While trying to figure out some new lists and ideas to test out as May kicked off, I remembered a story from back in my Warhammer days. Well, technically the event happened a good while before my time. Back around 2003, a Empire General named Tim Walker aka The Village Idiot (TVI) won a WHFB GT with a pretty unique list for the times, and his approach remained very influential for years to come on the Empire forum, lasting long enough for me to hear of it surprisingly often when I picked up the game about a full decade later.
They were for a different game, but so many of TVI's tactics seem to show up in MSU specifically and in Kings of War generally, that I thought that it would be worth it to explore them a bit. Some links, for context:
Here, TVI does a quick write up on the GT and his initial thoughts back on the old Empire forum.
Here, FvonSigmaringen translates Randy Atchley's TVI Tactica back into English for Empire players in a new forum. And here is that same translation reposted on this blog with some formatting changes from me.
Overview
TVI focused on infantry, combined-arms tactics, and special rules to control the field and win.
List-wise he ran a few larger blocks of defensive infantry. Supporting the defensive blocks were smaller units of missile and melee troops. Each defensive block also had a small supporting cavalry unit, an artillery piece, and usually a supporting hero too, to aid the units nearby with buffs or leadership or magic. The blocks were deployed a ways ahead of their supporting elements, in order to limit enemy charge options to just the defensive blocks, which TVI wanted charged, due to special rules that would trigger. Lastly, these blocks spread from one side of the table to another, making it very hard for his opponents to outflank his line.
The artillery targeted monsters and other threats while the small cavalry units screened the main battle line of infantry. In the rules, the larger infantry blocks were termed parent units, with special rules linking them to the smaller supporting infantry units, termed detachments. If anything charged the parent unit, the detachments had the special ability to intercede, counter-charging the enemy out of turn. Warhammer Fantasy Battles was I-go-u-go, but unlike Kings of War, there was a lot more interaction between players on a given turn. For example, each melee combat was a slog, with both sides striking against their foe. Still, this ability to counter-charge your opponent on was very unique and very strong.
In the game, melee combat was a competition, comparing many static bonuses and killed enemy units vs the same for your opponent, with the loser needing to pass a test or flee, potentially being chased down. So, you could potentially charge in on something your turn, and be annihilated or simply repulsed. With detachments charging out of turn, the opponent usually had to overcome a lot to win, often letting the Empire player trounce things on their opponent's own turn from their opponent's own charge, and then take their usual next turn to chase down fleeing enemy units, move around, or commit more to the fight if it was not decided already.
Decline
Games change from edition to edition, and while I wasn't there for the transitions, this playstyle ended up being incredibly hard to duplicate in future editions of the game. I am not well-versed, but changing rules in three areas seemed to doom this play style over time:
Magic potency greatly increased, allowing some spells to tear through a lot of miniatures with a single cast. Simply stated, smaller units like the detachments could be obliterated with ease from afar now, before they could contribute to melee combats.
Detachment rules were later overhauled with huge nerfs, and lots of the others rules exploited in this style of play, like those related to static combat resolution, changed to be less useful as well. For example, at the time, if a detachment counter-charged, their rules allowed them to outright ignore the typical charge rules, and just end up in the flanks of the unit they were countercharging if they had the movement to get there. This was later removed, and the benefits for flanking reduced, and the model counts needed to get various static combat plusses increased. I don't know anyone who was able to get any success at all with detachment play when I played.
Unit size and set-up was very fluid in the game. But, in later editions, buoyed by general rules changes, and then influenced by the increased magical threats, larger units came to prominence. These could survive even combined charges from a few smaller units, and could be large enough to sometimes even locally outnumber the TVI player in model count.
Parallels for Kings of War
The model numbers per unit are slightly off, but TVI's approach is essentially infantry regiments supported by infantry and cavalry troops, with a hero and war machine attached as well. His list-building approach is very reminiscent of Kings of War, isn't it?
TVI also "played every phase" of the old game, using a mix of infantry and cavalry to maneuver, magic to protect himself, missile troops and artillery to pressure and draw his opponent in, but ultimately relying on infantry units and melee combat to win the day. That sounds an awful lot like a Kings of War game to me.
Spacing was a huge thing for TVI, and it is for Kings of War as well. TVI had his defensive units placed forward, and his support units safely behind. Unfortunately, our defensive Regiments can't strike back right away, nor can our support elements interrupt our opponent's turn with counter-charges. So, they are likely going to die. Still, this trading of units as well as spacing emphasis should be very familiar to Kings of War players.
Possible Lessons for Kings of War
Any of the "parallels" could be applicable lessons. I'm not an expert in TVI play, as I didn't play during that period, but as shown above, it does look to have a lot in common with Kings of War. Taking appropriate unit sizes, having a toolbox of answers, focusing on spacing, and knowing when and how to trade units are all good ideas to cultivate in wargaming, and definitely applicable for Kings of War.
All this said, the TVI style of play can't directly apply to Kings of War. As I understood it, TVI won combat largely through static combat resolution (all the plusses, like banners and outnumbering and flanking) rather than through actual kills, and these situations were built upon the special (very asymmetric) rules his army had access at the time. None of that will work in Kings of War, so some tactical tweaks would be needed.
Damage needs to be done in Kings of War, so something needs to actually do damage in our lists! Our supporting units therefore will likely need to be a little meaner and also probably a little larger in size, so we don't start bleeding away points or be paying more for a bunch of little troops that are unable to hit back effectively enough when the time comes.
Since we are not relying on an army-specific rule, TVI-style play can be explored by just about any army, which is neat, and Kings of War certainly has a lot to choose from! I think TVI-style play for KoW would likely be classified by 1) a focus on melee infantry, probably regiments with 2) a little bit of everything else (cavalry, shooting, war machines, and magic). If an army just went infantry + like, one major supporting element, I think that's probably just playing the game almost normally? The mix and balance of supporting elements is what makes TVI's approach so very unique I think.
I donno. I'm just blabbering. This may translate a bit or not at all. But all this has been interesting to ponder over the last week or so, and I think I'll try to devote some games to testing and exploring this a little more in the coming months.
No comments:
Post a Comment