Wednesday, December 30, 2015


One difference I've noticed listening to podcasts and reading the Internet is around the use of Regiments. Here I am talking about foot Regiments be they Infantry or Large Infantry.

There appears to be a much greater use in some jurisdictions than there is in others. This appears to be most noticeable between the UK and the "New World" (USA, NZ and other far flung countries).

On local tables it is very rare to see foot Regiments. You will see shooting Hordes, melee Hordes (both Inf and Large Inf) and then some shooting Troops. What you don't tend to see are melee Regiments or Troops. This appears to be reflected in other non-UK reports I read/listen to.

I wondered why this was and settled on two prevailing causative factors. The first was that KoW appears to be more established in the UK. In saying that I don't mean it is a more dominant game, rather there is a vocal player base that gave been playing more than 3-4 months. These players with "history" are far more comfortable with the mechanics of the game and have mastered the basics. They are more adept at the use of "rapier" rather than "bludgeon", in that they can manoeuvre their Regiments to achieve their aims. Therefore in list design you will see units like Revenant Troops and Regiments as the player has the skill to use these to achieve his necessary ends by maximising their manoeuvrability and Special Rules (Surge, Lifeleech).

With time the skill level of players - particularly new recruits - will grow and this may lead to a higher, dare I say it, finesse level.

The second reason is tied to this new influx as well. Coming from WFB a lot of us were used to a certain amount of terrain on our tables - typically six pieces. This allowed Hordes to move quite freely without being hindered by the terrain. It wasn't until Mantic's latest FAQ which contained representative terrain maps from the Rules Committee that we saw that we were playing with too little terrain. Increasing terrain density has reduced the effectiveness of Hordes to a certain extent and people will begin to adapt.

What are others' thoughts on this? Does your playing group see lots of Regiments? Am I way off the mark in either my observations or with what I see as the causes?


  1. I have been loving regiments. They give me much more flexibility in play.

  2. Semi-organized play is just getting going here (Central Pennsylvania, US), but I agree that Horde-heavy is the thing so far. Though I've been trying to break away from that, with a little success.

    I have a good friend who insists that infantry hordes are usually a bad choice--not Large Inf, because they have the same frontage as a regiment, but regular infantry. He's on to something.

  3. Depends on the individual army I think. With Undead for instance skeleton & revenant regiments are great because they have a pretty high nerve value and don't waver. Plus with their fairly average-weak combat ability you need to get them onto the flanks to really achieve much with them, so having more is better. Which is why in 1st edition I always ran my undead in regiments.

  4. For shooters I often prefer regiments as it is harder for your opponent to disorder two targets. Shooter hordes buffed with brew of keensightedness will increasingly only get one shot off as people build lists to disorder them in a hurry. From game winner to point sink?