making my own thread and tagging @mattjgilbert and anyone else who might have answers
OG post:
- What’s the reasoning behind Wild Charge needing risk? Potentially failed charges feels incredibly not-Kings.
- What’s going on with the cost of hybrid units? Corsair Wranglers cost nearly as much as a unit of Soul Reavers, and aren’t far from a horde of Decimators, both units that can do more damage and are significantly more durable?
- One of the things that sets Undead apart from Empire of Dust is the ability to make a “wet Undead” list, with Vampires and Ghouls and Werewolves making the army entirely non-Shambling. I thought that was a cool archetype but in the rules as they stand, that army build doesn’t have Commands. Was that intentional? If so, why can both Soul Reavers and Ghouls be Core, if there’s no rules support for building an army around them?
questions I left out because I figured they were off topic:
*How is Retaliate! supposed to work on units like Frenzied Mob in KoM, or Greedyguts in Halflings? the Mob is 15+ Def 3+, how will they ever end up in BtB with 2 enemies without dying? Greedyguts is just a guy, how’s he going to end up in BtB with 2 enemies without dying?
*Why’d the Monarch have to go away?
*How can Militia in KoM have the Mercenary tag, those words are incompatible in meaning!
3 Likes
Re: Wild Charge (D3) changes, I don’t entirely get the generalized angst over the change. Yes, it reminds us WHFB veterans of the specter of failed charges. We are all deeply haunted gamers, this is true.
In practice, I’m not sure a lot changes? Previously, your opponent would move their dudes up to just outside of your wild charger’s maximum charge distance (Sp x2 +3”), because no way are they going to gamble that you roll low. They’re going to do the same thing in 4E. When you used to advance your wild chargers at a slower target, you would put them at their minimum charge distance (Sp x2 +1”), because no way you’re going to gamble that you roll high. The same thing applies in 4E.
I don’t think there’s a real use case in between these too. In 3E, if you didn’t roll enough distance, you didn’t charge and declared a different order. In 4E, if you declare a charge and don’t roll enough distance, you declare a different order.
I remember being gently shocked that you rolled all your WC distances across the army before declaring anything in 3E. It was a really nice ruling but felt awfully convenient. Joke’s on us, I guess!
EDIT: As in, it felt like a convenient game mechanic to roll them all beforehand. I’m going to guess Alessio feels it’s a more narrative mechanic to declare the charge and then have your frothing loonies not get up enough speed. I’m not seeing the practical difference between the two versions.
2 Likes
Retaliate! Also means that the unit can’t withdraw.
2 Likes
Also there are ways to get into combat with more than one unit without being multi-charged. Or if two goblin units are charging into a forest, your def 3+ might not really matter.
1 Like
Wow that is actively bad! Maybe Retaliate! is actually a negative trait? Like it’s intended as a (narrative-driven) debuff and we all assumed it must be some kind of beneficial trait.
2 Likes
I think Retaliate on this units would be better as on some which actually have it. For example Butchers. Already having CS 2 and then plus 1? Not all opponents are Earth Elementals…
Yeah, I liked it on the Frenzied Rabble, then realized the conditionality and was confused, and then saw it pop up a ton in the Abyssal army. Reminds me of WHFB Frenzy on my old Khorne stuff. Yes you got an extra attack, but your unit must charge and must overrun and all that can be exploited by a clever opponent.
Retaliate definately has some nuance. I really dig it.
1 Like
I would like to know why thunderous charge and hindering was reversed to its 2nd edition form.
In 3rd edition it was changed to TC -1. Now it is back to a complete loss.
Losing TC entirely makes cavalry super unattractive again.
1 Like
Yeah. Cavalry looks strong on paper, but with more context, cavalry starts to look a little more dubious. But hey, that might be the goal, with some more proper hammer and anviling, and unit counters.
As a Kingdoms of Men player I think a few regiments of proper Knights will be nice to have, but I don’t envision going with something like an all cavalry army.
It is worth noting that Phalanx got tweaked too, which is really interesting. Cav, Large Cav and Fliers are all hindered in the front of a Phalanx, and THAT is what gets rid of the TC. The rule doesn’t innately strip all TC anymore, so your infantry beserker types, Monsters/Titans, Large Infantry duders and even Chariots look like they can get around the Phalanx. Definitely some neat interactions going on.
1 Like
so there is no hindering terrain anymore?
I mean yes, Terrain will still hinder things. I admit it! But you get to chose your charge path now to possibly avoid it. But your opponent could still sit it terrain and force a hindered charge when you do slide down and align. But you could move a little hero or other unit over to prevent that full slide down and still keep your cavalry charge clear…
I’d actually agree that cavalry are not super attractive, and most units that I’ve seen have actually gotten nice points decreases to reflect the changes in the new edition.
My main point is that there is some nice complexity going on here. It is not as straightforward as yoloing a Knight Horde with the Brew of Strength into anything in front of it now, and I like that complexity. Cavalry will find uses as the edition unfolds, especially with sticky combats. They will likely require a little more finesse to use well though, and I think that could be a fun space to play around in.
2 Likes
ok, if i can now chose my path and been no longer forced to take the shortest possible route it makes more sense that TC gets lost. Thanks for the clarification. Makes cav still worse then units with CS 
1 Like
But now CS1 is better than TC2 (if hindered)..
Not only because of that I’m wondering where Cavalry hordes have gone. Nearly impossible to not be hindered.
1 Like
Random idea: give all cav the ability to ignore obstacles once. After that horses are blown.
1 Like
Should more units have strider instead of pathfinder?
There are a number of units that appear to have “kept” pathfinder from 3rd edition, but pathfinder has changed and doesn’t help close combat damage dealers very much. If terrain hinders a charge then it has to be avoided, double move or not.
The Herd units are the best example, they can’t really operate in terrain if it will hinder their charges and negate the TC that they rely on. However, they’re supposed to use cover to mitigate their lower De.
It’s not great for ranger units either. They pay points for close combat ability and pathfinder, but can’t use both effectively.
Herd (FoN) have a command to grant strider, so perhaps not the best example?
I general I think there is a push to really make terrain matter - I am surprised J-boots actually survived the edition change. I have only played the one game of 4th so far (at ambush scale too), but it was against FoN and I felt that they REALLY benefitted from the strider command, whcih felt thematic. Now, whether armies outside of FoN need more strider - maybe? Not sure. My goblins would have loved it! Rolling to hit on 6s is not great!
2 Likes
Echo ^
Definitely mantic want terrain to matter - hence PF change. Off top of head can only think of a handful of units that have both PF and strider by default (heroes mainly), but the herd ones can get the latter via a command.
From the design notes, the xirkaali dog boys getting strider makes sense - and it is a race only thing, not army wide.
Certainly will be interesting to see a full mantic take on the herd (and FoN in general)
2 Likes
Right. That makes more sense.
This occured to me with dwarf rangers, but seemed like a bigger deal for the Herd (before looking at command orders 
).
1 Like
