Topic: Reiksguard Knight Lance Formation 3x2 (Empire Style)

[redflag]

In order to maximize the survivability of our new stubborn knight unit we need to minimize its frontage.  Having 3 Knights in the front rank and 3 knights in the back rank does just that without appearing too cheesy.  With a relatively narrow frontage this imperial lance can squeeze between the Empire lines and screw up your opponent's plans by making suicide charges and holding off some big Killy unit with its stubborn ability. Its not cheesy like a conga line yet it still offers more flexibility to our knight units without having to beef em up to 10 knights (5x2)

[Freman Bloodglaive]

That was my thoughts on the matter, and I intend to have two units of Reikguard at that size. Sure, they won't be that killy but their main role is to plunge into combat with one of those annoying strength 3 hordes (I'm looking at you skavenslaves) and rely on their average WS plus 1+ armour +stubborn leadership 8 to prevent that mob posing much of a threat to our less than stellar infantry. Heck, with 7 strength 4/6 attacks and 3 strength 3, they might even win combat.

[Warlord]

All 8th edition I have been running my knights 3x2.

Imperial Lances are useful.

[noibn]

Funny, I've been toying with the same idea. Throwaway reiksguard FTW 

So do you run em barebone or do you toss in a musician?

[rufus sparkfire]

Hey, good idea!

Banner or no banner?

[Fandir Nightshade]

I just realized...Reiksguard are not 0-1 you can have three units of them.

[rufus sparkfire]

Yes, but I doubt you'd want to.

It does mean they are more common than inner-circle knights though, which is hilarious fluffwise. Still, so are owlbear knights.

[Fandir Nightshade]

They are stubborn 1+ save guys....what is not to love?

Just pretend they are very stubborn regular knights.

[rufus sparkfire]

I don't need three units of those!

[noibn]

Three units may be a tad much, but I'm thinking maybe 2 units of 5.  But then again I also want 2 cannons and a Greatsword horde. It's gonna be cramped in the special section, so I guess I may have to pass on the Demigryphs. Then again I never liked the idea of having monsters in an empire army anyway so it's no biggie.

So where are the rest of you on this, 1 or 2 units of Reiksguard? And what's generally going to be most worthwhile option to take, Reiksguard or Demigryphs?

[Minsc]

I can see Reiksguard taking on the Greatswords role in cav-lists, and it's probably intended that way.

Personally I will probably only field Reiksguard in all-cav lists.
Perhaps 3x2 (I like the formation/idéa) in regular games, but not more nor bigger units

I love how we have the biggest arsenal of unbreakable/stubborn units in the game at our disposal (not counting Khainite armies with cauldrons), and yet somehow Cruddace felt he needed to give our Captain/General a boost in the "don't-you-dare-break-now-boy!"-department, while giving them the natural pointshike at the same time. 

[noibn]

I can see Reiksguard taking on the Greatswords role in cav-lists, and it's probably intended that way.

Personally I will probably only field Reiksguard in all-cav lists.
Perhaps 3x2 (I like the formation/idéa) in regular games, but not more nor bigger units

I love how we have the biggest arsenal of unbreakable/stubborn units in the game at our disposal (not counting Khainite armies with cauldrons), and yet somehow Cruddace felt he needed to give our Captain/General a boost in the "don't-you-dare-break-now-boy!"-department, while giving them the natural pointshike at the same time. 

Yeah, that's another thing that has struck me. Is "Hold the line" really going to be all that useful? In my case I'll most likely field two big infantry blocks in a 2500 pts army. One block will be Greatswords who are allready stubborn, the other block will probably be halbardiers featuring a character with Crown of Command. Then of course the Reiksguard Knights who are stubborn and the Steam Tank. Between all that and BSB rerolls I can't really see "Hold the line" coming into play all that much.

[rufus sparkfire]

Between all that and BSB rerolls I can't really see "Hold the line" coming into play all that much.

Yes, I think it's a redundant ability really.

[Finlay]

Stubborn with htl and bsb is basically the same as unbreakable

[Delthos]

Not if you lose combat with a combat res of say 15-5! Double 1's is still fairly unlikely, even with 3d6 and a re-roll.

[Finlay]

Re-read my post

stubborn as well.

[rufus sparkfire]

Stubborn with a re-roll is good enough already though!

[Minsc]

Stubborn with htl and bsb is basically the same as unbreakable

Lies!
Any Eldarplayer who uses Rune of Witnessing frequently will tell you otherwise.

[noibn]

Stubborn with a re-roll is good enough already though!

Yeah, I haven't had a chance to try it out yet but "Hold the Line" seems like it would be a little superfluous. At least in lists that are going to have lots of stubborn units anyway. Of course, seeing as a BSB is a must take you'll have at least one character with "Hold the Line", if you decide not to have him in a separate bunker that is, in which case you probaably wouldn't want him involved in combat.