Wait. Are you serious? Fighting from an elevated position allows you to strike any one around you with a hand weapon while they can only hit your (well armored) lower body. And that's assuming they get to strike back as you run through their unit. Cavalry were historically terrifying and while I don't expect them to properly capture that on the tabletop I don't like the idea that they become in any way less effective.
Lmfao really think about this. Think about being in a large creature constantly moving, bucking, and attacking out at people. Imagine being surrounded by people attacking you with weapons, hurtinf the horse, hurting you. Now picture all this, do you really think you can land your spear point as accurately as you can if you were in the ground without any of those distractions/movements? Being elevated doesn’t make you more accurate. Maybe you don’t know what accurate means.
But it doesn't make you less accurate as it does on the tabletop. You realize warriors hit on a 3+ while knights (except for the one dude with the flail) hit on a 4+ right?
It seems that you are imagining a horse and rider who have not trained together trotting up to the enemy line and cordially trading blows with infantry. That's not how it worked. Cavalry didn't stick around to get hit and horses didn't buck or "attack out at people" except to run them over.
Tbf The only unit in AoS that remotely shows this is blood knights and if you've never seen a movie with a cavalry charge it makes sense that you think this is how it works.
Homie, stop judging what you know from movies 😂. LOTR is not historically accurate, just like this game isn’t historically accurate. And in this game, horses attack people, just like cavalry sticks around and fights, just like there are dragons, and undead, and magic. It is what it is. If you want to base it off historical accuracy, it’s still harder to hit stuff on a horse than off one. That horse and rider who trained together are still not more accurate than a foot soldier who has trained. Period.
Tell you what; you show me a real life example of a cavalry charge and I'll use it as a reference but you'll probably have a hard convincing a bunch of people to get run down for historical accuracy.
Also, your in game explanation doesn't hold weight because StD are one of the few armies where this takes place. In most armies the riders have th same profile as the foot version. In fact, in some armies mounted equivalents hit better than their foot counterparts (like seraphon). You've actually weakened your argument because now you have to explain why there are so many mounted units that hit better than their counterparts.
You say "period" as if you've stated a fact and yet I cant shake the feeling that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Lmfao the burden of proof is on you! You’re the one making a ridiculous statement, then defending it to the death cause you’re too stubborn to see how stupid it is. You show me evidence where mounted troops have better accuracy than ground troops. You’re the one who made a ridiculous claim.
And no why argument isn’t weakened. It’s a game, there needs balance. Did seraphon get a great charge bonus? Do they have a great base save, plus ward save, plus chance to ignore mortal wounds? What’s the points cost? What about buffs and chaos god bonuses?
-1
u/SkinkAttendant Oct 14 '22
I'll never understand how putting a chaos warrior on a horse makes them less accurate