Gaz Taylor Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 I know this has been discussed in the main original topic but thought I would ask the question as we will have new people looking at this and wondering (and I'm quite curious myself). What is the ideal unit size for 2000 points? I know the answer depends on what the unit is but it's just to start the discussion. I've not had any games yet as busy with Warmaster but from what I've read of the rules, the sizes I'm thinking about are around 18 to 24 in a 6 x 3 or 6 x 4 formation depending on unit size. This is a rough thought and took a lot of effort to forget about the big unit sizes of the previous edition. So what are you running or thinking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStreicher Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 (edited) After quie some games I've come to the following conclusion: (-> points at the reasoning) - If your unit is supposed to be a hammer go 7-10 wide. -> Maximizing attacks - If your unit has a low model count (10-15) and is a hammer: 10 wide. -> Maximizing attacks since rank bonus won't help a lot anyways - if the unit is supposed to tank/tarpit: 5 wide (4wide for heavy infantry) -> Offer less Models in contact, so the enemy gets less models striking with all of their attacks. - If the unit has no volley fire and can only be taken in units of 10: 10 wide -> So you don't lose out on shots -If the unit is a lance: Take either 5 or 7 Models -> Every Model is in the fighting rank. Every additional model lessens efficiency, though having a reserve isn't bad. -Volley Fire units should go as wide as possible, yet aiming for an odd number of models for their width -> Volley fire allows the ranks after the first to fire with half their models (rounding up), so chosing an odd number minimizes the amount of models in the 2.-n. ranks that can't shoot. (It also depends on how many ranks you will have) unit sizes: I most often end up having units of 10, 17, 20, 24, 26 depending on point investments. Edited March 14 by JackStreicher 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerekKruger Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 I'd be interested in what people are doing in this too. I'm not a fan of linehammer (I just don't like the way it looks). Personally I'm defaulting to 6x4 (maybe 6x3 if the unit is expensive) as my standard size, but that's mostly just because it looks good. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vakarian Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 6x4 is what I’m going to start with for mainstay units, too. 6x3 for more elite units at lower points values. Feels like it won’t be too bulky, will look “right,” and will allow for a bit more attacks in the fight under the new rules. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonhel Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 I am making units 5, 7 or 9 wide, but this is purely for aethetics reasons. Now that the standard bearer has to be as close as possible to the center in the front rank. An uneven number for the front rank is visually for me the way to go. I think @JackStreicher his approach is the best for unit building, but if the unit has the option for full command, I will always go for an uneven number for the front rank. I also agree with @JerekKruger. For me the aestehetics of the unit is more important than a couple of attacks more or less. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerekKruger Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 2 minutes ago, Tonhel said: I am making units 5, 7 or 9 wide, but this is purely for aethetics reasons. Now that the standard bearer has to be as close as possible to the center in the front rank. An uneven number for the front rank is visually for me the way to go. See, I thought this at first, but when you consider that standard bearers their standards to one side it actually looks quite good with even numbers. For example, if you have a standard bearer carrying their banner in their right hand, then if you place them in the left of the two middle slots of the formation the banner ends up pretty much in the middle of the unit. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonhel Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 1 hour ago, JerekKruger said: See, I thought this at first, but when you consider that standard bearers their standards to one side it actually looks quite good with even numbers. For example, if you have a standard bearer carrying their banner in their right hand, then if you place them in the left of the two middle slots of the formation the banner ends up pretty much in the middle of the unit. A very good point! I didn't consider that. I am still in the building phase, so it will be decided unit per unit. 😄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerekKruger Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 10 minutes ago, Tonhel said: A very good point! I didn't consider that. I am still in the building phase, so it will be decided unit per unit. 😄 It'll probably vary by unit anyway, depending on exactly how the standard is positioned, so good idea! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamopower Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 I don’t really think there’s universal ”optimum size” anymore. There are so many possibilities for free reforming, that the units will change their setup many times over the game. So marching to the enemy in more narrow frotnage to make the manouvering easier (maybe even in marching column). And then reforming/collapsing into wider battleline as the lines contact. And there the width is thenagain influenced by lots of variances. What you are facing, are you trying to be flanked, is there room, is there enemy skirmishers harrying the flanks and limiting your options to bring more fighters to the front etc. it actually sort of feels like more formalized version of AoS or Mesbg battlelines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStreicher Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Bretonnia: 40-50 Men-At-Arms with Monk carrying a tryptich and a Yeoment hero with shield (10-13 wide). It's such a solid core and plays very well with the Bretonnian lances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Krungharr Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 What about Monstrous Cavalry, like Bull-Centaurs? I'm thinking maybe 6 in a line is the way to go? Looks like the Fireglaive Infernal Guard is best in 10-wide MSUs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarouan Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 (edited) 6 monstruous infantriy miniatures in a front line takes a lot of space on deployment and is hard to manoeuver depending of the terrain around. It can certainly be more easily avoided because of that. I'd lean more towards 5 or 4. Maximizing attacks isn't the only factor, sadly. Like its predecessor Battle, TOW depends a lot on how you move / deploy your units : if they're deployed badly or blocked by a piece of terrain and lose precious time to change formation, that can cost you the game. That's why I tend not to use too much a wide front, especially in armies that have a lot of units (like greenskins). Edited April 6 by Sarouan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamopower Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 On 4/6/2024 at 6:20 PM, Sarouan said: 6 monstruous infantriy miniatures in a front line takes a lot of space on deployment and is hard to manoeuver depending of the terrain around. It can certainly be more easily avoided because of that. I'd lean more towards 5 or 4. Maximizing attacks isn't the only factor, sadly. Like its predecessor Battle, TOW depends a lot on how you move / deploy your units : if they're deployed badly or blocked by a piece of terrain and lose precious time to change formation, that can cost you the game. That's why I tend not to use too much a wide front, especially in armies that have a lot of units (like greenskins). In addition, 6 wide monster unit will many times mean that three of them strike only once as opponent can easily charge them with a narrow frontage unit like a ridden monster, fir which they could be a very juicy target Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 So far I've mostly been using 5x5 for skeletons & zombies, 6x4 for tomb/grave guard - but I'm switching those to 7x3 or 8x3, 5x1 for blood knights (though I could see 6x1 or even 7x1 being good for them), 3x1 (or 4x1 with hero) for light chariots & necroknights. 40mm monstrous infantry (ushabti or crypt horrors) I haven't really nailed down, waffling from 3 to 5 wide, 1 or 2 deep. 10 wide melee infantry sounds good but gets too unwieldy, too difficult to wheel around terrain or to fit into a battle line with supporting units, too easy for the enemy to multi-charge, which defeats the point of having so many attacking models by splitting their output between multiple enemy units. If you have some particularly nasty buff it can still be worthwhile, but otherwise even 8 wide is honestly a bit much imo. In terms of units changing formation mid battle - drilled is good in principle, as are other units that let you redress ranks like the sea guard gimmick, but due to the physical realities of movement trays vs. loose models & such I prefer to avoid it altogether and just deploy units in the formation I mean to keep them in for the entire battle. Unless there's an easy way to manage things with multiple smaller trays - like 20 seaguard on 2 5x1 bases that can be put next to each other for 10 wide shooting then shifed to front and back for 5 wide combat. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarouan Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 (edited) About drilled...having done that in battle, it doesn't take that much of a time to remove them from their tray and put them in the new formation. When you have to move them again, I usually pivot and move a single central miniature before aligning the rest around it in its final position, matching the same formation. What really limits it is the room it takes on the battlefield and close proximity of other units. That's why I'm still not sold on the 8 miniatures front, it's already quite big. 7 is sometimes unwieldy as well. Edited April 16 by Sarouan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.