In addition to hobbying (the greatsword-swinging Foot Guard should hopefully be all done by the end of the weekend! Pics to come once they are based!) I sat down over some coffee today and did some more thinking, with the goal of articulating for myself some of my perceived differences between Kings of War and Warhammer 8th Edition. I'm not getting as many games in as I would like.. so hopefully some thinking can help me get the most out of them by picking the best tactics and units to test.
So, on with some differences between the systems and thoughts on adapting the MSU playstyle
- First, is that all characters are individuals now – they can’t join units like they could in WHFB.
- Second is that unit sizes are streamlined, and units in general are “more similar.” A horde is a horde everywhere (though there is still some variation between 20mm and 25mm models), and something like spearmen in one army are relatively equally costed to their counterparts in other armies.
- Third, is the lack of death star builds, and this is a result of the first two differences. Characters can’t hide in units, buff them and inflate the “worth” of the unit. You can still run some big and expensive units, but there is more of a points cap on them, particularly since characters can’t join in.
I’m definitely a fanboy of Swordmaster of Hoeth (link and his brother. Looking at Swordie’s reports though, he’s not out-deploying his opponents as much these days; usually by just a few drops. It’s harder to leverage the strengths of MSU (combo charge potential; annoying sacrificial chaff units) when your opponent can go drop-for-drop with you most of the way.
- The fourth difference is the non-linear cost of units. It was an easy call for me to make when list building in WHFB to split units up into smaller pieces, as I was not spending any points to do so. Nowadays, one horde is are far less than the four troops that comprise it. The MSU player is paying a little bit of a premium for those extra units and attacks and in-game options offered by having more units.
- Fifth is spells. Running MSU in WHFB had some good success as much of the magic phases were spent casting huge spells to try to destroy huge units. Now though, we have lots of magic missiles-type spells flying around (Lightning Bolt!), which, is bad news for our smaller units...
- Sixth is treating units as units in combat. Having the entire unit swing regardless of how many models actually makes contact with the enemy is huge. This was clearly shown here, on this very blog in the Battle for the Brews game. The MSU player will need to watch those angles and ranges even more carefully now.
- Seventh is the Nerve mechanic, which, honestly, is really nifty. I like the idea that a larger unit would be harder to demoralize and break. This is far more elegant to WHFB’s clunky rank bonuses and steadfast rules. However… Nerve does make it a little more difficult to break these larger units with an MSU force. The value is high, and as long as the unit is on the field, it is attacking at full strength. It’s hard to contain and whittle down a large unit when you can’t reduce its combat prowess through model attrition.
- The eighth difference is fixed charge ranges. This is big. If you are in range, you can connect. There’s no real “baiting” charges anymore (and no fleeing!). True, the choice still lies with your opponent whether to charge or not, but their job is simplified, as they only need to juggle the statistical averages for combat, not that and balance that against the thought of will I even make it there.
That is the third and final takeaway for this post. Combat is different now. Charge ranges are fixed. fighting is one-sided each turn. It’s total. It’s brutal. I think MSU will need to develop some new skills for setting-up winning combats.. but I don't have enough experience to know what those are.
So, after all that blabbering, here are the big three takeaways that I will be looking at as I go to play my next games (in addition the "checklist")
Biggie #1 – All armies seem to have more drops now. Out deploying an opponent is harder, and that means that MSU got harder to play.
Biggie #2 – You are paying a bit of a premium to run your smaller units. Make sure you run the units in the sizes you need, otherwise you’ll bleed points away to no effect.
Biggie #3 – combat is different, now that it is one-sided each turn. Winning combats/games for MSU will require some different skills.
...as to how MSU can/should/will change to compensate for this... I don't know. I'll get some more games in, and see if any ideas come.
Hello again!
ReplyDeleteIt is of course interesting to compare two systems but I think it might be also beneficial to take your observations as stand alone bullet points and try to get some conclusions from them.
Let me start with your Big-Three and add some of my own observations that will add to what you have commented in more details in your post.
1. Armies have quite a few elements.
I have noticed that at 2000 points armies rarely go below 10 elements total. Some are more compact and some will have 15+ easily even without trying (Ratkin anyone?).
In addition, every element, be it unit, hero, war machine or monster, is still a single deployment drop.
From what I have learned so far it means two things. First, you should (if at all) compare your MSU theme only to the army from your own army list. Sometimes you can still have more elements than your opponents but you cannot really count that it will happen every time.
Second, despite the above, you can still use your larger number of deployment drops to your advantage.
For example, I noticed I can usually deploy my fighting infantry in the middle of the formation (that does not have to be in the middle of the battle field) and still keep guessing where my hard hitting elements would go.
What is more, not having that one/two hordes with nice artifacts means my opponent has tougher time predicting where and in what formation my units will deploy. Unlike with big horde that when positioned will tell you immediately where supporting monster, hero and breath weapon war engine is going to follow.
2. Smaller units cost more than the size suggests.
That is true and that is what I like about KoW. There are trade offs. You get something but have to give up something else. It is clear that you pay more for troops that seem to be more fragile than the same number of warriors in a regiment or especially in a horde formation.
But I said "trade offs" so what are the benefits? Well, as you have mentioned in your article, units have fixed size. You can use it to your advantage because now you can fit two of your troops against one regiment. Against the horde it is even better, you can actually afford a frontal assault sometimes and pack quite a punch.
The advantage will be that this horde, even if not routed in one go (with frontal assault not likely) has only a single target to counter charge. And in doing so it may expose flanks to other units already.
I will address this particular situation in your point 3. But you may look at the fact that you pay some more for the same number of warriors but in more units as extra cost that is worth investing in order to obtain flexibility of movement and choosing targets for shooting/melee.
3. Melee
ReplyDeleteTo my surprise getting used to unique combat in KoW didn't take that long. Firs of all, you just have to assume that there will be exchange of blows. Simply because some of the units have nerve value quite high to even have a chance to rout them on the charge. But also because the units don't lose their melee potential with damage taken.
But then that exchange of blows is happening only in respective turns.
How is MSU force going to use that to its advantage though? Well, the fact that if you attack the enemy you can be sure to last until his turn and block his unit from attacking anything else (unless it is a flier or sometimes an individual) can be turned into advantage.
Since you have more elements to spare you send one of your units to fight the enemy that would otherwise come to help and focus majority of forces against intended target. It can be done as I hinted above against horde formation too.
Say you have 4 units against enemy horde and one more regiment on its flank. You send one of your own against that flanking element and pin it in place. It means 3 of yours will attack the horde. The enemy will counter only one of them. Even if you lose it you still have 2 units left that can attack for the second time against already damaged horde.
In such exchange you might find yourself eliminating much bigger unit of the enemy and being in the better position to continue attack with the fresh survivors (horde had to choose only one of the initial 3 attackers to counter) against one unit that took some damage from your pinning attack.
And that is only when we are talking about clashing in a frontal assault. While KoW highly rewards flank/rear charges and with more flexible battle line you can possibly sneak around easier.
Cheers!
…I feel like I have a guest and didn’t properly clean up beforehand. Re-reading my post and your comment, I realized that this post has text sizing errors and it appears I forgot to actually link to your blog like I had intended.. Oops. Please forgive the mess. Thanks again for visiting and commenting Swordmaster! It’s been fun to read and ruminate on your reactions today. You make a lot of great points, and even provide examples to boot! I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written here.
ReplyDeleteI’m still trying to drum up local interest in Kings of War (we have yet to really regroup and recover from the launch of AoS), so I haven’t had much experience with larger games or even against larger units yet, unfortunately. Most of my experience with combat in the game has been more chess-like; less of a grind and more just straight trading units each turn. Your comments/tactics for dealing with hordes are particularly encouraging. I’m really looking forward getting in some more games with this army.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read my thoughts and share yours!
You have absolutely nothing to worry about! I am honored you considered my blog as worthy linking to and you started a very interesting discussion. As I mentioned elsewhere, the MSU concept requires some adaptation and re-defining for KoW. That is probably why we both often feel like not having a clear direction as to where that idea should lead to.
DeleteI am happy you like what I wrote and I must say I was surprised it ended up to be quite lengthy comment. Or two :) However, your post helped me to clarify my thoughts better so thanks for providing some food for thought!
I will do my best to add more comments to your battle reports too. Just, please, be patient as real life is quite busy now. But I am definitely going to be a regular visitor to your blog now, so please, keep up the great work!
Cheers!
Thanks for the encouragement. It’s gratifying to hear. And I’m glad we could help each other think things through a little bit! It’ll be a process figuring out how MSU fits into this new game – but I’m very much looking forward to it. Kings of War a good game with a great community!
DeleteI initially wanted to simply transfer the MSU concept from one game to another. I think it was a bit of a mistake because it added a limitation to both, the concept and the way one would like to play in KoW.
ReplyDeleteThat is why I returned to a more generic concept that was still the background for MSU in Warhammer. That concept draws from the idea of Swarming in military history. What it refers to is a highly mobile and flexible army able to group and re-group on the battle field in order to bring overwhelming force at particular place and time.
Probably one of the best examples from history is Mongol army. It is of course only an inspiration but what I wanted to achieve is to design the army under KoW rules that is fast, highly mobile and can focus its hitting power at a chosen point of enemy battle line at a particular time.
In my opinion such force simply cannot use horde formation due to the fact it is more cumbersome and unwieldy. Since KoW bases composition of the armies around regiments, I wanted to use these as a core. But to flesh out the rest I would choose troops mainly, adding heroes and war engines only when necessary.
I would agree with your anti-horde stance, for exactly the reasons you list.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I don’t think the old Warhammer MSU tenant about avoiding heroes and warmachines is as true in Kings of War. While they have their limitations relative to actual units of soldiers, I will probably actually run more heroes and/or war machines in KoW than I did in Warhammer.
Hello!
ReplyDeleteThe reasons I didn't want to take too many war machines and/or heroes in WHFB were:
- both types are single deployment drop.
- war machines are static
- heroes are expensive
In Kow the situation is different because:
- you deploy sing war engine and/or hero at a time, hence the total number of elements matters.
- not all war engines are static (and I still use Bolt Throwers because they do help me) and I really like those with Breath Weapon special rule.
- heroes don't have to be that expensive and some of them are more like units on their own
The main reason I don't have many heroes in my own army is because I learned I can do better with units. Somehow I don't seem to use heroes to their full potential and the three I have now work well for me.
In general, I don't think there should be fixed rules for MSU approach. But a checklist of things that may help is still good to have!
Cheers!