I tried an army that had a mixed KoMT and Citadel Guard mounted and found the KoMT to be superior simply because of utility. Yes, FV is very powerful, but if the enemy does win the fight, str. 3 has double the chance to kill the Citadel Guardsmen than the KoMT. Against Uruk-hai, (I would never front charge a pike formation), lances win the day because of how powerful they are against the flanks of the Uruk phalanx. Wounding those pikemen on 4+ is not something easily brushed aside.

Its really up to the player and how they use their cav.

_________________
OR's secret stealth poster since 9/09.

where did you read this? could you give a page number or something cause thought that as long as the supporting model has a base larger or equel to the model he supports, its fine.

_________________
Everything that has a beginning has an end
There are neither beginnings or endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time

(Emphasis mine)

It is the very first sentence.

_________________
Studio gaarew; Gaming armies, by gamers, for gamers.

FV also decreases the chance of the opponent winning the fight, and so increases the CG's durability. The calculations show that easy wounds from KoMT do not win the day, when facing the pikeblock, because FV 3 vs. a bunch of Uruks has very little chance to with the fight.


I agree; but since these models are both viable, why do we see so many more KoMT? I'm of the opinion that people simply haven't gone to the length of these calculations to check their options.

Yeah, so I'm posting to say that they're viable, and that people don't have a reason not to care. Cost is not a factor for two reasons: the only necessary conversion is molding on a cape; and competitive wargamers rarely see cost as an obstacle (note full GotFC armies, and Fiefdoms).


So, obviously, there's a problem there. You're saying that since they're so unpopular, there must be some abstract tactical reason that people don't use them. I'm saying that people just haven't thought of them as an option before. Yes, people can SEE them in the rulebook. But they may not have gone to the length to calculate if they are actually viable that I have. Until you can pinpoint why the CG are worse tactically, I think I'm going to stick with my belief.


I have certainly remained civil and intelligent enough to avoid that kind of response. Understand that putting up an intelligent response to your response is not "beating a dead horse", it's debating.

Here's a quick summary of what would make people use mounted CG:

Lances
Shields (Merge with GoTFC plees?)
A box set containing 3 with bow, 3 with lance and shield.

_________________
"If you can imagine something, then it is possible."
-Whiskas, 26th May, 2009

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I am saying people obviously don't care that much for them. Obviously there is a reason. Now, you have already ruled out cost, (although I'm sure many of our younger members may disagree) what about - effort, ability, time, aesthetic value, apathy... So, there are 5 before taking the jump to abstract tactical reasons.

So, as people can see the option, but haven't taken advantage of it, you therefore assume the vast majority of people to be ignorant. I'm not really sure how that works.

I'd maybe go as far as to suggest that not everyone is really that concerned with number crunching. A lot of people play for the fun of it, so saying X trumps Y isn't going to swing their vote. Also, if they really are so good, why has nobody mentioned any GT winning mounted Citadel Guard lists? Surely if some serious gamer had went to the minimal effort of greenstuffing capes onto his Knights (you have neglected to mention that there is also a definitive border around the Citadel Guard's skirt, which doesn't appear on standard Warrior of Minas Tirith attire) it would have been showcased in White Dwarf or online?

So, as you are very obviously on some sort of personal crusade regarding the use of mounted Citadel Guard, I won't try and change your opinion. By the same token, you should refrain from making such broad statements in an attempt to generate interest and force your belief on anyone else.

There is a famous saying about opinions, but I won't repeat it here.




I have certainly remained civil and intelligent enough to avoid that kind of response. Understand that putting up an intelligent response to your response is not "beating a dead horse", it's debating.[/quote]

I would consider that humorous given the topic, rather than rude, but, your call. Hopefully we can get a few more opinions, so that you can really get into mass debating that dead horse...

_________________
Studio gaarew; Gaming armies, by gamers, for gamers.

This is a forum for friendly discussion, not hard debating and large persuasive essays.

Gaarew, I thought you knew that only certain people on the forum appreciate your sense of humor.

Honestly, though, if you look at the numbers, essentially you're trading one point of defense and a lance for one point of fight value and the Bodyguard rule. It's a matter of preference. Don't give me this calculation stuff- it looks great on paper (Or webpage) but doesn't work as planned in the battlefield. Sometimes it will be better, oftentimes worse.

I agree with gaarew, though. This has been an option for a long time. Many great gamers are also great converters/hobbyists. It's impossible that someone hasn't extensively tested out using mounted CG. This is not a new discovery. If they were substantially better than KoMT, then you would see them being used more often.

You can't debate on which is better or which is worse, since it's a matter of opinion, preference, and situation. Debating is for politics- this is a game.

This game bases itself very heavily on dice rolls, so probability and such calculations are useful and relevant. These kinds of mathematics, and multiplayer, dare I say, "competitive" games often lead to debates. I find debating enjoyable, and productive. It's the most "tactical" thing you can do when preparing to play against thinking human beings. Perhaps many people play the game for fun? To some people, playing to win is fun, just as, to some, playing with their favourite characters is far more important. Debating is certainly for games, and I think that I can continue to explain my position better through your responses. However, if debates aren't for this forum, I won't bother with it here any more.

ok firstly, I would like to say that yes, you do have a point, CG are underused and more people should use them for various purposes, especially with a longbow. However, you missed out some important scenarios/factors in your post.

1) Your examples all show enemy models with F3 or F4, where the difference in F value between KOMT and CG shows. However, against Good vs Good if you play elves, then that higher F is wasted. Same thing if you are playing goblins/hobbits, or fighting against a hero with F5+. Might I add, the lance is even more useful when fighting D8+ as the +1 to wound affects both rolls IIRC.

2) Your examples only show if the cavalry are charging, where they gain an extra attack. Let's say the enemy wins priority/heroic move roll and charges a single enemy model against each cavalry unit. In a 1v1, the F value is even less useful than a 2v2.

3) Should your cavalry get dismounted, I would say a D6 guy is definitely better than a D5 one. This is because the majority of armies are S3. The extra fight value generally does not make up for the double chance of wounding.[/i]

_________________
Anyone from One Ring in Singapore?

Why I don't use mounted CG.

KoMT are ($) cheaper.
KoMT have lances
KoMT are less likely to die if they fall off their mount.
KoMT are twice as likely to gain a kill after winning the fight

CG die twice as often in combat when fighting Str. 3, Str. 5 and Str 7
CG die twice as often if they fall off their mount
CG have higher fight, but much less likely to kill on the charge, especially vs. Def. 5, 6, 7
CG have lower fight compared to most mid-level heroes and monsters. (you may as well take KoMT for the hitting power)

The only reason I would take CG mounted is with longbows and babysit large groups of infantry. (Flank charges and Longbow support) or as a handful of bodyguard for a mounted hero.

_________________
OR's secret stealth poster since 9/09.

nope KOMT are not always twice as likely to gain a kill as CG. If charging, against D4 or 5, its 15/16 chance compared to 65/81 (less than double) . Against D6 or 7, it is 65/81 compared to 29/56 (still slightly less than double).

Also, against S5 attacks CG die 1/2 compared to KOMT 1/3 (not twice as often) and against S7 attacks CG die 2/3 compared to KOMT 1/2.

While not double, the higher killing chance is still significant, and following my earlier reply, KOMT are generally better than CG.

_________________
Anyone from One Ring in Singapore?

Ah, this is just getting boring now...

_________________
Studio gaarew; Gaming armies, by gamers, for gamers.

Thank you for shedding light on a seemingly forgotten unit. I will now be able to choose between KoMT and CG according to the situation.

PS: concerning converting KoMT, I think I'll just paint one of the shoulder plates gold to distinguish the CG from the others

this whole post was both very interesting and entertaining to read, so thanks to everyone for replying with lengthy yet valid arguments.

my very humble opinion is that mounted cg would look cool, but would make very little difference on the table, as far as gaming purposes go.
wibls, perhaps you might have called the post "Mounted citadel guard or knights?" or something like it.
if i had the means/money, i would definitely try mtd cg, just for something different. but as far as superlative stats go, I don't think many people care.

_________________
Backlog reduction Oath Participant

I think it's ridiculous to say one is useless and the other reigns supreme in any circumstance. Look at KoMT vs. mounted SKoDA: the Swan Knight is better in every stat, but costs a lot more. Against something like Goblins or Haradrim where you need the numbers to push back the tide, I'd probably take the KoMT.

Against a Mordor army with a couple Wraiths and a bunch of Black Numenoreans, mixing some mounted CG in might be good. You'll never falter in charging those terrifying models.

Having said that though, I've never bought any blisters of CG personally. I got about 12 in a big lot I grabbed some time ago, painted some of them and have never used them. On foot, their uses are overshadowed by Rangers and Fountain Guard. I'm simply too lazy to try and mount them.

Never thought I'd hear myself say that... or see myself type it for that matter...

_________________
Gondor: 2339pts
Rohan: 1318pts
Dwarves: 2482pts
Elves: 1091pts
Mordor: 2305pts
Isengard: 1762pts
Moria: 1463pts
Evil Men: 381pts

I feel that CG mounted are best used for countering low cost heroes, and sometimes countering terror causing enemies, because of the bodyguard rule. KOMT on the other hand are good for charging large enemies like trolls where the troll has a high FV, and the KOMT have lances, the only thing is that they have to check for courage.

_________________
et earello endorenna utulien....

TLA you are not forgotten!