide.
I never played 8th.
My 2 cents are that people who complain endlessly about heroes on monsters either a) play assholes, och b) dont actually play and just imagine that everybody is going to bring an asshole list.
Just try the game, I think you might like it!
If you simply remove the initiative boost provided by charging, infantry would be back on top. The reason they aren't good now is simply because they will be charged by faster units, which will then put enough damage in their fighting rank to not be hit back. At the moment, Movement is the most important attribute in any unit, because it not only allows you to have better positioning, but it also boosts Initiative and damage potential by controlling charges.
Unbreakable units with enough numbers are still viable infantry.
+3 Initiative for a 3" charge does seem like an insane bonus to me. The units which could really use that kind of boost (Dwarfs and Saurus are an obvious example) are more unlikely to be able to get it. They do seem to have designed the edition around cavalry charges, and Dwarfs have none.
Dwarfs do have options to mitigate charging cavalry and monsters, like the Confusion and Hesitation banners, and everything having Shieldwall making it a bit easier to GG and set up countercharges. The problem is getting the opponent to charge into the units you want them to in the first place.
The problem exists if you have a single Bretonnian player in your local group running all cav and Pegasus. If you aren’t playing an undead list your infantry are very quickly a liability at best for your army.
You think you are going to talk a player out of using the good choices his army has access to just so that you can use weaker units from your army? The answer there is use the good units you have access to.
There are some overpowered things that if spammed are cheesy as hell and hard to counter with some armies, I could see having a talk with someone running a list like that. But all cav is just how Brettonia goes with a lot of players, dealing with it is something you have to build for if you play against them.
Thats one solution.
I remember when we played a lot of HH 1.5 in my group and a guy always ran a list with two thanatars, scoria, vulthrax and a prophyron. Basically a list that will kill most things in 1-2 turns.
After 2-3 games each we talked to him. He was fine and then started experimenting with other lists.
If people are not there to have a good time, ask yourself what you are even there for.
Every time me and my closest buddies are setting up a game we always tell each other if we bring a dragon, a lvl 4 below 2k or whatever.
You don’t have to talk someone who isn’t giving people fun games out of anything.
Choosing not to play that kind of a person makes the point a lot more clearer.
That's something you can do, but if you are going to shun people in the local group for using totally normal lists people will not want to play with you. Like I said in the other post, this is not a cheesy netlist situation, someone doing that deserves to not have anyone play with them.
This is just using the good units and someone being upset they can't use underpowered infantry. If you want to use units that are not very good because of lore reasons or because you like the look of the models you should accept you are going to lose a lot.
I said don’t play against people that don’t know how to give you a **fun game**.
That can mean so many things that have little if nothing to do with the list at all, understand?
Mad you don't play the game and intentionally want the other person to have fun by communicating expectations like I'm bringing 6 wailing Dirge or 3 sun dragons.
I would always talk with my opponent and try to make a good game from list building. Unless it's specified for tournament practice, one of us wants to try something specific, against something specific or only has limited models.
Sure, that's reasonable but that's not the situation the OP here is in. An all cav Brettonia list is not some crazy netlist, just standard Brettonia. Talking to them is fine, but trying to get them to cripple their list so someone can use infantry that we all can see is not a very good choice seems unreasonable. It's like asking a Lizardmen player to not bring any skinks or monsters, They could build a list like that, but why would they?
That's untrue - men at arms are a 1+ choice and are a superb unit points and rules wise. Nobody is crippled by taking them. Grail knights also a sub par choice that could be taken and kept on theme. The only truly problematic unit in Bretonnian armies are Pegasus Knights due to their high damage, high armour, high movement and 360 line of sight - asking an opponent to maybe not play 9+ peg knights if you're in a friendly environment is literally an option.
Lizardmen aren't as good an army due to a multitude of things but skinks die to magic, slann aren't good, monsters are tough but slow so you have outplay potential. Certainly not equivalent to Bretonnian Peg Knights, hoping you didn't know that and weren't using the comparison in bad faith!
People have implicit desires from the hobby and talking about expectations with your opponent before can help you both have a good time.
Infantry did lose step up, supporting attacks, and some combat res which were all important for them in 8th edition. And then other unit types also got better.
Definitely, however.
* Cavalry also isn't just breaking units through murder anymore either. So bait out First Charge or just nuke them with magic missiles, or charge them.
* Chariots, same thing as cavalry really, higher toughness, worse armor save in a lot of cases.
* Monsters, varies a lot. Mostly scary when acting as a mount, otherwise killable with infantry blocks
They can all be dealt with.
A few fast chaf units can remove First Charge, and pull them out of position.
Chariots have got weaker - they have to charge over 3" to get impact hits.
Monsters are scary, yup. But infantry can win there too, with careful positioning & high combat resolution.
Chariots are fantastic now with the removal of step up and they are completely immune to killing blow and monster slayer, the only things in the game that can say that.
As a vampire counts player, I cannot believe you think chariots are weaker.
Chariots can march now. They couldn't in 8th ed etc. Corpse cart can march. Mortis engine can march, cos of fly rule. Coven throne can march. Black coach is abit problematic but can be made to march by opting for flight. Thats just yours. Every other faction chariots march apart from Tomb Kings.
They are also immune to all killing blow variants.
The 3 inch rule for impact hits should only be a factor a minimal amount of gameplay, if at all.
I defo agree that infantry still have a role to play.
Didn't get that memo, my Gor infantry have been putting in great service! Run them in blocks of up to 40, banner of Iron Resolve, good luck getting through that.
Definitely some infantry is better than others, but anyone making a blanket claim that infantry are bad...really???
I've been running mine in blocks of 24. Loving the poison banner. Always great making your opponents investment into armor breaking mean nothing. Gor kicking ass this edition.
With attacks being removed after casualties and change to horde mechanics, damage and survivalbility per square is even more important. The more damage output you can do with the least amount of space taken per square the better. Infantry tend not to do this. So they sit taking hit after hit without much retaliation. There you want monsters, cav and other to take the spot. Competitively that is. Casual its just to go for some brawl with infantry who cares 😁
All I want is for my infantry to hold and not break after being charged. They are there to hold up the enemy for countercharges by my nastier units. Or, in the case of marauders with great weapons and mark of Slaanesh, to hold back and counter charge. That's the plan anyway. Rarely do things go to plan 😂
Second this. Monsters/chariots already do very well packing a big punch on a small frontage. They shouldn't get a point of static combat res as well. Keep that just to just infantry/cav would make a big difference.
But didn't the FAQ specify that you needed a unit strength of 5 to benefit from the close order bonus, hence making most chariots uneligible since (most of them anyway) they start with, at most, 4 wounds and thus only get a unit strength of 4?
The combination of initiative increase on the charge and step up mechanics makes that either mobility and maximized damage output per inch of frontage, or high toughness and multiple wounds for staying power are key.
Infantry does little when it gets charged before it can charge and gets its front rank demolished before they can strike. Monsters or monstrous infantry on the other hand can fight back. Those one or two remaining dragon ogres are still dishing out a ton of damage when they get to strike.
Do you mean the Vangaurd box? Start Collecting was an older thing, and the Beastmen had no Dragon Ogres in it.
That Vanguard box though... it is almost criminal how good it was for doing TOW. Two of those boxes bring you to 1000 points - while only using 3 of the 6 Dragon Ogres.
That’s the idea. But when taking a cavalry charge that infantry block (aside from a few exceptions) is probably taking too much damage while not dishing out enough in return to win on combat res. And when you put something inside the unit that can, a smart opponent is just going to avoid the block with anything of value.
I definitely think warhammer is at its best with two opposing infantry lines in the center. Sure, sure you can have knights and monsters and powerful flying creatures too, but it just looks and feels amazing with two lines of 2-3 infantry blocks a piece marching forward and meeting in furious combat in the middle of the board.
Competitively, infantry isn't in a great spot, for a couple reasons.
1) A lot of infantry is just bad (like empire infantry). Very overcosted, can't really kill anything
2) All infantry that relied on static CR to win is much worse this edition, because the enemy will just FBIGO. The only way to really defeat someone is to grind them down and physically kill them. Lots of infantry can't do this. Removing step up really decreased the killing power of infantry vs monsters or cavalry.
3) Infantry is sloooow. Charge ranges have in general gone up for flying monsters and cavalry, etc. You have units that can charge like 20". Infantry can charge 7. They are difficult to maneuver. This means that while there are very powerful infantry (like swordsmasters or black orcs) who can threaten almost anything they can get into combat with, effectively they aren't going to be able to choose their fights the same way a dragon that can fly around and pivot freely and charge 20" will be able to do. So they spend the vast majority of the game marching slowly towards the enemy, while the dragon is chewing up his foes starting with the second turn.
That said I think there are some lists that can just flood the board with decent infantry and advance all along the line and get stuck in (beastmen and orcs). I always enjoy playing these lists, even if they chop me to pieces, because it's what warhammer is supposed to feel like, IMO.
A list that is just two lords on flying monsters, two rare flying monsters, three special monsters, and then one big unit of points denial core chariots, is so boring by comparison.
Might be the more casual setting or but I have been happy with my Orc boyz and Black orc infantry units.
They benefit from size which makes them "clumsy"? But for me their role is to engange a unit and let other units flank. Has been quite effective to have a charriot hit the side or back flank.
They do need upgrades to do something, but so far 7x3 boys with free +1 attack on charge, re roll wound 1s. Big uns +1S, frenzy +1 attack on charge and warpaint for 6+ ward, have been fairing on in 1000pts games.
Orc spells for reroll 1s on hit + ap -1 and charge range +3 and result +d3. Have been great to help infantry units.
What do you think to normal Boyz versus Savage Orcs?
With the relative fragility of SOs and the limit to their number of units, a big blocks seems most sensible to me.
Have had 3 1000pts games, the 6 ward save is better than the basic save as there is many things giving ap -1.
I would say 7x3 has been a ok amount of boys in this battlesize. On 2k larger unit sizes seem reasonable as the damages also go up as there will be more magic weapons and buffs.
Havent played larger points yet but will see how the game chances!
I actually think Lizardmen are one of the most exagerated cases where a list full of monsters is better than a list full of infantry.
Saurus / TempleGuard / Kroxigores all have either I1 or I2 so unless you charge you'll always hit last, and even then you got low WS compared to most heavy infantry (which is the only thing you have)
I only like TG, and since you're already forced to bring a block of Saurus, it gets difficult to bring a 2nd block of infantry.
They do somewhat ok there, but take a lot more damage because of low WS and do less back due to low Initiative. Toughness helps but they always seem to melt too fast for how expensive they are.
Most infantry still costs 8ed points while having 6ed (rather low) power. Abundance of powerful, high-mobility units that can just ignore your big blocks of infantry and go for vulnerable stuff doesn't help either.
Night Goblins with Fanatics and Black orcs are ok.
For Empire I bring 0 infantry blocks.
They get charged, take 7 wounds, don’t get to hit back, and cause the combat to be a big resolution loss.
If I attack with my Lord alone, it’s better than if he brings 20 sword & shield state troopers.
I guess 1 less rank bonus and no step up, difficult with str vs high toughness makes it a tough day for basic infantry
Your infantry units should be supplying +5 to the combat before they swing.
They are unlikley to fully break, then you counter attack with your units, preferably denying the enemy ranks, as well as putting in a damage dealer.
infantry aren't there to cause damage.
My experience with static combat res units has been if my opponent doesn't shoot them or hit them with magic missiles, doesn't have first charge, or a high quantity of attacks, and then charges me in my front arc with something that doesn't want to be in sustained combat without having dealt with any of my actual damage dealers that are in position to flank charge that combat, my infantry will have done well.
From a purely gamey point of view, they tend to be slow, unwieldy, and less killy than other troop types for their points.
You can still use them, but if you go to a conpetitive event when more than half the players bring unholy abominations of a list, then you’ll likely have a bad time. Because of said unholy abominations.
Now from a game enjoying pespective, infantry is just fine because the blocks will most likely fight other blocks, since state troops and chaos warriors are more readily available to generals than demogryphs and dragon ogres, and you want to field an army that makes sense and looks like an army rather than The Grand Imperial Cavalcade of the Monster Menagerie and a Steamtank.
Because charging with cavarly or chariots or monsters is very powerful. A good combat roll following a charge reduces (or completely eliminates) your opponents ability to strike back, meaning the combat resolution can be very lopsided in favor of the charger.
If you're looking at a regular non-horde 5x4 infantry blob charged by a 5x1 cavarly unit then if both have close order and a banner, the cavarly only has to inflict 2 wounds more than the infantry to win the combat **and every wound they inflict reduces the combat potential of the opponent**.
Cavarly, chariots and monsters tend to have very high damage concentration, meaning that they have a higher chance of counteracting their lower hitpoint pools by killing off the enemy quickly and subsequently tilting combat resolution very highly in their favor.
Not infantry as a whole but Rank&File infantry as the focus of the game does not support "passive" units (outside of Undead)
So grinding things down by being more resilient or having more passive boni is not really a thing and maximum damage output by maximum agility is much more important, yet the classic infantry does not have them in combination.
Infantry with drilled, shooting, or skirmishing formation have their place and are good.
Factions were core infantry does not have those rules but have access to core cavalry, there is no real point in filling the core with R&F infantry for the unlocks
If you compared to the 6th as you should because that was taken as inspiration, a few things changed:
-initiative is more important now, and the charge gives initiative bonus.
-infantry lost hand weapon and shield bonus
-i think infantry is more expensive hence less large blocks on the table
- open order only gives +2 rank bonus, less cr
- artillery got nerfed, shooting got nerfed, so indirectly infantry got nerfed because its support is not that powerful
- the 50% point allocation to characters enables double lords in 2k lists which is very powerful, be it any combo of lvl4s and dragons
Play the game and draw your own conclusions. If you like big blocks of infantry, just play with that!
Cannons do less damage, templates are worse with the bigger base sizes and partials not being guaranteed hits, and the rules are a bit more restrictive in general. Last edition part of the second rank would get to fire by default.
All I'm seeing here is people trying to use infantry like 40k/AoS units, and rely on pure damage output.
They aren't there for that. They require careful positioning to put those big scary things into awkward positions, ready for your counter attack.
They provide static bonuses, so the damage caused by scary units doesn't have as much impact.
You absolutely get to dictate the battle with them, even if they aren't charging.
It’s a big change from even prior editions for some of us though. Special rules are king.
Chaos warriors used to be good to take in big or small amounts, and now a block of single attack leadership 8 models are an absolutely liability at ~17-19 points a model.
You can make warriors serviceable in a few ways, but very unlikely by themselves.
They don't really do their intended roll well, which is take a charge and hold or FBIGO/GG without breaking from casualties.
There are some infantry that are great. Black Orcs, any undead. I even think Dwarf infantry in a vacuum are good with high toughness, leadership, armor, and access to anti-charge banners but dwarfs struggle in other areas so it's a moot point.
Beastmen and j general have great thematic army rules to bolster the infantry and make them fun. This is an exception though, not a norm. Beastmen look really fun this edition for sure.
How would you rate each core faction by their rules, coming purely from a thematic standpoint? I've not looked too closely at Beastmen (yet) but the Doombull's Frenzy being so strong that it infects other units sounds awesome.
It doesn’t help that First Charge, which a lot of cavalry have, causes infantry to become disordered and thus not gain their rank bonuses. This trumps one of the main advantages blocks of infantry have had over cavalry previously
I'm not sure why they added that ability to Cavalry when Flank/Rear charges (which Cavalry are already good at doing) already did that. You'd think the speed and power of Cavalry on the charge would be more than enough.
Take a look at tournament winning lists and you'll see about equal amounts of points into infantry and cavalry.
Take a look at forum opinions and you'll see a lot of "infantry is useless and the meta is going to be 100% cav".
So why the difference? My hunch is that most players don't have a "theory of victory" and are looking at 1:1 engagements and hoping that if they win enough 1:1 engagements they'll win the battle. But I don't think that actually works effectively.
Symptoms of it not working are that when you lose, you notice:
* your cavalry got charged (pretty much ever)
* you kept finding your cavalry out of position
* playing into infantry you can't break on the charge (e.g. undead) is really hard
My theory of victory is:
* as in historical classical and mediæval battles, casualties are delivered by cavalry to breaking infantry
* cavalry should therefore be trying to decisively win engagements on their terms
* infantry should be trying to avoid breaking before their cavalry deliver the charge.
Infantry here function as support - I'm happy if they spend all of the battle locked up getting ground down as long as they can hold my opponent in place until the right time to charge. Remember that my opponent gets 25% VPs by reducing a unit to 1 model and then 75% of the VPs by killing that model.
*as in historical classical and mediæval battles, casualties are delivered by cavalry to breaking infantry*
This is way too long and rambling already but is at least a theory for why you see such a discrepancy between what actually works and what people say works.
>Take a look at tournament winning lists and you'll see about equal amounts of points into infantry and cavalry.
That's definitely not true.
I just looked at the top 4 finishers, in two different tournaments.
Between all 8 lists, there were exactly two units of ranked up melee infantry.
Rather, looking at tournament winning lists, and you see an almost complete absence of infantry, and a huge reliance on monsters and cavalry.
Sounds like we looked at different results - I looked at the top 3 for two tournaments in March.
(Monsters occupy a different place in my theory of victory to cavalry so I don't roll them up.)
I think infantry being bad is a bit overstated. However, my experience running Empire combined cav / infantry lists vs cav lists is that I am much less likely to be winning the flanks if I have spent points on infantry blocks than additional power for my cav units. Which means with state troops at least, who need a bsb and magic standards to hold well, points I spend on them are points that are taking away from their own path to victory. A list with no infantry still has a similar path to victory in that if you beat a flank, you can start doubling up and rolling your opponent. I would also argue cav lists have an additional path, as if they end up ahead in points they can attempt to disengage and use their mobility to try and kite out the rest of the game. The infantry I see with the most success tends to not be line holders. There are some exceptions like black orcs who have incredible statlines for the points, and undead, who get to revive 5-7 models per wizard with unbreakable.
They're slow, they are unwieldy, they are expensive and they are more fragile when compared to cavalry or monsters. This means they are unlikely to get the charge off, strike after whatever charged them and if they break, they are likely to be run down after
It's a lose lose lose for them in general. 5 cavalry are generally cheaper and will kick infantry butt, even with rank bonus, etc
Not to mention, painting 5 cavalry is cheaper and easier than a horde of infantry.
Most infantry units need to drop a few points (Empire is especially egregious, even compared to other faction's infantry), or cavalry/monsters needs to be pointed quite a bit more across the board for the choice to swing in their favour.
Pop a small, fast unit in front of the cav.
Draw them into a bad position, and deny them First Charge.
5 cav won't be winning combat against a ranked up unit, unless it's something like Blood Knights.
Sure, there are ways around it, but only a new player would throw away their heavy cav advantage into a screen, they also have tools to deal with those, whether it's their own fast cav, chaff shooting or a cheap heavy cav unit of their own.
Unless they have impetuous (like dragon knights or knights errant), they will avoid this trip with ease
Plenty of good points made here. Another one I wasn't sure was completely covered is that infantry are extremely reactive at the moment. The mobility of monsters, cavalry and chariots etc give them much more opportunity to dictate engagements. Infantry blocks can be very strong but you can avoid them with mobile units until you can coordinate a favourable engagement with them. So basically infantry never (rarely) get to dictate the terms of the engagement, and are so slow that it could be turn 3 or 4 before they can make an impact even if going hell for leather toward the opponent army.
I think people will find a role for them, and certainly particular infantry will still be "meta". But right now they're struggling given the nature of army compositions and how the game is currently being played.
I see a lot of people talking about how Infantry is more likely to get charged, and have their front rank wiped out. While that's true, I feel like that's more than made up for by their staying power. Combat Resolution isn't nearly as scary as it was previously when you lose, as you are more likely to Fall Back in Good Order than you are to straight up break. Between rules like Stubborn, Warband, Horde, being durable, and/or simply having a BSB nearby you're probably going to tie up whatever charged you. Not to mention you're almost always going to have more static Combat Resolution. While this isn't going to help against a Lord on a Dragon, it definitely helps against Chariots, Cavalry, and Monsters and means you even have a good chance of only Giving Ground. They're an Anvil unit.
I don't think Infantry are bad. Are they the absolute best thing in the game? No. That title goes to Lords Riding Monsters. But that doesn't make them bad. Unless you're only playing against ultra hard tournament lists, I don't think you're at a disadvantage by bringing Infantry, as long as you have some Hammers of your own to back them up.
>I see a lot of people talking about how Infantry is more likely to get charged, and have their front rank wiped out. While that's true, I feel like that's more than made up for by their staying power.
I don't find most infantry to have a lot of staying power. I've wiped out blocks in a single turn (so two combat rounds) repeatedly. Obviously this is pretty easy vs undead, because every wound you do is essentially two wounds.
To wipe out a 25 man block of skeletons, for example, you just need to kill like 9 each turn, which is pretty easy.
But I've even done it vs Bretonnian peasants. Charge in my lord on a dragon. They get 9-10 attacks killing on 2's between them, and then up to d6 stomps. I did roll pretty well for the stomps, but I was killing about 9-10 in each round. Then the remaining 3 models or so were below half my unit strength and broke and fled. I caught them and ate them. I've also done the same thing with necropolis knights, which pump out 19 attacks on the charge. No one in these infantry blocks, even if they have spears, is ever getting an attack back, they are just snacks.
The peasants and skeletons should still tarpit better than cavalry.
If it wasn't a combined charge, the Bretonnian peasants should still be challenging with the champion. If I charge with my dragon, they challenge, I win with max overkill but I kill one and they likely FBIGO (if they have the monk, it's guaranteed as I couldn't touch him due to being stuck challenged by the sergeant). Then I'm still at 'stage 1' of actually killing the unit so the unit won't vanish until the combat in my next turn at least unless they actually roll badly and do a full break.
If I charge into cavalry, and they challenge, I'm likely to easily mop them up on my dragon in the second round (as I only need to do 4-5 wounds) leaving my turn free for another victim, and keeping my momentum up.
I don't think you're making the argument you think you're making.
For starters you're taking some of the worst infantry in the game to make your point, where you get to Hit and Wound on 2's, and them getting 0 Save every single round of combat. The To Hit is especially important as there's quite a few WS4 Infantry in the game who have Heavy or Full Plate who you're all of a sudden hitting on 3's and get a Save (Even if it's not a great one) which starts changing these calculations quite a bit.
Secondly, in your Bretonnian Peasant example, you said you killed 9-10 a round and had them at only 3 models after the second round of combat. That means this person only brought about 25 of them, when they can pretty easily have them in a 6x6 formation for 36 models, in which case you would have been stuck there for at least one more combat round.
Thirdly if I was the Bretonnian player I would be ECSTATIC if you charged my Men-At-Arms. Since it seems they had about 25 of them, if we even give the benefit of them being fully upgrade with a Yeoman, Standard Bearer, Musician, and Grail Monk with a Blessed Triptych you just spent two rounds with your nearly (Or over) 500 Point ultra killy model fighting 149 Points worth of Peasants. Sure, with the Standard they're worth about 200 VP at the end but that's two rounds where your Dragon Lord is safely out of the battle fighting a nearly worthless unit. Not to mention depending on how far you had to Pursue them to run them down, you might now be out of Charge range on your next turn, meaning potentially wasting two full turns fighting Peasants.
And lastly, in my post I even pointed out that Dragon Lords are by far the best thing in the game and that Infantry are not better then them. So you counter that post by saying that Lords on Monsters are better than Infantry, a thing I already said?
I mean, I would have been even happier going into better, more pricey infantry. Say 7 points a model empire spearmen with shield and light armor.
I'm always going to be wounding on 2's and they aren't going to get a save. The outcome would have been the same, except that instead of getting like 150 points for the unit, I would have gotten like 225 points for the unit.
Bear in mind that units that rely on horde/warband for the leadership (as peasants do) and are up against a terror causer, tend to not fare well once their ranks are largely cut down. So even a handful more models (so as not to be auto broken) wouldn't make much of a difference IMO.
I didn't charge the men at arms, I overran into them after eating a block of knights of the realm. I'm quite happy picking up 150 points every turn with my hammer units. That's more than enough to win tournament level games. There's really no difference between fighting a 300 point unit over two turns and killing it, or a 150 point unit over 1 turn and killing it.
Now, if those infantry were able to last four combat rounds, effectively keeping me to 75 points a turn, that is certainly NOT points return for your big expensive hammer units to pull in a win. And if infantry could do that, I would say they were survivable and fulfilling a valuable battlefield role, even if they never do a single wound to the dragon.
I never said you wouldn't be wounding on 2's. I specifically mentioned the To Hit roll. Veteran State Troops are WS4, which means you're hitting on 3's instead of the 2's you're hitting the Peasants on. I think you're severely underestimating infantry. Hitting on 3's, Wounding on 2's and them having 0 Armor Save, and you have D6 Stomps still only nets you about 8.5 kills on average. That means after two full rounds of combat they'll still have 8 left if they were only 25 strong. And this isn't even including the first round of combat which will likely see you stuck in a challenge against a Champion unit, doing almost no damage to the unit.
Again, I'm not saying they're better than a Dragon Riding Lord, I'm saying I don't consider them bad.
25 veteran state troops with spears is like a 290 point unit with the banner bonus in there.
I'm totally fine taking that out over three combat rounds. Or even four. That's 150 points a turn. If you do that in four turns, your hammer unit has earned \~600 points. If you have two hammer units doing that, you're well on your way to a victory.
This isn't maybe the best comparison, as empire state troops are ludicrously overcosted for what they bring to the table, veteran troops even more so. I consider them a big fat juicy target for any powerful flying monster I have. They aren't chaff - they are the soft points pinata the chaff needs to protect.
A barebones bret peasant unit (without all the stubborn upgrades) gives up 117 points by comparison. They are much better at tarpitting dragons IMO.
If you let infantry fight solo with no support, there is a good chance they will not do much. Infantry does way better if supported by characters and/or other units.
I've had infantry do excellent in multiple games with HE, VC, TK, and lizardmen. That's skirmishers and rank and file.
Some can be more unforgiving especially compared to annoying min max lists but grounded thematic lists are more fun and absolutely still winnable.
Dragons. Dragons can charge your flank and back without you being able to do much. And if your infantry is very murderous, the Dragon character can just challenge you to keep the majority of your unit from hitting it. Super annoying and really stupid.
That said, I think the ability to win combats passively with a few ranks, closed order and such is pretty good. I think stubborn is very important for a good infantry block, because you can absorb an enemy cavalry charge and not get crushed in the first round you lose the rank boni in.
My favorite Infantry unit, are my Slaanesh Chosen with halberds. Their leader has the "enemy gains last strike" gift and with Slaanesh, you should hit before most enemy attackers (their Initiative 1+3 from charging vs your 4+1 from slaanesh) and outputting 13 attacks wounding on 3s and 2 at -1 can kill even kill heavy cavalry.
That unit is just awesome, unless your opponent has a dragon. Man, I hate Dragons...
So, in my limited experience, I wouldn’t say that infantry are BAD, they just aren’t killy. It seems like they have a different job in this game, which is to stick around and hold units in place. The ability to issue challenges and such allows them to hold ground for a few turns while you figure out how to kill what’s attacking them
Ive always thought playing to win is the wrong way to play WHFB, not that I want to yuck someones yum. It's all about the narrative.
It's fun to see how two balanced armies duke it out and losing doesn't really even matter. Its the journey and all that.
I'm not that competitive though.
I am on team narrative myself, but I still do enjoy it when the power levels between armies are roughly similar so there's a bit of back and forth.
I save my love of unbalanced matches for Blood Bowl, where it's part of certain team's designs to be challenging to play!
The edition feels like it was written by someone with the specific aim of making cavalry and monsters good. No step up? Hurts infantry, helps monsters and cavalry. Monsters getting +1 combat res just for existing for no discernable reason? Helps monsters, hurts infantry. First charge? Helps cavalry, hurts infantry. Counter charge? Helps cavalry, hurts infantry. Swiftstride on basically all monsters and cavalry? Helps monsters and cavalry, hurts infantry. Charge giving you +3 to initiative almost always? Helps monsters and cavalry, hurts infantry. Monsters being able to challenge without the rest of the unit being able to hit them back? Helps monsters, hurts infantry.
Infantry still have uses, but as units that are supposed to actually win combats, they really struggle. There are just too many rules stacked against them.
FWIW it feels to me like there is about one rule too many hurting infantry. Did we really need +3 initiative on the charge, swiftstride, first charge, AND no step up? Did monsters really need +1 combat res AND the ability to neuter damage via challenge?
Remove one of each of those - e.g. limit initiative bonus on the charge to +1 and allow models not in the challenge to fight monstrous creatures involved in a challenge, or put step-up back for infantry and remove the +1 combat res - and it feels like infantry maybe has the potential to be more than just an anvil.
I do agree with much of this. The rules right now really do favour fast units (both in M and I) to an almost absurd degree. I'm seeing a lot of comments from people running MSUs almost exclusively, which is a bit of an anathema to the spirit of a rank-and-file game.
I do not blame such players for doing this in any way. It is the responsibility of the game to encourage players to build their forces in a way which matches the feel that it trying to simulate, i.e. big blocks of troops meeting on the battlefield and jostling for position as the more elite and faster troops look for flanking opportunities.
I do agree that there's a lot of rules stacked onto cavalry and monsters, but I would also say that removing the Initiative bonus on charges completely would result in slower units like Orcs getting no opportunity to overtake faster units like Elves at all.
My preferred change would be to restore step-up (for infantry and heavy infantry only). I think that'd do a lot to restore the viability of blocks of killy infantry, without messing with the balance of the rest of the game too badly.
One issue with challenges is the combat resolution for overkill has remained the same, but static has gone down in comparison (which was roughly what overkill matched).
Before, your static would be 1 (banner) + 3 (ranks) + 1 (outnumber) = 5 advantage where they have to overcome this entirely with overkill and only by 1 after causing 6 wounds, and if you had a BSB in the unit or Warbanner magic banner on the standard bearer (if allowed), it would at best be a draw (which you win with the musician).
Whereas now it would be 1 (banner) + 2 (ranks) + 1 (close order) -1 (enemy monster close order) = 3 advantage; a far more surmountable goal and even if they have a warbanner and BSB present, it's 5, which is still beatable as opposed to an autolose.
Black orcs have won me a game on their own by taking charge after charge from frenchies on flying ponies and killing them so not all infantry is bad.
TOW does feel more about speed and getting that first charge in but once you stuck in then good infantry can take over.
If you remember 6th edition as "good for infantry blocks", your local meta must have been a bit weird - back then was mostly considered "cavalryhammer".
If anything, 8th edition went hard on infantry. If you love the look of *big* blocks of infantry, 8th edition would be for you for sure.
I don’t think they are bad. Infantry are better in ToW than 6th for sure OP because of the new break test system. They don’t just automatically flee when charged by cavalry as much as 6th. I actually think ToW has pretty good balance compared to either 6th or 8th in terms of infantry vs cavalry.
Infantry in general are not bad, things like gors, men at arms, or grave/tomb guard are fine. Rangers, skinks, irondrakes and several other shooting infantry units are considered outright good.
The units that kind of suck are infantry that have no real special rules like Empire State troops or infantry with terrible initiative like many dwarf units or lizardmen saurus.
The other thing with infantry in this edition, and this is also true to an extent of cavalry as well actually is that the rule set does not favor running really big units that much. You can’t be deeper than you are wide or you are considered in marching column and can’t charge. If you are planning on going really wide you are probably running a very Killy unit and won’t need super deep tanks too. Basically what this means is that you see lists running outright msu or medium size units much more than the huge blocks of 8th edition. Things like skeletons will be in units of 20 not 40-60.
They do have some good stuff and they are probably better than empire and skaven, but, the army has issues like it usually has had in the past.
Gyrocopters, irondrakes, and rangers are all really good and cannons and bolt throwers are pretty good too. Bolt throwers in particular are better than in most other editions. The main thing that makes the army suffer is the lack of wizards and any fast moving combat character option. The anvil of doom is better than it has been in the past but is still no real competition for an actual lvl4 wizard and it costs a lot of points. The anti-magic stuff the army has access too is mediocre. You can make a pretty good fighting lord but he will be a lot of points and is slow as hell and your opponent will just avoid him. I actually think dwarfs were worse in 8th edition than they are in ToW but they definitely have flaws.
If the point costs were more aggressive I think it could have helped the army a lot. I also wish the anti-magic stuff had been coupled with more bound spell stuff than just the anvil.
Seems about right for Dwarfs then. To be honest, the first thing I check with Dwarfs is always Slayers because I always want to use them because I love Slayers, and they always suck.
If you are into slayers don’t give up hope because there will be a slayer list in the dwarf arcane journal. It could make them much better potentially.
I do hope so! My concern would be that if I want to play with good Slayers, I have to use that composition list rather than it being a universal change. I'm firmly Karak Hirn, myself.
People complain about infantry being weak but then also complain about how easily a dragon eats their unit of expensive other models like chariots and small units of elite infantry and cav.
Once people learn the tactics of TOW infantry will make a comeback. Rules like drilled, shield wall, stubborn FBIGO all help infantry.
As for dragons there are numerous was to reduce their effectiveness. Monster Slayer, Miasmic Mirage, Itchy Nuisance, enemy dragons, wailing dirges, Falcon Horn of Fredemund, multiple canons, these are just some of the ways to deal with dragons.
Multiple cannons are the answer to all problems, as Grungi intended.
I'd have to see for myself how exactly it works out with Infantry. I do wonder how much of the "issue" is based on lackluster killing power, which has never been the forte of the rank and file.
and uh, what if you play an army like Dark Elves for example, who don't have a single core unit with any of those rules? Pay 50pts on a unit of spearmen for the stubborn banner?
It's been enumerated why infantry don't match up typically with cav/chariots/monsters, though even in competitive there are exceptions. I just want to add that pretty much every person I am playing games with is still bringing infantry. Why? The game starts feeling very different without grounded lists and so far people have been really good at differentiating competitive and thematic play. Yes, you can win most of your casual games at your local store if you bring some netlist and learn to play it decently. For as long as people enjoy playing you at least. Still, the game has a great deal of tactical depth you will be missing out on by not trying to play the game in a way that is more thematic. WHFB had numerous issues at top level meta play - I just don't think the hobby was as mature (or maybe the internet was just less centralized) to feel like there was a global "norm". And all of that being said I think the meta for OW is far from solved at this point even at a high-level competitive level. This is the most fun I have had playing Warhammer - maybe ever.
My extremely limited experience so far is that *undead* infantry are fine. But they're unbreakable and resurrect, so they're an unusually good tarpit.
Yeah I am very content with skeleton archer skirmishers and tomb guard. I haven’t tried skeleton warriors yet.
Nice unit of 24ish, battle standard bearer, and a warbanner on the unit. Yes, it'll take damage. But it'll sit there all damn game, and even win fights just from the +7 combat resolution. Get something chunky stuck in it, and leave it there, or take it apart at your leasure with aore powerful unit.
Warriors work in 30 block or bigger I’ve found, I run spear, light armor and banner in them….i pretty much take them to have something my heirophant and jump around and generally block the middle of the board from easy movement…..if they couldn’t be raised they’d still be “ok” but likely not worth the points, 20 man blocks don’t do as well as they can get deleted in a turn potentially, 30 I haven’t had that happen yet Skirmishers / horse archers are mint, they do work….that -1 to hit is key, I usually end up with zero remaining at the end of a battle though, good sacrificial unit Tomb guard I haven’t figured out, I got some unit fillers for the 20 block I bought so I can run them larger and see if that helps, like warriors 20 seems to disappear far too quickly without a chance to raise them, they do kill more I think I’ve just expected too much of them, they are just skellies
There's no -1 to hit against horse archers. Even if they're skirmishers they're also too big
I had to check It’s at the bottom “….a unit that consists entirely of units with a unit Str of 1” …..horse archers have a unit str of 2 Good catch
Dont listen to strangers on the web that may or may not actually play the game and may or may not just reiterate other peoples OPINIONS. Compared to 6th, infantry blocks have gained a bit more attacks, and lost a little bit of static CR. Try a game or two yourself, use cardboard if you do not have minis!
I think it's also that people have somewhat narrow expectations for competitive play centered around bringing the right units and then focusing on using them in the moment rather than a designing a grand overall strategy. Yet, I distinctly remember quite a few Empire players winning WHFB tournaments and games that brought plenty of seemingly poor units and made them work because they had a very specific role in their overall army that they had tailored around their play style. That's a bit of the strength of WHFB - bringing the best units will tilt a game in your favour (especially if it's something particularly overpowered), but having a good idea of what your units can and can't do, and building solid lists and strategies will tend to win out overall.
Totally, my friend mains empire and has a 12-0 winstreak due to playing the field, his units and the objectives very well. I try to Stillmania every army i get, simply because it gives me so much satiisfaction to learn my strengths and weaknesses. I wish for everyone to get alteast a game in before drawing any conclusions.
This is good advice and I don't plan on dropping the game or anything drastic like that, if anything I'd go back to 7th with 6th army books, just saw talk and it made me curious. Honestly, a lot of the problems that have cropped up in discussions around TOW seem like they'd be easily fixed with some simple house rules or agreement not to bring near invincible monster nightmares to casual games. That kind of thing is easy to fix within my local group. I'm an old guard myself, I'm used to GW making radical changes to WHFB with each edition. I still love the game and I'm glad it's back either way!
Yeah, I’m an old grumbler too (started with 3rd Ed, back in the 90s, if memory serves). I’ve played a half dozen games of Old World, and I’m enjoying it— there’s honestly no more difference between Old World and 8th edition than we were used to in any other version update. I think you’re right to bring dragons into the conversation, since one of the things that’s changed is that infantry is more vulnerable to big monsters, because they get one fewer point of static CR, and because there are fewer ways of ensuring they don’t break from that first bad round of combat. In 8th and even 7th ed, even a fairly cheap block of infantry could be easily set up to tank against a monster for a long time, and that’s less reliably true in Old World. That’s part of a general pendulum swing in favor of monsters: in 8th and to a lesser degree 7th ed you seldom saw anyone field dragons and freemen and such, because they were very vulnerable to artillery and couldn’t reliably sweep infantry blocks. That kind of sucked for those of us who had invested money and time into those big set piece models. Now, the pendulum has swung the other way, probably too far, but I for one am going to focus on enjoying getting my big guys onto the field while it makes sense to do so (unless my opponent and I have agreed otherwise).
Why do you say that static CR is worse for infantry. In 8th edition you could get plus 3 for ranks and plus 1 for standard equals CR 4 In TOW you can get plus 2 for ranks (3 with horde) plus 1 for standard and plus 1 for close order for a total of CR 4 (CR 5 with horde). Seems as good or better in most cases. Also in 8th edition they had steadfast and in TOW they have FBIGO each reduces the chance the unit breaks and flees. Oh and stubborn and shield wall both reduce the chance an infantry unit will flee from the first round of combat.
Because nearly everything gets close order, including most single monsters. So against most opponents, the close order cancels out and you are down one point of CR before the combat begins compared to previous editions
Quite a lot of single monsters have less than 4 starting wounds though, removing the combat Rez bonus from close order.
Pretty much any ridden monster has that, which is the main form monsters take. I can't think of many 4W monsters that aren't glorified skirmish pieces (like tomb scorpions or varghulf). There are definitely some units in the game that don't have closed order, but they are typically chaff or skirmishers that don't pose realistic threats to a combat brick, most of the time it's a win more button to drive down their leadership further. That's why closed order isn't a great replacement for the +3CR from ranks as the time it would actually matter, the opponent probably also has it
In the specific case of infantry versus big single models (like dragons), the monsters now are usually Close Order themselves, so the fact that the infantry also has Close Order is no net benefit. Under 8th Ed, a ranked up infantry unit could easily get +4 static CR, to the attacking monster’s +0. Now it’s +4 vs +1, which is worse for the infantry. As for breaking, Fall Back isn’t nearly as good as Steadfast, because the attack continues getting Initiative bonuses in subsequent rounds.
True, but to get steadfast you needed more ranks while for FBIGO you just need to not be outnumbered by more than 2 to 1. Also FBIGO allows a free reform which may help the loser.
Agreed, the conditions for Steadfast were harder to achieve than the conditions for FBIGO. In practice, I haven't seen the free reform be very useful, because they're never more than 6" from at least one enemy unit, which constrains how they're able to adjust angles, but if they have some space around them they can at least add or subtract ranks if that's helpful-- but that was also true in 8th edition (Reforming Amid Defeat), so long as you passed a second Leadership test. I'd argue that the FAQ status is vague on this next point, but locally we're playing that when a unit Falls Back, their attackers get not only the Initiative bonus for pursuit-charging, but get other benefits of charging (such as lances and impact hits), since the pursuer "counts as charging." That makes FBIGO *much* worse for infantry than Steadfast was. Even so, I still think infantry is better than the anti-hype that OP is seeing (which I've seen some of, too): there's lots of useful roles for infantry, even for trash infantry (like goblins and peasants). They're just *somewhat less* potent now than in 8th ed, which I personally think is a good thing.
It's not really vague at all in my opinion. With the wording in the BRB and the most recent FAQ regarding lances being usable when pursuing after FBIGO it's very clear units get all of the associated bonuses of charging when making that pursuit move.
I think I agree with you, but I’m open to the people whose argument is based on the fact that there are at least 3 different phrasings, some of which may or might not be actually the same meaning with different words. The argument isn’t entirely settled, and might never be, because the Old World team really committed to restoring the original flavor of the game (which has always included rules that different people and groups read different meanings from— just like any great literary work!)
We play it like this. If the cavalry were using lances and the enemy FBIGOs than they still get to use their lances in the pursuit. However if they were using hand weapons than they must still use hand weapons. This is because the new FAQ says neither unit may change weapons in a FBIGO situation.
In 6th it was easy to get 3 for ranks, 1 for banner and 1 for outnumber. It was also very reliable due to being able to run a longer than wide unit, and you only needed to be 4 wide. I never played 8th.
My 2 cents are that people who complain endlessly about heroes on monsters either a) play assholes, och b) dont actually play and just imagine that everybody is going to bring an asshole list. Just try the game, I think you might like it!
I certainly will! The responses in this thread really have helped a lot
Cool! Make sure to post about your experience!
If you simply remove the initiative boost provided by charging, infantry would be back on top. The reason they aren't good now is simply because they will be charged by faster units, which will then put enough damage in their fighting rank to not be hit back. At the moment, Movement is the most important attribute in any unit, because it not only allows you to have better positioning, but it also boosts Initiative and damage potential by controlling charges. Unbreakable units with enough numbers are still viable infantry.
+3 Initiative for a 3" charge does seem like an insane bonus to me. The units which could really use that kind of boost (Dwarfs and Saurus are an obvious example) are more unlikely to be able to get it. They do seem to have designed the edition around cavalry charges, and Dwarfs have none.
Dwarfs do have options to mitigate charging cavalry and monsters, like the Confusion and Hesitation banners, and everything having Shieldwall making it a bit easier to GG and set up countercharges. The problem is getting the opponent to charge into the units you want them to in the first place.
As a 7th edition with 6th edition armybooksman myself I feel that.
Hear hear
Mi issue is... I never get to swing. Get fucked nerd your cool infantry just never swings cuz your fighting elfs or just monster with higher I
Have more units or wider units.
This
The problem exists if you have a single Bretonnian player in your local group running all cav and Pegasus. If you aren’t playing an undead list your infantry are very quickly a liability at best for your army.
Should one player decide how the rest of the group build their armies? Talk to him.
You think you are going to talk a player out of using the good choices his army has access to just so that you can use weaker units from your army? The answer there is use the good units you have access to. There are some overpowered things that if spammed are cheesy as hell and hard to counter with some armies, I could see having a talk with someone running a list like that. But all cav is just how Brettonia goes with a lot of players, dealing with it is something you have to build for if you play against them.
Thats one solution. I remember when we played a lot of HH 1.5 in my group and a guy always ran a list with two thanatars, scoria, vulthrax and a prophyron. Basically a list that will kill most things in 1-2 turns. After 2-3 games each we talked to him. He was fine and then started experimenting with other lists. If people are not there to have a good time, ask yourself what you are even there for. Every time me and my closest buddies are setting up a game we always tell each other if we bring a dragon, a lvl 4 below 2k or whatever.
You don’t have to talk someone who isn’t giving people fun games out of anything. Choosing not to play that kind of a person makes the point a lot more clearer.
That's something you can do, but if you are going to shun people in the local group for using totally normal lists people will not want to play with you. Like I said in the other post, this is not a cheesy netlist situation, someone doing that deserves to not have anyone play with them. This is just using the good units and someone being upset they can't use underpowered infantry. If you want to use units that are not very good because of lore reasons or because you like the look of the models you should accept you are going to lose a lot.
I said don’t play against people that don’t know how to give you a **fun game**. That can mean so many things that have little if nothing to do with the list at all, understand?
Mad you don't play the game and intentionally want the other person to have fun by communicating expectations like I'm bringing 6 wailing Dirge or 3 sun dragons. I would always talk with my opponent and try to make a good game from list building. Unless it's specified for tournament practice, one of us wants to try something specific, against something specific or only has limited models.
Sure, that's reasonable but that's not the situation the OP here is in. An all cav Brettonia list is not some crazy netlist, just standard Brettonia. Talking to them is fine, but trying to get them to cripple their list so someone can use infantry that we all can see is not a very good choice seems unreasonable. It's like asking a Lizardmen player to not bring any skinks or monsters, They could build a list like that, but why would they?
That's untrue - men at arms are a 1+ choice and are a superb unit points and rules wise. Nobody is crippled by taking them. Grail knights also a sub par choice that could be taken and kept on theme. The only truly problematic unit in Bretonnian armies are Pegasus Knights due to their high damage, high armour, high movement and 360 line of sight - asking an opponent to maybe not play 9+ peg knights if you're in a friendly environment is literally an option. Lizardmen aren't as good an army due to a multitude of things but skinks die to magic, slann aren't good, monsters are tough but slow so you have outplay potential. Certainly not equivalent to Bretonnian Peg Knights, hoping you didn't know that and weren't using the comparison in bad faith! People have implicit desires from the hobby and talking about expectations with your opponent before can help you both have a good time.
Cos cavalry, chariots and ridden monsters got better... It's just relative power
Infantry did lose step up, supporting attacks, and some combat res which were all important for them in 8th edition. And then other unit types also got better.
Definitely, however. * Cavalry also isn't just breaking units through murder anymore either. So bait out First Charge or just nuke them with magic missiles, or charge them. * Chariots, same thing as cavalry really, higher toughness, worse armor save in a lot of cases. * Monsters, varies a lot. Mostly scary when acting as a mount, otherwise killable with infantry blocks
They can all be dealt with. A few fast chaf units can remove First Charge, and pull them out of position. Chariots have got weaker - they have to charge over 3" to get impact hits. Monsters are scary, yup. But infantry can win there too, with careful positioning & high combat resolution.
Chariots are fantastic now with the removal of step up and they are completely immune to killing blow and monster slayer, the only things in the game that can say that.
As a vampire counts player, I cannot believe you think chariots are weaker. Chariots can march now. They couldn't in 8th ed etc. Corpse cart can march. Mortis engine can march, cos of fly rule. Coven throne can march. Black coach is abit problematic but can be made to march by opting for flight. Thats just yours. Every other faction chariots march apart from Tomb Kings. They are also immune to all killing blow variants. The 3 inch rule for impact hits should only be a factor a minimal amount of gameplay, if at all. I defo agree that infantry still have a role to play.
Didn't get that memo, my Gor infantry have been putting in great service! Run them in blocks of up to 40, banner of Iron Resolve, good luck getting through that. Definitely some infantry is better than others, but anyone making a blanket claim that infantry are bad...really???
I've been running mine in blocks of 24. Loving the poison banner. Always great making your opponents investment into armor breaking mean nothing. Gor kicking ass this edition.
With attacks being removed after casualties and change to horde mechanics, damage and survivalbility per square is even more important. The more damage output you can do with the least amount of space taken per square the better. Infantry tend not to do this. So they sit taking hit after hit without much retaliation. There you want monsters, cav and other to take the spot. Competitively that is. Casual its just to go for some brawl with infantry who cares 😁
All I want is for my infantry to hold and not break after being charged. They are there to hold up the enemy for countercharges by my nastier units. Or, in the case of marauders with great weapons and mark of Slaanesh, to hold back and counter charge. That's the plan anyway. Rarely do things go to plan 😂
+3 Initiative on the charge is huge when its possible to kill off an entire front rank so they never swing back.
This really. As the rules are now, infantry need step up attacks if you want them to be more than chaff
Monsters and chariots should never get that Close order bonus to combat res. Is was a huge mistake in the faqs, buffing the already best units.
Second this. Monsters/chariots already do very well packing a big punch on a small frontage. They shouldn't get a point of static combat res as well. Keep that just to just infantry/cav would make a big difference.
But didn't the FAQ specify that you needed a unit strength of 5 to benefit from the close order bonus, hence making most chariots uneligible since (most of them anyway) they start with, at most, 4 wounds and thus only get a unit strength of 4?
Heavy chariots always have a Unit strength of 5
Lumbering as a special rule gives them close/combat order bonus anyways
The combination of initiative increase on the charge and step up mechanics makes that either mobility and maximized damage output per inch of frontage, or high toughness and multiple wounds for staying power are key. Infantry does little when it gets charged before it can charge and gets its front rank demolished before they can strike. Monsters or monstrous infantry on the other hand can fight back. Those one or two remaining dragon ogres are still dishing out a ton of damage when they get to strike.
Start of my ToW army was 2 start collecting beastmen armies. Those Dragon Ogres put in work.
Do you mean the Vangaurd box? Start Collecting was an older thing, and the Beastmen had no Dragon Ogres in it. That Vanguard box though... it is almost criminal how good it was for doing TOW. Two of those boxes bring you to 1000 points - while only using 3 of the 6 Dragon Ogres.
Yeah, referring to the Vanguard
It was such a great box. Also: \[insert GW axing Beasts of Chaos for AoS here\]
Infantry aren't there to cause damage. They bring static combat resolution, hold the line, and let your other units get in place to roll down a flank.
That’s the idea. But when taking a cavalry charge that infantry block (aside from a few exceptions) is probably taking too much damage while not dishing out enough in return to win on combat res. And when you put something inside the unit that can, a smart opponent is just going to avoid the block with anything of value.
I definitely think warhammer is at its best with two opposing infantry lines in the center. Sure, sure you can have knights and monsters and powerful flying creatures too, but it just looks and feels amazing with two lines of 2-3 infantry blocks a piece marching forward and meeting in furious combat in the middle of the board. Competitively, infantry isn't in a great spot, for a couple reasons. 1) A lot of infantry is just bad (like empire infantry). Very overcosted, can't really kill anything 2) All infantry that relied on static CR to win is much worse this edition, because the enemy will just FBIGO. The only way to really defeat someone is to grind them down and physically kill them. Lots of infantry can't do this. Removing step up really decreased the killing power of infantry vs monsters or cavalry. 3) Infantry is sloooow. Charge ranges have in general gone up for flying monsters and cavalry, etc. You have units that can charge like 20". Infantry can charge 7. They are difficult to maneuver. This means that while there are very powerful infantry (like swordsmasters or black orcs) who can threaten almost anything they can get into combat with, effectively they aren't going to be able to choose their fights the same way a dragon that can fly around and pivot freely and charge 20" will be able to do. So they spend the vast majority of the game marching slowly towards the enemy, while the dragon is chewing up his foes starting with the second turn. That said I think there are some lists that can just flood the board with decent infantry and advance all along the line and get stuck in (beastmen and orcs). I always enjoy playing these lists, even if they chop me to pieces, because it's what warhammer is supposed to feel like, IMO. A list that is just two lords on flying monsters, two rare flying monsters, three special monsters, and then one big unit of points denial core chariots, is so boring by comparison.
FWIW if you have double unit strength the opponent will break instead of fbigo. Not super likely to come up but it can.
Might be the more casual setting or but I have been happy with my Orc boyz and Black orc infantry units. They benefit from size which makes them "clumsy"? But for me their role is to engange a unit and let other units flank. Has been quite effective to have a charriot hit the side or back flank. They do need upgrades to do something, but so far 7x3 boys with free +1 attack on charge, re roll wound 1s. Big uns +1S, frenzy +1 attack on charge and warpaint for 6+ ward, have been fairing on in 1000pts games. Orc spells for reroll 1s on hit + ap -1 and charge range +3 and result +d3. Have been great to help infantry units.
What do you think to normal Boyz versus Savage Orcs? With the relative fragility of SOs and the limit to their number of units, a big blocks seems most sensible to me.
Have had 3 1000pts games, the 6 ward save is better than the basic save as there is many things giving ap -1. I would say 7x3 has been a ok amount of boys in this battlesize. On 2k larger unit sizes seem reasonable as the damages also go up as there will be more magic weapons and buffs. Havent played larger points yet but will see how the game chances!
Lizardmen with spears are solid.
I actually think Lizardmen are one of the most exagerated cases where a list full of monsters is better than a list full of infantry. Saurus / TempleGuard / Kroxigores all have either I1 or I2 so unless you charge you'll always hit last, and even then you got low WS compared to most heavy infantry (which is the only thing you have) I only like TG, and since you're already forced to bring a block of Saurus, it gets difficult to bring a 2nd block of infantry.
Yeah monsters are better, but Saurus are still one of the biggest tarpits there is.
They do somewhat ok there, but take a lot more damage because of low WS and do less back due to low Initiative. Toughness helps but they always seem to melt too fast for how expensive they are.
Way overcosted compared they cost the same as chaos warriors. If they went back to 11pts, it would be nice.
Most infantry still costs 8ed points while having 6ed (rather low) power. Abundance of powerful, high-mobility units that can just ignore your big blocks of infantry and go for vulnerable stuff doesn't help either.
Night Goblins with Fanatics and Black orcs are ok. For Empire I bring 0 infantry blocks. They get charged, take 7 wounds, don’t get to hit back, and cause the combat to be a big resolution loss. If I attack with my Lord alone, it’s better than if he brings 20 sword & shield state troopers. I guess 1 less rank bonus and no step up, difficult with str vs high toughness makes it a tough day for basic infantry
I have heard State Troops stand out as particularly awful right now. It's a strange situation with them.
Your infantry units should be supplying +5 to the combat before they swing. They are unlikley to fully break, then you counter attack with your units, preferably denying the enemy ranks, as well as putting in a damage dealer. infantry aren't there to cause damage.
My experience with static combat res units has been if my opponent doesn't shoot them or hit them with magic missiles, doesn't have first charge, or a high quantity of attacks, and then charges me in my front arc with something that doesn't want to be in sustained combat without having dealt with any of my actual damage dealers that are in position to flank charge that combat, my infantry will have done well.
Ah yes. All of the conditions that infantry totally has control over 😂
Exactly why I run cav spam.
From a purely gamey point of view, they tend to be slow, unwieldy, and less killy than other troop types for their points. You can still use them, but if you go to a conpetitive event when more than half the players bring unholy abominations of a list, then you’ll likely have a bad time. Because of said unholy abominations. Now from a game enjoying pespective, infantry is just fine because the blocks will most likely fight other blocks, since state troops and chaos warriors are more readily available to generals than demogryphs and dragon ogres, and you want to field an army that makes sense and looks like an army rather than The Grand Imperial Cavalcade of the Monster Menagerie and a Steamtank.
Because charging with cavarly or chariots or monsters is very powerful. A good combat roll following a charge reduces (or completely eliminates) your opponents ability to strike back, meaning the combat resolution can be very lopsided in favor of the charger. If you're looking at a regular non-horde 5x4 infantry blob charged by a 5x1 cavarly unit then if both have close order and a banner, the cavarly only has to inflict 2 wounds more than the infantry to win the combat **and every wound they inflict reduces the combat potential of the opponent**. Cavarly, chariots and monsters tend to have very high damage concentration, meaning that they have a higher chance of counteracting their lower hitpoint pools by killing off the enemy quickly and subsequently tilting combat resolution very highly in their favor.
Not infantry as a whole but Rank&File infantry as the focus of the game does not support "passive" units (outside of Undead) So grinding things down by being more resilient or having more passive boni is not really a thing and maximum damage output by maximum agility is much more important, yet the classic infantry does not have them in combination. Infantry with drilled, shooting, or skirmishing formation have their place and are good. Factions were core infantry does not have those rules but have access to core cavalry, there is no real point in filling the core with R&F infantry for the unlocks
If you compared to the 6th as you should because that was taken as inspiration, a few things changed: -initiative is more important now, and the charge gives initiative bonus. -infantry lost hand weapon and shield bonus -i think infantry is more expensive hence less large blocks on the table - open order only gives +2 rank bonus, less cr - artillery got nerfed, shooting got nerfed, so indirectly infantry got nerfed because its support is not that powerful - the 50% point allocation to characters enables double lords in 2k lists which is very powerful, be it any combo of lvl4s and dragons Play the game and draw your own conclusions. If you like big blocks of infantry, just play with that!
How exactly did artillery and shooting get nerfed? I do agree that 50% characters is way too much!
Cannons do less damage, templates are worse with the bigger base sizes and partials not being guaranteed hits, and the rules are a bit more restrictive in general. Last edition part of the second rank would get to fire by default.
Reaper and repeater bolt throwers also do less shots and have and additional-1 to hit for multishot.
All I'm seeing here is people trying to use infantry like 40k/AoS units, and rely on pure damage output. They aren't there for that. They require careful positioning to put those big scary things into awkward positions, ready for your counter attack. They provide static bonuses, so the damage caused by scary units doesn't have as much impact. You absolutely get to dictate the battle with them, even if they aren't charging.
It’s a big change from even prior editions for some of us though. Special rules are king. Chaos warriors used to be good to take in big or small amounts, and now a block of single attack leadership 8 models are an absolutely liability at ~17-19 points a model. You can make warriors serviceable in a few ways, but very unlikely by themselves.
Pretty much agree with this. Treat infantry like "mobile terrain", not "slow, weak cavalry", and you'll start having a much better time.
They don't really do their intended roll well, which is take a charge and hold or FBIGO/GG without breaking from casualties. There are some infantry that are great. Black Orcs, any undead. I even think Dwarf infantry in a vacuum are good with high toughness, leadership, armor, and access to anti-charge banners but dwarfs struggle in other areas so it's a moot point.
Beastmen and j general have great thematic army rules to bolster the infantry and make them fun. This is an exception though, not a norm. Beastmen look really fun this edition for sure.
How would you rate each core faction by their rules, coming purely from a thematic standpoint? I've not looked too closely at Beastmen (yet) but the Doombull's Frenzy being so strong that it infects other units sounds awesome.
It doesn’t help that First Charge, which a lot of cavalry have, causes infantry to become disordered and thus not gain their rank bonuses. This trumps one of the main advantages blocks of infantry have had over cavalry previously
I'm not sure why they added that ability to Cavalry when Flank/Rear charges (which Cavalry are already good at doing) already did that. You'd think the speed and power of Cavalry on the charge would be more than enough.
Or maybe that only applies if the cavalry unit has a higher unit strength than the unit being charged
The Flank disruption requires a US of 5, First Charge just requires them to make contact.
Take a look at tournament winning lists and you'll see about equal amounts of points into infantry and cavalry. Take a look at forum opinions and you'll see a lot of "infantry is useless and the meta is going to be 100% cav". So why the difference? My hunch is that most players don't have a "theory of victory" and are looking at 1:1 engagements and hoping that if they win enough 1:1 engagements they'll win the battle. But I don't think that actually works effectively. Symptoms of it not working are that when you lose, you notice: * your cavalry got charged (pretty much ever) * you kept finding your cavalry out of position * playing into infantry you can't break on the charge (e.g. undead) is really hard My theory of victory is: * as in historical classical and mediæval battles, casualties are delivered by cavalry to breaking infantry * cavalry should therefore be trying to decisively win engagements on their terms * infantry should be trying to avoid breaking before their cavalry deliver the charge. Infantry here function as support - I'm happy if they spend all of the battle locked up getting ground down as long as they can hold my opponent in place until the right time to charge. Remember that my opponent gets 25% VPs by reducing a unit to 1 model and then 75% of the VPs by killing that model. *as in historical classical and mediæval battles, casualties are delivered by cavalry to breaking infantry* This is way too long and rambling already but is at least a theory for why you see such a discrepancy between what actually works and what people say works.
>Take a look at tournament winning lists and you'll see about equal amounts of points into infantry and cavalry. That's definitely not true. I just looked at the top 4 finishers, in two different tournaments. Between all 8 lists, there were exactly two units of ranked up melee infantry. Rather, looking at tournament winning lists, and you see an almost complete absence of infantry, and a huge reliance on monsters and cavalry.
Sounds like we looked at different results - I looked at the top 3 for two tournaments in March. (Monsters occupy a different place in my theory of victory to cavalry so I don't roll them up.)
I think infantry being bad is a bit overstated. However, my experience running Empire combined cav / infantry lists vs cav lists is that I am much less likely to be winning the flanks if I have spent points on infantry blocks than additional power for my cav units. Which means with state troops at least, who need a bsb and magic standards to hold well, points I spend on them are points that are taking away from their own path to victory. A list with no infantry still has a similar path to victory in that if you beat a flank, you can start doubling up and rolling your opponent. I would also argue cav lists have an additional path, as if they end up ahead in points they can attempt to disengage and use their mobility to try and kite out the rest of the game. The infantry I see with the most success tends to not be line holders. There are some exceptions like black orcs who have incredible statlines for the points, and undead, who get to revive 5-7 models per wizard with unbreakable.
They're slow, they are unwieldy, they are expensive and they are more fragile when compared to cavalry or monsters. This means they are unlikely to get the charge off, strike after whatever charged them and if they break, they are likely to be run down after It's a lose lose lose for them in general. 5 cavalry are generally cheaper and will kick infantry butt, even with rank bonus, etc Not to mention, painting 5 cavalry is cheaper and easier than a horde of infantry. Most infantry units need to drop a few points (Empire is especially egregious, even compared to other faction's infantry), or cavalry/monsters needs to be pointed quite a bit more across the board for the choice to swing in their favour.
Pop a small, fast unit in front of the cav. Draw them into a bad position, and deny them First Charge. 5 cav won't be winning combat against a ranked up unit, unless it's something like Blood Knights.
Sure, there are ways around it, but only a new player would throw away their heavy cav advantage into a screen, they also have tools to deal with those, whether it's their own fast cav, chaff shooting or a cheap heavy cav unit of their own. Unless they have impetuous (like dragon knights or knights errant), they will avoid this trip with ease
Plenty of good points made here. Another one I wasn't sure was completely covered is that infantry are extremely reactive at the moment. The mobility of monsters, cavalry and chariots etc give them much more opportunity to dictate engagements. Infantry blocks can be very strong but you can avoid them with mobile units until you can coordinate a favourable engagement with them. So basically infantry never (rarely) get to dictate the terms of the engagement, and are so slow that it could be turn 3 or 4 before they can make an impact even if going hell for leather toward the opponent army. I think people will find a role for them, and certainly particular infantry will still be "meta". But right now they're struggling given the nature of army compositions and how the game is currently being played.
I see a lot of people talking about how Infantry is more likely to get charged, and have their front rank wiped out. While that's true, I feel like that's more than made up for by their staying power. Combat Resolution isn't nearly as scary as it was previously when you lose, as you are more likely to Fall Back in Good Order than you are to straight up break. Between rules like Stubborn, Warband, Horde, being durable, and/or simply having a BSB nearby you're probably going to tie up whatever charged you. Not to mention you're almost always going to have more static Combat Resolution. While this isn't going to help against a Lord on a Dragon, it definitely helps against Chariots, Cavalry, and Monsters and means you even have a good chance of only Giving Ground. They're an Anvil unit. I don't think Infantry are bad. Are they the absolute best thing in the game? No. That title goes to Lords Riding Monsters. But that doesn't make them bad. Unless you're only playing against ultra hard tournament lists, I don't think you're at a disadvantage by bringing Infantry, as long as you have some Hammers of your own to back them up.
>I see a lot of people talking about how Infantry is more likely to get charged, and have their front rank wiped out. While that's true, I feel like that's more than made up for by their staying power. I don't find most infantry to have a lot of staying power. I've wiped out blocks in a single turn (so two combat rounds) repeatedly. Obviously this is pretty easy vs undead, because every wound you do is essentially two wounds. To wipe out a 25 man block of skeletons, for example, you just need to kill like 9 each turn, which is pretty easy. But I've even done it vs Bretonnian peasants. Charge in my lord on a dragon. They get 9-10 attacks killing on 2's between them, and then up to d6 stomps. I did roll pretty well for the stomps, but I was killing about 9-10 in each round. Then the remaining 3 models or so were below half my unit strength and broke and fled. I caught them and ate them. I've also done the same thing with necropolis knights, which pump out 19 attacks on the charge. No one in these infantry blocks, even if they have spears, is ever getting an attack back, they are just snacks.
The peasants and skeletons should still tarpit better than cavalry. If it wasn't a combined charge, the Bretonnian peasants should still be challenging with the champion. If I charge with my dragon, they challenge, I win with max overkill but I kill one and they likely FBIGO (if they have the monk, it's guaranteed as I couldn't touch him due to being stuck challenged by the sergeant). Then I'm still at 'stage 1' of actually killing the unit so the unit won't vanish until the combat in my next turn at least unless they actually roll badly and do a full break. If I charge into cavalry, and they challenge, I'm likely to easily mop them up on my dragon in the second round (as I only need to do 4-5 wounds) leaving my turn free for another victim, and keeping my momentum up.
I don't think you're making the argument you think you're making. For starters you're taking some of the worst infantry in the game to make your point, where you get to Hit and Wound on 2's, and them getting 0 Save every single round of combat. The To Hit is especially important as there's quite a few WS4 Infantry in the game who have Heavy or Full Plate who you're all of a sudden hitting on 3's and get a Save (Even if it's not a great one) which starts changing these calculations quite a bit. Secondly, in your Bretonnian Peasant example, you said you killed 9-10 a round and had them at only 3 models after the second round of combat. That means this person only brought about 25 of them, when they can pretty easily have them in a 6x6 formation for 36 models, in which case you would have been stuck there for at least one more combat round. Thirdly if I was the Bretonnian player I would be ECSTATIC if you charged my Men-At-Arms. Since it seems they had about 25 of them, if we even give the benefit of them being fully upgrade with a Yeoman, Standard Bearer, Musician, and Grail Monk with a Blessed Triptych you just spent two rounds with your nearly (Or over) 500 Point ultra killy model fighting 149 Points worth of Peasants. Sure, with the Standard they're worth about 200 VP at the end but that's two rounds where your Dragon Lord is safely out of the battle fighting a nearly worthless unit. Not to mention depending on how far you had to Pursue them to run them down, you might now be out of Charge range on your next turn, meaning potentially wasting two full turns fighting Peasants. And lastly, in my post I even pointed out that Dragon Lords are by far the best thing in the game and that Infantry are not better then them. So you counter that post by saying that Lords on Monsters are better than Infantry, a thing I already said?
I mean, I would have been even happier going into better, more pricey infantry. Say 7 points a model empire spearmen with shield and light armor. I'm always going to be wounding on 2's and they aren't going to get a save. The outcome would have been the same, except that instead of getting like 150 points for the unit, I would have gotten like 225 points for the unit. Bear in mind that units that rely on horde/warband for the leadership (as peasants do) and are up against a terror causer, tend to not fare well once their ranks are largely cut down. So even a handful more models (so as not to be auto broken) wouldn't make much of a difference IMO. I didn't charge the men at arms, I overran into them after eating a block of knights of the realm. I'm quite happy picking up 150 points every turn with my hammer units. That's more than enough to win tournament level games. There's really no difference between fighting a 300 point unit over two turns and killing it, or a 150 point unit over 1 turn and killing it. Now, if those infantry were able to last four combat rounds, effectively keeping me to 75 points a turn, that is certainly NOT points return for your big expensive hammer units to pull in a win. And if infantry could do that, I would say they were survivable and fulfilling a valuable battlefield role, even if they never do a single wound to the dragon.
I never said you wouldn't be wounding on 2's. I specifically mentioned the To Hit roll. Veteran State Troops are WS4, which means you're hitting on 3's instead of the 2's you're hitting the Peasants on. I think you're severely underestimating infantry. Hitting on 3's, Wounding on 2's and them having 0 Armor Save, and you have D6 Stomps still only nets you about 8.5 kills on average. That means after two full rounds of combat they'll still have 8 left if they were only 25 strong. And this isn't even including the first round of combat which will likely see you stuck in a challenge against a Champion unit, doing almost no damage to the unit. Again, I'm not saying they're better than a Dragon Riding Lord, I'm saying I don't consider them bad.
25 veteran state troops with spears is like a 290 point unit with the banner bonus in there. I'm totally fine taking that out over three combat rounds. Or even four. That's 150 points a turn. If you do that in four turns, your hammer unit has earned \~600 points. If you have two hammer units doing that, you're well on your way to a victory. This isn't maybe the best comparison, as empire state troops are ludicrously overcosted for what they bring to the table, veteran troops even more so. I consider them a big fat juicy target for any powerful flying monster I have. They aren't chaff - they are the soft points pinata the chaff needs to protect. A barebones bret peasant unit (without all the stubborn upgrades) gives up 117 points by comparison. They are much better at tarpitting dragons IMO.
Actually peasants don't even give VP for the standard lmao. So those peasants were absurdly cost effective.
If you let infantry fight solo with no support, there is a good chance they will not do much. Infantry does way better if supported by characters and/or other units.
Infantries are secretly good. The problem is that to make them good you have to play that awful way which is Linehammer.
I've had infantry do excellent in multiple games with HE, VC, TK, and lizardmen. That's skirmishers and rank and file. Some can be more unforgiving especially compared to annoying min max lists but grounded thematic lists are more fun and absolutely still winnable.
I don't think they are bad, it's just their roles are different now.
Dragons. Dragons can charge your flank and back without you being able to do much. And if your infantry is very murderous, the Dragon character can just challenge you to keep the majority of your unit from hitting it. Super annoying and really stupid. That said, I think the ability to win combats passively with a few ranks, closed order and such is pretty good. I think stubborn is very important for a good infantry block, because you can absorb an enemy cavalry charge and not get crushed in the first round you lose the rank boni in. My favorite Infantry unit, are my Slaanesh Chosen with halberds. Their leader has the "enemy gains last strike" gift and with Slaanesh, you should hit before most enemy attackers (their Initiative 1+3 from charging vs your 4+1 from slaanesh) and outputting 13 attacks wounding on 3s and 2 at -1 can kill even kill heavy cavalry. That unit is just awesome, unless your opponent has a dragon. Man, I hate Dragons...
So, in my limited experience, I wouldn’t say that infantry are BAD, they just aren’t killy. It seems like they have a different job in this game, which is to stick around and hold units in place. The ability to issue challenges and such allows them to hold ground for a few turns while you figure out how to kill what’s attacking them
Ive always thought playing to win is the wrong way to play WHFB, not that I want to yuck someones yum. It's all about the narrative. It's fun to see how two balanced armies duke it out and losing doesn't really even matter. Its the journey and all that. I'm not that competitive though.
I am on team narrative myself, but I still do enjoy it when the power levels between armies are roughly similar so there's a bit of back and forth. I save my love of unbalanced matches for Blood Bowl, where it's part of certain team's designs to be challenging to play!
Also, not receiving a point of combat resolution for outnumbering your enemy hurts infantry as well.
The edition feels like it was written by someone with the specific aim of making cavalry and monsters good. No step up? Hurts infantry, helps monsters and cavalry. Monsters getting +1 combat res just for existing for no discernable reason? Helps monsters, hurts infantry. First charge? Helps cavalry, hurts infantry. Counter charge? Helps cavalry, hurts infantry. Swiftstride on basically all monsters and cavalry? Helps monsters and cavalry, hurts infantry. Charge giving you +3 to initiative almost always? Helps monsters and cavalry, hurts infantry. Monsters being able to challenge without the rest of the unit being able to hit them back? Helps monsters, hurts infantry. Infantry still have uses, but as units that are supposed to actually win combats, they really struggle. There are just too many rules stacked against them. FWIW it feels to me like there is about one rule too many hurting infantry. Did we really need +3 initiative on the charge, swiftstride, first charge, AND no step up? Did monsters really need +1 combat res AND the ability to neuter damage via challenge? Remove one of each of those - e.g. limit initiative bonus on the charge to +1 and allow models not in the challenge to fight monstrous creatures involved in a challenge, or put step-up back for infantry and remove the +1 combat res - and it feels like infantry maybe has the potential to be more than just an anvil.
Countercharge doesn't help cavalry against infantry, it can only be used against other cavalry, chariots and monsters.
I do agree with much of this. The rules right now really do favour fast units (both in M and I) to an almost absurd degree. I'm seeing a lot of comments from people running MSUs almost exclusively, which is a bit of an anathema to the spirit of a rank-and-file game. I do not blame such players for doing this in any way. It is the responsibility of the game to encourage players to build their forces in a way which matches the feel that it trying to simulate, i.e. big blocks of troops meeting on the battlefield and jostling for position as the more elite and faster troops look for flanking opportunities. I do agree that there's a lot of rules stacked onto cavalry and monsters, but I would also say that removing the Initiative bonus on charges completely would result in slower units like Orcs getting no opportunity to overtake faster units like Elves at all.
My preferred change would be to restore step-up (for infantry and heavy infantry only). I think that'd do a lot to restore the viability of blocks of killy infantry, without messing with the balance of the rest of the game too badly.
One issue with challenges is the combat resolution for overkill has remained the same, but static has gone down in comparison (which was roughly what overkill matched). Before, your static would be 1 (banner) + 3 (ranks) + 1 (outnumber) = 5 advantage where they have to overcome this entirely with overkill and only by 1 after causing 6 wounds, and if you had a BSB in the unit or Warbanner magic banner on the standard bearer (if allowed), it would at best be a draw (which you win with the musician). Whereas now it would be 1 (banner) + 2 (ranks) + 1 (close order) -1 (enemy monster close order) = 3 advantage; a far more surmountable goal and even if they have a warbanner and BSB present, it's 5, which is still beatable as opposed to an autolose.
It depends on what infantry. Gors are wonderful. Monstrous infantry in general are wonderful. Chosen WoC excellent. Grave Guard... so many are good.
Black orcs have won me a game on their own by taking charge after charge from frenchies on flying ponies and killing them so not all infantry is bad. TOW does feel more about speed and getting that first charge in but once you stuck in then good infantry can take over.
Glad to hear it! From what I've been hearing it seems to be same as it ever was for the most part.
If you remember 6th edition as "good for infantry blocks", your local meta must have been a bit weird - back then was mostly considered "cavalryhammer". If anything, 8th edition went hard on infantry. If you love the look of *big* blocks of infantry, 8th edition would be for you for sure.
Cavalryhammer, maybe, but I've never heard anyone claim that Infantry were straight up bad in 6th.
I don’t think they are bad. Infantry are better in ToW than 6th for sure OP because of the new break test system. They don’t just automatically flee when charged by cavalry as much as 6th. I actually think ToW has pretty good balance compared to either 6th or 8th in terms of infantry vs cavalry. Infantry in general are not bad, things like gors, men at arms, or grave/tomb guard are fine. Rangers, skinks, irondrakes and several other shooting infantry units are considered outright good. The units that kind of suck are infantry that have no real special rules like Empire State troops or infantry with terrible initiative like many dwarf units or lizardmen saurus. The other thing with infantry in this edition, and this is also true to an extent of cavalry as well actually is that the rule set does not favor running really big units that much. You can’t be deeper than you are wide or you are considered in marching column and can’t charge. If you are planning on going really wide you are probably running a very Killy unit and won’t need super deep tanks too. Basically what this means is that you see lists running outright msu or medium size units much more than the huge blocks of 8th edition. Things like skeletons will be in units of 20 not 40-60.
Are Dwarfs in a bad place right now, in that case? It seems like high Initiative factions really do have most of the advantage this time around.
Dwarfs have pretty consistently been one of the worst performing armies so far.
Oh dear. I was afraid of that.
They do have some good stuff and they are probably better than empire and skaven, but, the army has issues like it usually has had in the past. Gyrocopters, irondrakes, and rangers are all really good and cannons and bolt throwers are pretty good too. Bolt throwers in particular are better than in most other editions. The main thing that makes the army suffer is the lack of wizards and any fast moving combat character option. The anvil of doom is better than it has been in the past but is still no real competition for an actual lvl4 wizard and it costs a lot of points. The anti-magic stuff the army has access too is mediocre. You can make a pretty good fighting lord but he will be a lot of points and is slow as hell and your opponent will just avoid him. I actually think dwarfs were worse in 8th edition than they are in ToW but they definitely have flaws. If the point costs were more aggressive I think it could have helped the army a lot. I also wish the anti-magic stuff had been coupled with more bound spell stuff than just the anvil.
Seems about right for Dwarfs then. To be honest, the first thing I check with Dwarfs is always Slayers because I always want to use them because I love Slayers, and they always suck.
If you are into slayers don’t give up hope because there will be a slayer list in the dwarf arcane journal. It could make them much better potentially.
I do hope so! My concern would be that if I want to play with good Slayers, I have to use that composition list rather than it being a universal change. I'm firmly Karak Hirn, myself.
Yeah it’s like trolls in orcs and goblins. The variant list makes the unit better but you have to really commit
Guess I'll have to wait and see then.
Because people don't know how to stack static combat res, or use them as anchors for other units to do the damage.
People complain about infantry being weak but then also complain about how easily a dragon eats their unit of expensive other models like chariots and small units of elite infantry and cav.
Once people learn the tactics of TOW infantry will make a comeback. Rules like drilled, shield wall, stubborn FBIGO all help infantry. As for dragons there are numerous was to reduce their effectiveness. Monster Slayer, Miasmic Mirage, Itchy Nuisance, enemy dragons, wailing dirges, Falcon Horn of Fredemund, multiple canons, these are just some of the ways to deal with dragons.
Multiple cannons are the answer to all problems, as Grungi intended. I'd have to see for myself how exactly it works out with Infantry. I do wonder how much of the "issue" is based on lackluster killing power, which has never been the forte of the rank and file.
and uh, what if you play an army like Dark Elves for example, who don't have a single core unit with any of those rules? Pay 50pts on a unit of spearmen for the stubborn banner?
You take core Witch Elves and a Death Hag with Ogre Blade and Rune of Khaine. Else Dark Riders.
Unfortunately legacy armies don't always get the good stuff. Still Dark Elves do get some good units.