# Large units unwieldy?



## Azzaphox (Jul 13, 2012)

Ok, so very large units got much more effective..
But.. aren't they a pain to manouver around the battlefield?
Isn't it tough if there is plenty of scenery to put them where you need them?


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Gets even worse depending on the type of large unit. A horde of cavalry will constantly be taking 2-3 dangerous terrain rolls as they march or charge into cover, not to mention the units is almost completely unable to do stuff like march block or escape charges due to its foot print. On the plus side large units can be so deadly that even flank and rear charges won't give you a win.

That's why your anchor units need smaller support units to due all the stuff they can't (Defending from over runs, redirecting ect.).


----------



## Ratvan (Jun 20, 2011)

I typically never play a unit in horde formation so never really seem to have much of an issue with this, the only time that I play a horde is reforming into one to take a charge and make sure I put plenty of hurt on in the first round of combat/press home the advantage in further rounds if I'm given the choice of combat reforming


----------



## olderplayer (Dec 11, 2009)

We play with a decent amount of terrain. Yet, there are certain units that run well in horde formation (savage orc big uns), bloodletters, but most not. Skaven armies naturally run large units. New VC armies are runing larger ghoul, zombies and sometimes grave guard successfully. I see ironguts horde units. The new empire armies sometimes run a larger halberd unit with two deatchments of decent size. I see huge chaos marauder units run successfully. I have run bloodletters in horde formation but then use a greater daemon or smaller unit (5 or 6 widfe plague bearers) and a lot of faster, hard hitting units such as fiends, fleshhounds, and furies to act as chaff and control the flow the combat. The key in all cases is a mix of units, smaller units of archers, chaff, large monsters, single model threats, etc. to control the flow of movement. 

I am a big believer that 8th edition is designed to be played with a decent amount but not too much terrain. If people really played with 8th edition terrain, then there should be on average 7 to 8 items on the table. When I run local tourneys, my tables always have mixed terrain with one forest, one river pond or marsh (breaks steadfast and slows down units, never too long or too large so as to not dominate the table), a hill that block LOS (usually 8 to 12 inches wide), a building (limited to one to 3 levels and max of 30 standard models), at least one decent obtacles (wall or fence 6" to 10" long), and at least one impassible terrain item (usually not large, like pillar, rock, tomb crypt, but big enough to stop a cannon ball, force a unit to move around or cause a dangerous terrain test to fleeing units, and maybe tall enough to block LOS). I try to divide the table up into 24" square sections and randomly place one item of terrain in each section but the terrain piece in each section only occupies a fraction of the total area, leaving plenty of room for larger units to move past or around such features. Also, the rivers are no longer than 12" to 18" and no wider than 2" to 4" and often north to south, rather than east to west or diagonal, so as to not overly dominate the table but create dividers and also allow for tactics of drawing larger steadfast units in the river to break steadfast and rank bonuses. 

With such a table, I find that the layout still allows plenty of room for large units and none of the terran is too large to block one or two horde units on each side. yet, there is enough terrain to stop cannon bals and allow for one to employ interesting tactics.


----------



## Deathypoo (Jun 27, 2011)

Also, to expand on the terrain part of the answer...

In previous editions, terrain would slow you so much that it was almost necessary to avoid it completely. Now it often kills you instead of slowing you, but I find that if I have a unit of 50 warriors, having the right 3 files make dangerous terrain tests isn't a really big deal. 2~3 troops is nothing if it means moving where I want to move. It took me a while to get used to that idea in 8th.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

I liked the old style terrain- if you forced an opponent unit to overrun into terrain they could often be stuck in there for the rest of the game... but it did make a lot of terrain fairly pointless as people just went round no matter what it was.

I like the way its played in the current edition although I still think it odd that units can move at full pace through it. Personally I would prefer a happy medium with no-marching through most terrain except for skimishers. Only thing which is really silly in 8th though is the lack of dangerous terrain roles for some units: my pump wagon for example is a chariot, so almost everything is dangerous for it... and yet its almost impossible to make it take a terrain test (only if it moves through terrain and hits an enemy unit). Same goes for chariots which only normally take dangerous terrain if they charge or flee... ah well.


As for amount of terrain... I like a mixture. I dislike boards which have lots of terrain; open ground should dominate the board with some terrain between it. BUt as to exact number and type I'm happy with most things: its sometimes fun to have a lot of forests or none at all, or lots of buildings... but if you are going to have a lot of terrain or a lot of 1 type careful placement during deployment is key to a decent game. 3-4 buildings all placed in a deployment zone can dominate the game, while a small 'village' towards the side of a board and well away from deployment gives tactical options without just screwing with the flow of the game...


----------

