Yes, Citadel Guards can ride horses. It was in Tolkein's book, and now it's in GW's rulebook.

I'm getting back into the hobby, since school's done. Hoping to refresh myself, I decided to check out some articles. On another LotR website, I found the following article, entitled, "Making the Best Use of Fight Value". It's an excellent and specific article (check out TLA if you want to see it, unfortunately, I can't link to it due to being a new member), and one of the points it makes is something I've known for a while. That point the author (Hithero) makes is that the more dice that are being rolled in a fight, the more that Fight Value matters. So, in a 1 on 1 fight, FV doesn't do a whole lot, but when you're fighting a pikeblock under the effects of a banner, you'd better hope you have a higher FV.

This led me to think about cavalry. Mounted models gain a boost while charging, an extra attack. And while you don't always want to be charging into a shield wall, or pikeblock, sometimes this situation can be difficult to avoid, particularly for all-cavalry armies. These clashes of riders and ranks of enemy infantry often lead to four, five, six, or more dice being rolled just to resolve the fight. This is obviously a case where extra fight value would make a big difference. Unfortunately, Gondor's mainstay of KoMT has a lowly FV of 3. But my army has other options. Knights of Dol Amroth can ride armoured horses, but are dreadfully expensive in more ways than one, not to mention exclusive to The Fiefdoms. What I've decided to compare with the Knights of Minas Tirith are Citadel Guards on horseback.

Get out your rulebook, and compare the two. After giving the KoMT a shield, and the CG a horse (yes, it's really in there!), you'll notice that the two are exactly the same in points, equipment, and stats, other than the following differences. The Citadel Guard has more Fight Value than the KoMT, and the bodyguard rule. The KoMT has a lance, and an extra point of defence thanks to its shield. Other than that, everything is the same when these warriors are equipped like this; they get the same bonuses, move at the same speed, etc.. I'm going to show you why, contrary to popular belief, this small exchange makes mounted Citadel Guards better than Knights of Minas Tirith.

Let's see how well they do against an extremely common combination. You thought Gondor and her Minas Tirith men couldn't handle the power or Morannon Orcs? Send in the cavalry!


Cavalry vs. Morannon with a shield, backed by an Orc with a Spear.

The mounted, charging Citadel Guard:
31.5% chance of killing the Morannon.
29.5% chance of knocking the Morannon, but not killing him.
22% chance of the rider dying, OR 29.3% chance of the mount dying.

The charging Knight of Minas Tirith:
40% chance of killing the Morannon
10% chance of knocking the Morannon down, but not killing him.
28% chance of the rider dying, OR 37.5% chance of the mount dying.

Now, as you can see, the Knight has an additional 8.5% chance of killing the Morannon. This would seem to debunk my opinion, but let me explain: it's not all about the death of the opponent. For that small price, the Citadel Guard dies less. More substantially, he knocks down all of his opponents more often. The Citadel Guard has both a higher chance of something good happening, and a lower chance of something bad happening to him.

Of course, facing a Strength 4 opponent, while arguably more common than strength 3 for evil, doesn't take advantage of the KoMT's extra defense point. Let's try giving the advantage to the Knights:


Cavalry vs. Easterling with shield, backed by an Orc with a Spear.

Mounted, charging Citadel Guard:
31.5% chance of killing the Easterling.
29.5% chance of knocking all the Easterling, but not killing him.
22% chance of the rider dying, OR 22% chance of the mount dying.

The charging Knight of Minas Tirith:
40% chance of killing the Easterling.
10% chance of knocking the Easterling down, but not killing him.
15.5% chance of the rider dying, OR 28% chance of the mount dying.

So, the defense point made a difference in the odds of the Knight living or dying. However, if you've ever played with Cavalry, you know that the mount is more often the target, than the rider. This is because the mount usually has less defense than the rider, not to mention the fact that the model loses all cavalry bonuses. If the horse is slain, the rider is forced to roll on the thrown rider chart, possibly inflicting a strength 3 hit, and very likely knocking the rider to the ground. The fact that mounts are often targeted is why I don't really recommend shields on riders with unarmoured horses. Against a smart opponent, the KoMT's shields really don't make a difference.

The following matchup is unlikely (you're in a pretty bad spot if you've been forced to face 185% of your points value, not counting banners), but it's a good example of fight value being more useful, the more dice that are in play.


Cavalry under banner vs. an Uruk-hai with a shield, backed by a Spearman and a Pikeman, under a banner (4 attacks).

Mounted, charging Citadel Guard:
21% chance of killing the lead Uruk-hai.
19.5% chance of knocking down the lead Uruk, but failing to wound.
45% chance of the rider dying, OR 53% chance of the mount dying.

The charging Knight of Minas Tirith:
19% chance of killing the lead Uruk-hai.
8% chance of knocking down the lead Uruk-hai, but not wounding it.
58.5% chance of the rider dying, OR 68.5% chance of the mount dying.

While neither of the good models do too well, the Citadel Guard is, far and away, the better choice for this fight. The higher Fight Value really carries it.

Perhaps you aren't convinced that Guards are better than Knights, but hopefully I've helped you realize that they're (at least) equals when facing more than one opponent, and deserving of a couple of your KoMT's slots. A variety of troops is a really great thing, both competitively, and hobby-wise. There's even some more advantages, such as the option to carry a longbow (mounted archers, with strength 3 bows, no less), and the bodyguard rule. I'm not sure if the effectiveness of the CG is a big revelation, or what, but it doesn't really matter. The fact is that I haven't seen one army list that includes mounted Citadel Guards, or even faced an army with them. It's an unfortunate fact, when you consider how common Knights of Minas Tirith are.

For some real-world reasons, KoMT will always be on top. Most notably, their special scene in the movie (mist and shadow, cloud and shade, all shall fade), the fact that they're plastic (and, so, cheaper than CG), and how they don't require converting. But I think that they'd be fun and simple to convert from the Knights themselves. All they need are some capes, really. I'm sure even cloth capes would look great! Perhaps I'll make a small article about how I made mine? Err... after I actually make them, of course.

Anyway, tl;dr, promote your Knights to guards of the Citadel!

And has been since, oooh, 2005.

The One Rulebook, Page 131.

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

Yes, I know it's been there for a while. I'm new to the forum, not necessarily the hobby. I meant "now" because, on the scale of time between now and when the books were written, 2005 was recent. "Now" doesn't necessarily imply that they weren't there before.

I was hoping for a more tactical response. If you think that this was already common knowledge, have you ever seen mounted Citadel Guards? What were your opinions on them? Do you think they did better than Knights would have?

Personally, I'd use them if the citadel guard's spears were counted as warspears, and if there was a box set of mounted citadel guard (3 with warspear, 3 with bow)

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

I'll disagree with you and say that the use of the word now, in the above context, suggests exactly that. Saying you can do this now suggests that you couldn't before. As the option has been there for some time (nearly 5 years, which is a considerable span in gaming rule terms), the word now is entirely superfluous.



Yes, I think this was common knowledge, providing that you have access to the rulebook and the ability to read, and no, I've never seen them used. However, I don't think using the old 'seeing is believing (or knowing)' adage is particularly apt, as I have knowledge of Africa, but, having never visited the place, can't really be sure it exists.



Also, all the math and probability, whilst beyond my ability, isn't really a good argument for doing these conversions. You are focussing solely on a singular combat, without taking into account the myriad other possibilities that could occur on the average battlefield.

Much the same as the 'Who would win a fight' thread, or whatever it is called, you are looking at the stats in a vacuum, which, in my opinion, is probably not the best use of time, considering the models will rarely if ever be involved in such a situation on the tabletop. For example, you have completely neglected how enemy missile fire will take its toll.


I'm not knocking the idea of converting the models, I think it's a good one, and would like to see the results.

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

This thread is not based on the black and white possibility of mounted CG, but on the grey areas of viability. I realize that they've been possible for a long time in gaming terms (though the game is very new compared to the LotR universe, hence the use of the word "now", since it apparently matters). The question I hoped this thread would be discussing is if they are viable, particularly instead of Knights of Minas Tirith.

Perhaps you don't believe that seeing is believing, but seeing and experiencing are decent indicators of popularity, even more so when many people share their experiences. The popularity of these units when compared to KoMT is extremely relevant to my argument. Discussion of such experiences might also lead to more "discoveries", since, as you say, these kinds of probabilities don't always see the "big picture".


And your metaphor is fallacious. I am not trying to convince people that Africa exists. As you say, that is common (though often pushed aside, just like hoseback CGs) knowledge. I am, metaphorically, trying to convince people that traveling to Africa is a worthwhile expenditure of their resources. My comment, "yes the horses are really there" was due in part to the fact that in some LoME lists, CGs do not have the option of riding a horse (Rangers of Ithilien list), but they do in the One Rulebook, and in other army lists (Tower of Ecthelion). It was also due to them being used so little in comparison to Knights. You see something less, you forget about it more easily.

I do disagree about these types of tests being worthwhile. While I might possibly agree with you on that account regarding cavalry as a whole, I am not arguing for the viability of cavalry as a whole. I'm arguing a very specific point; mounted CG are as good as, or better, than KoMT. Since the only differences between these units are the very few I have listed, a "vacuum" would be the best environment for testing these very specific differences. You suggest that I have not taken into account missile fire. That is true, however, I do not need to. Both of these models receive missile fire with exactly the same results. Evil missile fire, as far as I know, consists entirely of strength 2 and 4 bows. The one point difference in defense does not matter in this case; both 5 and 6 defense require the same D6 roll in order to be wounded by any even numbered strength. If you have a possible factor that would give the KoMT an advantage over the mounted CG, that isn't entirely niche, please bring it to my attention.

To summarize, I assumed that the popularity of KoMT meant that cavalry was already an accepted type of soldier. I didn't think I had to do any convincing. Therefore, if I showed that the few but important changes on an almost identical model were a good thing overall, people would appropriately tack the accepted viability of KoMT onto the Citadel Guards. For whatever reason, mounted Citadel Guards are almost never seen, and this is the root issue I'm trying to tackle. I'm both asking why other people don't, and explaining why I do. I was as objective as possible, using math. For the purposes of this thread, I am currently only concerned with the comparison between CGs and Knights.

As far as the conversion goes, I'm looking very much forward to it! Choosing a colour scheme for them might be fun; I believe the mounted CGs in the book wore green cloaks?

I have two reasons why I strongly believe they are not used:
1) They can have a spear, but not a lance.
2) There is no box-set for them, or a blister pack even, meaning you have to convert them.

How to fix the problems:

1) Give them Warspears.
2) Games-Workshop create a mounted citadel guard box set (plastic) with 3 with warpsear, 3 with bow, and possibly a citadel guard box set (What's in the box set and how it'll work is another topic)

Also, green cloaks would look excellent.

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

Now, what about Good missile fire?

Elves and Dwarves have access to Strength 3 bows which does make a difference.

Also, here's another reason people might not go to the effort.

Box of plastic Knights - £15, 2 Blisters of Citadel Guard - £16. Total - £31 plus greenstuff etc. Net result - 6 models.

2 Boxes of plastic Knights - £30. Total - £30. Net result - 12 models.


[/quote]

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

@Whiskas: I took into account the Knights' lances, and the Guards' lack of lances when doing my calculations. Yet I believe the Citadel Guards still came out on top. The lack of lances might be one reason people simply don't think of the mounted CG as an option, but I hope that I've shown that they are certainly as viable as Knights. I'm not talking about how if their rules were changed, they'd be useful, I'm saying they're useful now.

@gaarew: You're right, I didn't consider Good vs. Good. I often try to avoid those matchups (for the same reasons I try to make themed armies), but I suppose that in tournament scenarios, they'd be difficult to avoid. I've never been to a GT before, so I don't know how often this happens. About half the time, or do the organizers generally try to pit good vs. evil? Either way, this is a plausible scenario.

So, Elves, Dwarves, and opposing CG have strength 3 bows. Let me say first of all that while archery, in my experience, is the bane of cavalry, the rider's defense is only a small factor in this. Half of the risk is the possibility of the mount being hit, instead. Your shield doesn't cover your horse. So an extra defense point is only useful half of the time, even in situations where strength 3 is facing defense 6. You only get half the return for your points when giving a mounted model extra defense. And then there's the extremely likely chance that your lesser value/higher defense models will be protecting your cavalry regardless of whether it consists of Knights or Guards. So even if you're facing a Good army, and that army has strength 3 bows, your knight has yet to face at least two "in the way" rolls before he even has a chance to use his shield. Yes, his extra defense is a help, specifically in this scenario. But is it worth the points, specifically over a point of FV?



I guess you're saying that in response to my belief that not seeing these units on the tabletop means that people aren't aware of their power. But I think that the reasons for their ilack of popularity are more than "they're hard to make", or "they're expensive". While these are good reasons to use KoMT instead, if they are truly more powerful, gamers will convert them, and I don't think hobbyists should see it as an obstacle, anyway. Price, yes, is an issue. But I hear of plenty of all-blister armies (GotFC, Dol Amroth). Expense is rarely an issue for the "devout", a fact that GW seems all too aware of. And then, CG and Knights look similar enough for people to try converting them from KoMT and some greenstuff alone. All they need are some capes.

Wibls, Citadel Guard may just be as powerful as the knights, but I doubt many people will choose to field CG due to the fact there is simply no box set, (Like me :p) But even then, I doubt many will field any with sword/spear due to the lack of lance, but I'm sure they'd field CG mounted archers if they could get them easily.

And about merging the two profiles, that's purely because GW made two profiles for a unit which, in the book, are exactly the same.

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

As I proved above, the lance's bonuses are beaten by the bonus of the CG's extra FV. For gaming purposes, lances vs. swords is not an issue the guards lose.

I don't like this "Choose CG over KoMT" thing, which is what this thread sounds like. It's all situational. Honestly, the rock-solid D6 of the Knights is really a key factor. S4 is more common for evil than S3? How do you figure? Mordor orcs, Haradrim Warriors, Goblins, Black Numenorians; all are fairly common and you're likely to see hordes of them (With the exception of the BNs)... Also, they're more solid against S5 warriors, such as Spiders and Half-trolls.

The mount will be the target ONLY if it's easier to kill than the rider. If the rider is just as easy to kill (S3 vs D5), why wouldn't you aim for that? Also, you're more likely to die with a thrown rider with D5.

Of course, Fight value is very important as well. It's a trade-off that's a matter of preference or situation more than numbers. Yes, you've proved that they're equal in combat. But as stated before, money is the issue.

Personally, I'd take them for the Longbows, and keep them away from combat in most situations. Mounted archers are ALWAYS an advantage, as is superior mobility. I like your enthusiasm and your goal, but leave the math- it doesn't really do anything here. It surely didn't convince me.

Generally, when someone tries to convince you of something through a report or an essay (granted, this is informal), they will use ultimatums in their titles, or as their thesis statement. Yes, the thread states that CG are simply better than KoMT. While I do believe that, overall, I still think that KoMT are decent units. I'll probably be taking a couple along with a larger group of CG, simply because variety is good from both a gaming, and a hobby perspective. Such simplified statements are a way of grabbing attention, focusing on giving the reader something to take away with them. It would be impossible to sum up the contents of the thread perfectly, in one sentence. So I went with an attention-grabbing, simplified, if slightly incorrect, title.

Perhaps a more suitable summary would be "CG are generally better than KoMT". While, yes, the examples I used were specific (it was an example, they're supposed to be specific), they were also extremely common. They were designed to showcase a point (the differences between the two) instead of go through every single matchup possible. I do think that Morannons and Uruk-hai are more common than Orcs and humans, for evil. But since there is no huge database, I can't prove this, so you're free to use your own experiences.

The mount will only be the target if it's easier to kill than the rider, yes. But whether the mount or the rider dies, the usefulness of the model plummets. I'm saying that D6 means that some of the time, the model will just lose it's bonuses, instead of it's life. I don't value that as much as some people, when talking about cavalry models. I'd rather give my rangers spears than my Knights shields. This, of course, is up to the reader. My ultimate intent was to show that mounted CG are just as viable as KoMT. Given the contrasting popularities, I thought people might need some convincing.

Eh, money is only an issue if you feel like using the tops of metal models on plastic horses. A more economical (and durable) way to do things would be to buy KoMT, and use greenstuff to create capes, and perhaps swords. CG and KoMT are identical otherwise, in looks, at least. Money/conversion might be an issue, but it shouldn't warrant such contrasting popularities in equally (at least) viable models.

something i'd think about too is that CG can have spears, normal spears, so they can support. you could just build a shield wall, komt with spear and shield up front, CG to support them. okay, it won't be cheap but with 3 attacks a model and maybe a banner its going to hurt you're enemy a lot.

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

Phantom_lord, if you are referring to models that are on horses then your strategy does not work. Cavalry models cannot support or be supported by spears.

The only real relevation I'm seeing here is the ability to field Gondor themed mounted archers. I hadn't thought of that.

Regarding the fight values, it has been common knowledge that higher fight values are useful in outnumbered fights, and you'll see that in the stats of heros that are commonly involved in either finishing fights or holding against a larger force.

Cavalry are used to finish fights already one, and for flanking. The goal is not to have them outnumbered and in a pinch. For the purpose of cavalry then, KOMT are clearly a better stat. The mobility provided to the longbow on the other hand makes the CG a suitable mount, however you can have them ride behind a KOMT can you not? If not for combat, to at least transport them into a good vantage.

You're right, cavalry is best used by swinging around back, and forcing the spearmen to fight you 1 on 1. Of course, in their subsequent move phase, the more numerous spearmen will simply double up on you, putting you in the same 2 attacks vs. 2 attacks situation. There will also be times when you'll be forced to charge a spearline, etc.. I would think that fights rolling multiple dice for each side are more common than fights rolling one dice each, though the players do have some control over this. Of course, they have no control over the other...

I still like KoMT; I still plan to take a few because I often find that varying forces are more powerful. They're certainly a viable option, I'd just like to point out that horseback CG (regardless of whether they're archers or not) are viable, too.

I'd like to bring something up, in the title and the first post you are obviously stating and stetting the tone that KoMT are not necesarry and you should take CG instead, I'd like to say, I've had no CG help and I've won more than my set of battles with KoMT, what you seem to be stating is that KoMT are no use. This is not true.

And you state that if they swing round the back they would kill a spearman and then they would get killed, but the other force would be fighting the 10 man wide spear block and anyway, you are saying that this is 1 KoMT, what happened to the good old combo of KoMT and Faramir mounted, you could Heroic move your way out of there and then charge the next turn or you could heroic fight you could do any number of things, the examples you have set up are clearly flawed.

And thing is, it is a matter of preference, affordability and stat difference, I know that I wouldn't like my CG dying in groves to S3 bows, yet I wouldn't like seeing my KoMT owned in CC, yet look, they have exactly the same fight value as nearly every evil front line troop (Orcs, evil men, Gobbos, Morranons, Black Numereans etc) and only some elites can crack their armour on a 5+

in all I would like to say, though not the best cavalry in the game, KoMT are still up there in the rankings for the most all round cavalry.

_________________
I'm back guys

Seems I'm defending my choice of words and style of argument, here, more than anything.

There's a flaw in your logic, too. Yes, the title implies that KoMT are obsolete. Because something is obsolete doesn't mean that it's useless, though it does mean that it's useless in comparison to what made it obsolete. I can still play minesweeper on a '95, but the graphics are so much nicer on Vista. You could have won plenty of games with KoMT, but maybe you would have won a couple more if you had switched some knights for Citadel Guards? Now, of course, KoMT are not as obsolete as Windows 95 (or aren't really obsolete at all), but you get the point.



The examples I have in the OP are clearly flawed? Or the example in my latest post? I'll assume the latter, since what you have posted here has nothing to do with the examples in the OP.

Anyway, while your "anvil" would be keeping the attention of the opponent's spear and shield wall, the points you spent on cavalry (obviously expensive models) means that you would have less/worse troops, so you would need the cavalry to hold it's own in order to pull through. It's not just equal spearwall vs. equal spearwall, and then you send in the cavalry. You're fighting a losing battle with the footsoldiers in order to give your horsemen a chance to trap your opponents. The cavalry doesn't just get it nice and pretty; one opponent for each guy.

So you're saying that the KoMT are good because they have Faramir? Because they can use something that's worth more than gold, (aka, might points) to save their butts? So can Citadel Guards; these two cavalry units are both exclusive to the Tower of Ecthelion, therefore they both have access to Faramir and his might points.

But even a heroic move won't save Faramir's buddies. First of all, the enemy has access to might, too, and will call a counter-heroic move if he thinks he can kill some ponies through it. Secondly, even if your heroic move is successful, there is no guarantee of you getting priority next turn. If you are delayed even one or two turns, your anvil (which is weaker than your opponent's line due to you spending points on cavalry) will be eaten up, and it turns into just cavalry vs. the shield and spear wall. And we know that Citadel Guards do better in that situation than KoMT.

KoMT are good, sure. But so are mounted CG.

Maybe, seeing as, according to you, they cost isn't a negative factor, and the fact remains they have been an option for near enough 5 years would suggest that people really don't care that much about mounted Citadel Guard.



Ok, I'll say, the vast majority of people who have the ORB and a knack for reading have 'seen' the possibilty of mounted Citadel Guard. Now, of those people who have 'seen', how many do you reckon have 'experienced' mounted Citadel Guard? One percent, five, ten?

So, taking into account that 'seeing and experiencing are decent indicators of popularity,' that would suggest that mounted Citadel Guard are not in the least bit popular.

It can't just be the issue of converting them, or the cost, or else some enterprising fellow would be sitting on a hoard of ill gotten gains of Smaugesque proportions, via the dark sorceries of ebay.

Even the math isn't convincing people.

Perhaps the Citadel Guard should remain on foot, so that you can continue to flog that dead horse unimpeded.

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