Do we need a "cavalry" keyword? Do we want it?

[Rogue Explorator]

So, this came up in a facebook group discussion and I wondered what the wider community thinks.

 

AoS has a keyword based design. Unit types, which have been a staple of Games Workshop rules so far, are absent. Some unit types, like “hero”, “monster” or “warmachine” have been turned into keywords, but “cavalry” and “infantry” are notably absent from that list.

 

One oddity resulting from this is the wonkiness of building garrisoning rules. Right now, players are encouraged to use common sense in what can and can't Garrison a building, but there is no hard rule stopping a unit of knights garrisoning a tower. If there was a “cavalry” keyword, the warscrolls could just have said “monsters”, “behemoths” and “cavalry” can't garrison and a great number of suspension of disbelieve breaking or debatable scenarios would have been precluded.

 

Personally, the more I think about this, the more I'd like to see a “cavalry” keyword. It's not like it would really complicate the game any more than having the "monster" keyword. And adding the keyword to existing warscrolls is a distinct possibility, AoS being based entirely on online “living documents”.

 

This would open up the possibility of abilities specifically targeting/affecting cavalry. And this, in turn, would in my opinion, enrich the game both tactically and in verisimilitude.

 

So, what do you all think?

 

And if you think it should be, might be done, do you want an "infantry" keyword added as well?

 

[Sarkazim]

Until they put in rules for Cavalry/Infantry I'll agree that the Keywords are unnecessary.  

As kind of a wishlist though, if they do add rules later.  They should divide them.  Fast Cavalry / Heavy Cavalry for example, since they function differently.  Fast Cav would have something like being able to retreat from Combat with no penalty, while Heavy Cav would get +1 to wound on turn they charge.  (I just pulled these at random, not specifically wishing for these exact things).  Same would go for Infantry / Skirmishers.

[RuneBrush]

I can see the benefit for the purpose of garrisons, but anything beyond that seems a bit overkill.  Me and the group I play with tend to go for a common sense rule - "want to garrison a building?  you're not unless you can fit through the doorway you muppet"

[Rogue Explorator]

34 minutes ago, Sarkazim said:

Until they put in rules for Cavalry/Infantry I'll agree that the Keywords are unnecessary.  

As kind of a wishlist though, if they do add rules later.  They should divide them.  Fast Cavalry / Heavy Cavalry for example, since they function differently.  Fast Cav would have something like being able to retreat from Combat with no penalty, while Heavy Cav would get +1 to wound on turn they charge.  (I just pulled these at random, not specifically wishing for these exact things).  Same would go for Infantry / Skirmishers.

Just to be clear, I am just talking keywords and rules interacting with them directly on specific warscrolls here.

What you describe sounds like full unit types with specific rules as part of the core ruleset, like Warhammer Fantasy Battles had. Those, I have to say, I'm really awefully happy to see gone.

[Sarkazim]

 

7 minutes ago, Rogue Explorator said:

Just to be clear, I am just talking keywords and rules interacting with them directly on specific warscrolls here.

I get that, and I didn't pick anything that didn't already exist in the game.  Skaven have a thing where they can retreat and charge.  There are several units that get bonuses on the turn they charge.

I also didn't mean to imply that I was adding anything to the 4 pg rules.  I can easily see them adding Battalion Warscrolls targeting these unit types.  They could show up in campaign books, or if in matched play, have a points cost associated.  I wouldn't even be surprised if they introduced universal Battalions for Matched play.  Having the Keywords attached to the unit would just streamline that.  Until then though, they're not really necessary.

[Rogue Explorator]

2 minutes ago, Sarkazim said:

 

I get that, and I didn't pick anything that didn't already exist in the game.  Skaven have a thing where they can retreat and charge.  There are several units that get bonuses on the turn they charge.

I also didn't mean to imply that I was adding anything to the 4 pg rules.  I can easily see them adding Battalion Warscrolls targeting these unit types.  They could show up in campaign books, or if in matched play, have a points cost associated.  I wouldn't even be surprised if they introduced universal Battalions for Matched play.  Having the Keywords attached to the unit would just streamline that.  Until then though, they're not really necessary.

A, I see.

Yeah, the addition of the keyword would definitely be meant to be made with an eye for future developements.

With it, I could see a unit of pikebearers with an attack bonus against charging cavalry added to the game.

Or a hero with a cavalry charge command ability.

Or new terrain that slows cavalry and monsters but can be freely passed by infantry. Or the other way around.

Right now all this cann only be done in a very roundabout way (like the command ability only affecting a few specific units, that are clearly cavalry, as some mounted heros currently have) or not at all.

[Undead4Life]

A large part of the attraction of AoS is the simplicity. I think that great care should be taken when adding anything -- even keywords -- to the game, as that inherently complicates things. AoS is one of the most homebrew-friendly games I've ever encountered. If you and your buddies want to add things like unit classifications, feel completely free, but assuming other people would want them or that the game would benefit from them is just that: assumption!

Edit:

And I don't intend to be a meanie here, as I understand this is a forum where this kind of discussion takes place. I simply urge that we examine why things like unit types aren't in the game any more.

[Rogue Explorator]

42 minutes ago, Undead4Life said:

A large part of the attraction of AoS is the simplicity. I think that great care should be taken when adding anything -- even keywords -- to the game, as that inherently complicates things. AoS is one of the most homebrew-friendly games I've ever encountered. If you and your buddies want to add things like unit classifications, feel completely free, but assuming other people would want them or that the game would benefit from them is just that: assumption!

Edit:

And I don't intend to be a meanie here, as I understand this is a forum where this kind of discussion takes place. I simply urge that we examine why things like unit types aren't in the game any more.

Don't worry, you didn't come across harsh at all. I agree, that's exactly the reason for the topic and poll. I'm not looking for a crusade to add the keywords, I'm seriously wondering if I'm alone in thinking it would be nice to have.

[amysrevenge]

I think this might be a place for expansion into AoS v1.5 or v2.0 - it's something that could be added to existing warscrolls to accommodate optional rules, without being necessary for the core rules.  As in, you could play current 4-page AoS with those warscrolls, and if nothing in there ever made use of Infantry or Cavalry keywords, who cares?  And then an optional expansion could take advantage of the extra keywords.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I like the idea of it, because then you could have counter-cavalry units. E.g., a Pike unit that, when charged by a cavalry unit, inflicts damage or gets to attack first, something like that.

[MightyQwan]

I think this is a slippery slope. Just adding it to warscrolls is not a bad idea for the purpose of interactions with terrain. When people start talking about anti cavalry unit and specialized units, however, that is where I get very nervous.

I would fear neutralizing the effect of some units by making other too effective at neutralizing them. This could easily be mitigated by making those specialized units have clear disadvantages or weakness to other types of units but then you start spiralling into a quagmire that I feel other games have. 

I feel like the rule set we have now is simple and fun without removing any tactical or strategic elements. Furthermore, every unit in the game is playable and can be effective in game. So why play with it, it is, after all, a game and there will always be some who try and game the system. Attempting to plan for that gamesmanship I think is how you end up with rule sets like the ones in 40k or Warmachine. 

[SuperHappyTime]

I'd like horses to come back.

 

i feel like someone high in GW has Equinophobia and insisted on Equinocide.

[someone2040]

7 hours ago, MightyQwan said:

I think this is a slippery slope. Just adding it to warscrolls is not a bad idea for the purpose of interactions with terrain. When people start talking about anti cavalry unit and specialized units, however, that is where I get very nervous.

I would fear neutralizing the effect of some units by making other too effective at neutralizing them. This could easily be mitigated by making those specialized units have clear disadvantages or weakness to other types of units but then you start spiralling into a quagmire that I feel other games have. 

I feel like the rule set we have now is simple and fun without removing any tactical or strategic elements. Furthermore, every unit in the game is playable and can be effective in game. So why play with it, it is, after all, a game and there will always be some who try and game the system. Attempting to plan for that gamesmanship I think is how you end up with rule sets like the ones in 40k or Warmachine. 

I really disagree with this only for the point that there already exists in the game this kind of ability.

There are plenty of abilities that only effect units with the keyword Monster or Hero. Having some form of Pike unit which effects Cavalry would really be no different. Yes, these sometimes useful abilities can be hard to cost, but it's not like they don't already exist in the game.

 

Whether or not the game needs the Cavalry keyword is a different matter though. I would argue at the moment, no it doesn't. The game is simple and easy enough without having to start thinking about different types of units moving through different types of terrain. There are plenty of things that aren't 'realistic' in this game that I would fix before caring about how Cavalry interact with terrain. 

[Arkiham]

Only way I'd like to see cav as a keyword really is if they introduce impact hits, which do damage and actually move infantry models 1/2" as the cav unit punches into the infantry. with heavy cav punching harder through it so 3/4. as what would happen,  you'd see heavy cav charges just smash in to the enemy and punch through for a key objective.

While skirmish cav get no knock back as they're light weight, not designed for melee combat.

Infantry only if this is introduced as then you can add rules for that. for instance pike or spear/halberd infantry do impact damage to charging cav/monsters but not infantry

Etc etc.

This is probably in 9th  edition or kow though and is really going towards in depth ruled which AoS is trying to prevent. 

[CoffeeGrunt]

16 hours ago, MightyQwan said:

I think this is a slippery slope. Just adding it to warscrolls is not a bad idea for the purpose of interactions with terrain. When people start talking about anti cavalry unit and specialized units, however, that is where I get very nervous.

I would fear neutralizing the effect of some units by making other too effective at neutralizing them. This could easily be mitigated by making those specialized units have clear disadvantages or weakness to other types of units but then you start spiralling into a quagmire that I feel other games have. 

I feel like the rule set we have now is simple and fun without removing any tactical or strategic elements. Furthermore, every unit in the game is playable and can be effective in game. So why play with it, it is, after all, a game and there will always be some who try and game the system. Attempting to plan for that gamesmanship I think is how you end up with rule sets like the ones in 40k or Warmachine. 

Bonesplittaz are an entire faction dedicated to killing Monster keyword units. The sky hasn't fallen since they came out.

Ergo, we already have such specialised units, so I don't understand how a pike unit will be the end of AoS as we know it?

[Chris Tomlin]

19 hours ago, Undead4Life said:

A large part of the attraction of AoS is the simplicity. I think that great care should be taken when adding anything -- even keywords -- to the game, as that inherently complicates things. AoS is one of the most homebrew-friendly games I've ever encountered. If you and your buddies want to add things like unit classifications, feel completely free, but assuming other people would want them or that the game would benefit from them is just that: assumption!

Edit:

And I don't intend to be a meanie here, as I understand this is a forum where this kind of discussion takes place. I simply urge that we examine why things like unit types aren't in the game any more.

Great post. Agree completely.

As to the OP, it's not necessary.

[CoffeeGrunt]

But that argument could extend to anything:

- I don't want more Army books, it only adds complexity,
- I don't want new units, it only adds complexity,
- I don't want campaign rules, it only adds complexity,

Etc, etc...

[RuneBrush]

16 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

But that argument could extend to anything:

- I don't want more Army books, it only adds complexity,
- I don't want new units, it only adds complexity,
- I don't want campaign rules, it only adds complexity,

Etc, etc...

I think the resistance is more to adding things that change the core rules whilst playing the game - each extra rule makes the game slightly more complicated.  If you think about it, the most common house rules simply substitute one rule for another - e.g. measure from the base.

In truth you could actually implement something along the "cavalry" concept already - it's very clear when a model is on a mount.  You wouldn't actually need a keyword to handle this thus there's nothing stopping somebody creating a pike unit.  What I would say though is that a pike is actually a one trick weapon, generally broken once it's received a charge and not particularly useful and exceptionally unwieldy when charged by a foot-based unit with shields

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yup, hence why it's a purely counter-cavalry unit idea.

[KHHaunts]

21 hours ago, Undead4Life said:

A large part of the attraction of AoS is the simplicity. I think that great care should be taken when adding anything -- even keywords -- to the game, as that inherently complicates things. AoS is one of the most homebrew-friendly games I've ever encountered. If you and your buddies want to add things like unit classifications, feel completely free, but assuming other people would want them or that the game would benefit from them is just that: assumption!

Edit:

And I don't intend to be a meanie here, as I understand this is a forum where this kind of discussion takes place. I simply urge that we examine why things like unit types aren't in the game any more.

This is something i agree with totally.

There is definatley a line that adding all the rules will cross when if effectivly just becomes WHFB because of rules people miss, Flanking, misscasts, not shooting in combat, etc etc.

I belive that cavalry should be added as a keyword and a belive that it should have implications mostly on scenery such as climbing cliffs and garrisoning. However i dont think additional rules should be added for those key words they should be warscroll specific.

Any additional steps towards making the game more in depth should be done as supplements that work neatly against the Vanilla rules not ammendments to the rules themselves unless their is an overwhelming desire for them.