7th Ed. Cold One Cavalry Tactica (Updated 9/2/09)

[J.J.]

Re: Cold One Cavalry Tactica (Updated 8/6/09)

thesecondman - I completely agree with you about Huanchi's - the unit already has issues with reliability, and I've found adding additional uncertainty to their performance doesn't really add anything. Barotok, it might be good to see a point on this in the tactica itself.

Also, since we've been discussing the stupidity issue, it might be interesting to see a breakdown of the actual probability of the CORs failing checks under different circumstances - for example, over a six turn game, what is the likelihood of failing one, two, or three stupidity checks for a standard unit, a unit with a scar-vet, a unit with an old-blood, etc. Might give folks some context within which to discuss the pros and cons. Just my two cents.

 

[Revered_Guardian]

Re: Cold One Cavalry Tactica (Updated 8/6/09)

In the games I've played. They've NEVER failed stupidity

 

[Barotok]

Re: Cold One Cavalry Tactica (Updated 8/6/09)

The tactica outlines that there is an 10% approximate chance of failing the stupidity roll. Simple probability calculations allow you to deduct the amount of projected failures in a 6 turn game (which is obviously less than 1). The odds of failing a stupidity test are lowered drastically over the course of a game if you're able to get the unit into combat (no stupidity test in combat). So considering you should take about 3-4 tests per game (the turns where you're not in combat) the odds go down even further for failure.

However, the other side of the coin is the price of failure. The more you rely on the unit, the more points spent on it and the more critical role it is expected to play in the list, the bigger the disadvantage of a 1 in 10 chance Stupidity turn. It can generate counter charges and destroy your battle line/plan. It can destory your movement strategy if they wander in front of a unit that needs to move. This has to be carefully considered before placing significant reliance on them.

I'd agree that the new totem in 7th edition isn't really as reliable or as good. I'll take a look at the tactica when I get home to make sure that both of these points are accurately reflected.

 

[lupercal]

i've always found the jaguar standard to be the one to take for the CoR as it all but makes sure that you catch fleeing units and it also sends you into other units quite often which is quite helpful with dealing with stupidity since that is a charge that needs no test but you have to set them up right to do it

 

[thesecondman]

Re: Cold One Cavalry Tactica (Updated 8/6/09)

In the games I've played. They've NEVER failed stupidity

Give it time. In a long enough time line everybodys' life expectancy drops to zero.
(Gogo gadget Fight Club quote).

 

[Dreadgrass]

Hi all, sorry to rez this post but Caneghem's once again sparked that pea sized brain In my head (Im a saurus at heart) We were discussing a Scar Vet build with the Wardrums of Xahutec (see Scar Vet Tactica) and he mentioned a few very good points about Cold one manouverability.

Now in other sorts of lists I could see him riding a cold one and assisting a unit of combat res heavy Cold One Cavalry. I've toyed with the idea of a unit of 5 cold ones with the war banner, and the Templar of Xahutec carrying the Battle Standard. A +3 static res cav unit that can always march sounds very nice. I would drop their frontage to 4 or even 3 depending on what I'm facing. The point is of course that the Scar Vet will be doing a good chunk of the wounds anyway, and as with most things and Warhammer, it's not necessarily how hard you hit them but where you hit them. The narrow frontage allows for excellent maneuverability, which would allow the cav to make some crazy 14" march moves near and behind enemy lines, giving them a large tactical advantage. Another thing to consider that most players don't (with the likely exception of Bretonnian players), is having a narrow frontage gives you a slight boost to the range of charges in which you must wheel. Using up less movement for wheeling helps in charging and in non-charging rounds.

I thought it may be pertinent as he raises some very good points about manouverability and how sometimes max frontage isn't best.

Example, what if the enemies not at least 80mm wide in the flank? (4 x "mansized" bases) If theres overlap from your saurus unit, then you may only be able to get a few models into B2B contact, meaning the rest of your cav units hanging out the end.

I guess the point Im making is that 5-6 wide may not be the way to go if your looking at a flanking manouver.