Warhammer-Empire.com

The General Archive => Empire Army Book 8th Edition => Core => Topic started by: kk14 on January 28, 2010, 12:30:11 AM

Title: Army Book: Knights
Post by: kk14 on January 28, 2010, 12:30:11 AM
Knights are a no-brainer, if you are trying to keep the army simple and similar and versatile. Core knights are one of the truly 'Empire' things. So is the 1+ armour save. So are the White Wolf knights.

The only fix I would make to Empire knights would be to make white wolf cavalry hammers a special weapon again. I looked at most of the ideas concerning giving separate orders different abilities, and while many were cool, some were balanced, and all were interesting, I quickly came to the conclusion that doing so would just turn the Empire into some kind of Bretonnian knock-off. If you want to play with different sorts of knights, the Frenchies are what do that.

So
Quote
Knightly Orders
Knight:      M4 WS4 BS3 S3 T3 A1 I3 W1 Ld 8
Preceptor: M4 WS4 BS3 S3 T3 A2 I3 W1 Ld 8
Steed:       M8 WS3 BS3 S3 T3 A1 I3 W1 Ld 7
Equipment: Barded Warhorse, Full Plate, Shield, Hand Weapon, Lance
Can upgrade one knight to a musician for 8 points
Can upgrade one knight to a Preceptor for 16 points
Can upgrade one knight to a Standard Bearer for 16 points
Can trade in shields and lances for White Wolf Cavalry Hammers (+2S on the charge, +1S and strike last every turn thereafter)
A standard Bearer can carry a magic banner costing up to 50 points

The only question I have is: if white wolves get their cavalry hammers back, should we say that an army using a unit of Knights of the White Wolf cannot contain any units of another knightly order? That would prevent people from taking a White Wolf cavalry hammer, and then making all the 5+strong knight units reiksguard.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Obi on January 28, 2010, 07:41:39 AM
I like your knights idea- the knights were as you say pretty much fine.

Quite honestly I see no qualms against mixing WW with other knight units, both from a fluffy and game balance perspective.

I'll look into the statetroops later, that thread is longer ;)
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on January 28, 2010, 07:54:04 AM
exactly who's to say those hammer weilding knights are ulrican they might for example be a unit of sigmarite knights of Ghal Maraz. 
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Warlord on January 28, 2010, 09:06:56 AM
One thing that does annoy me is the prescription of knights with great wepaons have to be White Wolves (Though I realise you swapped Great Weapons with Cavalry Hammers)

The issue with the choice as it stands is not that dis-similar to the Halberdier issue. People prefer the lance armoured knights because they have a better save, and the +1S is not enough.

I have never liked the whole 'cavalry hammer = +2S on charge, +1S after, because to me it seemed to take away the appeal of the lance and make them almost a no brainer.

I am inclined to make the Cavalry Hammer +1S all rounds (like great weapons), remove strike last, and add a -1AS modifier.

That way it is different enough from the Lance (no +2S), still hits decently on the charge (-1AS), and continues to hit decently afterwards(not strike last like current GW option).
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Fandir Nightshade on January 28, 2010, 09:34:41 AM
But than make them proper white wolves and give them +1 I as they wear no helmet. :biggriin:
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: kk14 on January 29, 2010, 04:49:38 AM
One thing that does annoy me is the prescription of knights with great wepaons have to be White Wolves (Though I realise you swapped Great Weapons with Cavalry Hammers)

The issue with the choice as it stands is not that dis-similar to the Halberdier issue. People prefer the lance armoured knights because they have a better save, and the +1S is not enough.

I have never liked the whole 'cavalry hammer = +2S on charge, +1S after, because to me it seemed to take away the appeal of the lance and make them almost a no brainer.

I am inclined to make the Cavalry Hammer +1S all rounds (like great weapons), remove strike last, and add a -1AS modifier.

That way it is different enough from the Lance (no +2S), still hits decently on the charge (-1AS), and continues to hit decently afterwards(not strike last like current GW option).

Hmm....
You make good points.
The main trade off with white wolf knights (or just cav. hammer wielding ones) is that you lose that 1+ AS that is so precious. Anything else, I think, is just not worth it. I was also considering making the hammers cost 1 point (you are essentially trading your shield for +1 S).
Let's think over the AP hammers thing. It seems very strange to give Armour Piercing to a melee weapon, although we could probably justify it with hooks or the spikes on the hammers, but it certainly seems more fair. The options are: cav hammers (as was) at +1 points/model, or new cav hammers (with AP).
Knights are generally all about the charge. I thought that it would be better to make hammer knights charg-ey, not grind-ey.

But than make them proper white wolves and give them +1 I as they wear no helmet. :biggriin:
:closed-eyes:
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Warlord on January 29, 2010, 07:54:16 AM
I thought that it would be better to make hammer knights charg-ey, not grind-ey.

Why did you think that? Lances are certainly more of a charging weapon over hammers. Hammers, romantically feel powerful on the charge, but really they are a bit more grindy than lances because they are not as long reaching and use less momentum.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Fandir Nightshade on January 29, 2010, 08:47:11 AM
Also armour piercing for hammers and maces is very realistic, maces very even prohibited by the pope for a period because they were too effective against armour declassing the noble knights against the common man at arms.

So giving them +1 S on the Charge and AP wouldn´t be such a bad idea and make them quite a nice Inner Circle knights choice.

The +1I wasn´t really a joke a helmet decreases your arc of vision and also reduces your hearing withing without one greatly increases your reflexes.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: laribold on January 29, 2010, 05:01:19 PM
And what about those of us that have knights armed with other Great Weapons (bastard swords etc) that aren't KoWW?

Surely it'd be at least better to make it the other way around, allowing knights to swap lances/shields for cavalry weapons that have the rules you suggest, rather than forcing people to have KoWW.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: kk14 on January 29, 2010, 11:52:17 PM
I thought that it would be better to make hammer knights charg-ey, not grind-ey.

Why did you think that? Lances are certainly more of a charging weapon over hammers. Hammers, romantically feel powerful on the charge, but really they are a bit more grindy than lances because they are not as long reaching and use less momentum.

Ho hum. hmmm.
Grinds are typically an infantry thing. It didn't seem to fit the role of a knight unit to be grindey, instead they do the make-it or break it charge. Especially core knights.
Isn't S4 in later rounds grindey-enough? I had thought it was, though now I am still unsure.
The AP of maces and morningstars and flails and similar weapons is represented in Warhammer by an addition to strength in the first rounds of combat. That could easily be represented by the +2S on the charge. AP doesn't exist on any other melee unit that I can think of, so I am very reluctant to implement it. That said, it seems to be by far the best (most balanced) option. Is this another one of those lesser of evils things I hate so much?
Perhaps we could make Cav. hammers +2 S on the first round of combat? Or is that too strong? It certainly removes the chargey-ness I was trying to preserve.

Laribold: You make a good point. KoWW aren't the only ones who use great weapons any more. Removing the orders thing entirely from the rules is definitely the best choice, though for nostalgia's sake I think I will still call them cavalry hammers.

Wow. This post contains too many questions.
On +1I, I don't think this is a reasonable, useful addition to the knights. Models without helmets often have the same initiative as same-race models with them. Helmets (excepting magical ones) rarely provide any advantage or disadvantage in Warhammer.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on January 30, 2010, 08:13:34 AM
many heavy cavalry types throughout history have been grindy and all have been armed with impact type hand weapons other than a lance.  Among them incedentally are the knights of the HRE who were armed with helmet cracking, concussion causing, break your skull, and kill you inside your helmet, maces, warpicks, and warhammers.  So it has precedent.  like in real life.

Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Warlord on February 01, 2010, 03:26:32 AM
That could easily be represented by the +2S on the charge. AP doesn't exist on any other melee unit that I can think of, so I am very reluctant to implement it. That said, it seems to be by far the best (most balanced) option. Is this another one of those lesser of evils things I hate so much?
Perhaps we could make Cav. hammers +2 S on the first round of combat? Or is that too strong? It certainly removes the chargey-ness I was trying to preserve.

The thing is, +2S doesn't differentiate it from Knights with lances. I think consensus leans for +1S, -1AS mod, which differentiates from the lance significantly enough.

I don't think people are saying that they should be the grindy knight choice. I more think people are saying they should have a different utility from the benefits bestowed on knights with lances, while not making knights with lances the second choice (In 6th ed, everyone had a unit of WW because they were a no brainer hitting at +2S on the charge and +1S after, but were only a 0-1). +2S on the charge is too unbalancing towards the cavalry hammer choice.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Fandir Nightshade on February 01, 2010, 05:59:12 AM
I am not sure you pay for the +1S during subsequent rounds with -1 to AS 'Chaos Knights get S5 every turn with no AS penalty so armour piercing for -1 AS is still not the best of deals as they get magical weapons on top of it.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: kk14 on February 01, 2010, 09:33:06 PM
Okay: +1S, AP it is for the cav hammers. Should they strike last? Should they cost +1 point?

On the knightly orders thing: I want to find a way to keep the character of different knightly orders without giving out a host of special rules. How about: if you take cav. hammers, you may only take 1 unit of lance knights? or none?
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Warlord on February 02, 2010, 01:29:34 AM
Okay: +1S, AP it is for the cav hammers. Should they strike last? Should they cost +1 point?

Same points. Initiative Order.

On the knightly orders thing: I want to find a way to keep the character of different knightly orders without giving out a host of special rules. How about: if you take cav. hammers, you may only take 1 unit of lance knights? or none?

Huh? Isn't that adding a special rule? Do you mean you want an army to mainly have only 1 type of knights accompanying them? 0-1 restrictions are generally a bad idea as it isn't scalable.

Furthermore, the empire often has multiple different types of knights in their armies. Knights Panther and Knights of White Wolf often ride together, Knights Panther and Knights of the Blazing sun also would ride together. Rieksguard and Sigmar's Hammer would ride together. I don't think there is a need to make Knightly orders restricted across the armies. I think it would be more appropriate to have a set of 'province specific' traits which you can apply to your army which slightly affects composition - however thats for another thread.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on February 02, 2010, 01:54:35 AM
Why not knights, knights I mean armed with a brace of pistols as an alternative to either lance or cav hammer(mace etc).  After serving in the pistolkorps a knife on the end of a stick may not seem all that appealing as well this would be a good alternative to giving fusillade back to pistoliers, simply give fusillade to the knights with the pistols.  It would fit better with the fluff of the charge straight in jam a pistol up the orc's nose and pull the trigger kind of fighting a knight would do rather than riding around in circles at a distance of a light cav pistolier.

Just some ideas.

Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: kk14 on February 02, 2010, 04:16:02 AM
Quote
Knightly Orders
Knight:      M4 WS4 BS3 S3 T3 A1 I3 W1 Ld 8
Preceptor: M4 WS4 BS3 S3 T3 A2 I3 W1 Ld 8
Steed:       M8 WS3 BS3 S3 T3 A1 I3 W1 Ld 7
Equipment: Barded Warhorse, Full Plate, Shield, Hand Weapon, Lance
Can upgrade one knight to a musician for 8 points
Can upgrade one knight to a Preceptor for 16 points
Can upgrade one knight to a Standard Bearer for 16 points
Can trade in shields and lances for Cavalry Hammers (+1S and Armour Piercing)
A standard Bearer can carry a magic banner costing up to 50 points

dH: I think if we give braces of pistols to knights (who are core) there will never be pistoliers ever again. We could design nuances, but I think it would blur the line too much between the two roles.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on February 02, 2010, 08:13:08 AM
hmmmm You might be right but the light cav can do things the knights couldn't do.  they are used differently and pistoliers are cheaper.  Like the concept of fast light lancers Vs superheavy cav knights, they both use a lance but they are used differently.   Even if they are the same price.  I can give you some examples from Wab beyond the golden gate if you'd like. 

Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Warlord on February 03, 2010, 07:23:39 AM
I think if you read through my Demilancer thread in the 'Special choice' board, thats my opinion on the matter.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on February 04, 2010, 01:52:24 AM
and later on in the thread, basically mine as I conversed with derek. 

I really really like the idea of build a unit types, it allows for a nearly infinite number of army builds and a nearly infinite number of modeling possibilities.  Best of both worlds in my opinion.   

As large as the empire is this should be more what we are shooting for rather than standardization.  particularly considering that options can be taken independantly.

Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Warlord on February 04, 2010, 02:22:09 AM
Agree. Though only to a degree. Too much flexibility then becomes hard to manage.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on February 04, 2010, 06:07:22 AM
Agree. Though only to a degree. Too much flexibility then becomes hard to manage.

I can work with that, how bout you KK?
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: kk14 on February 04, 2010, 07:09:52 AM
I actually fully agree, but have decided to disagree as long as I am creating this book. I read your and Warlords earlier posts on the matter, and really liked them.
While a completely modular unit structure like that would be fantastic, versatile, and fluffily not require too many special rules, designing it would be beyond the scope of what we are trying to accomplish. Changing the unit creation rules like that would mean changing the structure of army creation as a whole: I want to make a better example of what we have, not rebuild from scratch, which a modular conception would entail.

Basically, the idea is great, and I think it will be my next project, if not yours. I just thought such an approach was a) too radical and b) too complicated and c) not represented in the GW modelling and rules structure enough to present and an alternative, or 'tweak' to what already existed.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Northern Storm on February 07, 2010, 07:45:23 PM
My only beef with the Knights was the absolute raping of the White Wolves from 6th to 7th edition. They are supposed to be one of the largest, the most famous and (arguably) the most feared Kinghtly Order in the Empire. And with Great Weapons they totally suck in comparison to IC Lance Knights.

a 0-1 WW unit with Calvary Hammers (or the unique ability to use Great Weapons at +2S while mounted) would be most appreciated for White Wolves.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: kk14 on February 08, 2010, 11:06:01 PM
Northern: you effectively have that now with inner-circle cavalry hammer weilding knights, except that they are also Armour piercing (see above).

Should I also create a demilancer thread? It seems like a decent idea.
If I was going to I would want to find a way to amalgamate outriders and pistoliers.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Warlord on February 08, 2010, 11:59:23 PM
Northern: you effectively have that now with inner-circle cavalry hammer weilding knights, except that they are also Armour piercing (see above).

Thats what I thought also. Minus the +2S on charge.

Should I also create a demilancer thread? It seems like a decent idea.
If I was going to I would want to find a way to amalgamate outriders and pistoliers.

I think so. In that way, all 3 options can be covered in 1.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Sejestephan on February 14, 2010, 07:21:46 PM
What I would really like to see changed with knights in 8th is the upgrade to inner circle.

The knight entry should be like this:

23 pts

WS BS S T W I A ld
  4    3  3 3 1 3 1 8

Equipment: Full plate, shield, Lance, barde warhorse

Options: Any unit of knights may exchange their lances and shields with ... Music, standard and champion bonus ...

Upgrade any unit of knights to Inner circle knights for +4 pts pr. model. A unit of inner circle knights have +1 A on their profile.





So, remove that rediculous +1 str that is useless and don't have them eat up a special choice. This way they would be really fit to fight in the current meta ... hell, they'd be fit to fight, which they can't really do now.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Warlord on February 14, 2010, 11:03:15 PM
Basically Inner circle knights have +1 attack?
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Sejestephan on February 15, 2010, 05:43:24 AM
Yes, but they lose +1 str and become core like ordinary knights.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Warlord on February 15, 2010, 06:09:45 AM
Becoming Core I won't happen.

The +1A is perhaps too good - almost makes them the same as Dragon Princes.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on February 16, 2010, 09:35:47 AM
so?
Even if they were they'd still strike second even on a charge, against dragon princes.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Fandir Nightshade on February 16, 2010, 01:44:12 PM
You forgot the lower Ws, lower I (doesn´t really matter except for pit of shades ...well there it REALLY matters), lower ld, lower M, higher armour save (mucho importante).

Well I am all for the more killingness in models perhaps if every model would have 2-4 attacks (representing not a single model but like....10 or 100 soldiers for each model) could work out and add to the randomness taking out the serious of it.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: kk14 on February 18, 2010, 08:02:45 AM
2 Attacks, as Warlord pointed out, puts our human knights on a level with Dragon Princes, Chaos Knights, and the like. It would dramatically change how Knightly Orders, even Inner Circle ones, can be used and would be used.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: kk14 on February 18, 2010, 09:10:25 AM
Quote
Knightly Orders
23 points/model
Knight:      M4 WS4 BS3 S3 T3 A1 I3 W1 Ld 8
Preceptor: M4 WS4 BS3 S3 T3 A2 I3 W1 Ld 8
Steed:       M8 WS3 BS3 S3 T3 A1 I3 W1 Ld 7
Unit Size: 5+
Equipment: Barded Warhorse, Full Plate, Shield, Hand Weapon, Lance
Can upgrade one knight to a musician for 8 points
Can upgrade one knight to a Preceptor for 16 points
Can upgrade one knight to a Standard Bearer for 16 points
Can trade in shields and lances for Cavalry Hammers (+1S and Armour Piercing)
Knightly Orders may be upgrade to Inner Circle knights for 3 points/model. Inner Circle Knights have +1 S and take a Special Slot
For every Templar Grand Master in the army, a unit of Inner Circle Knights becomes core.
A Standard Bearer can carry a magic banner costing up to 50 points
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Fandir Nightshade on February 19, 2010, 12:00:49 PM
I think they are a great choice this way  :::cheers:::
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: kk14 on February 19, 2010, 07:37:18 PM
*and take a special slot* -right. serves me right for posting late at night.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Warlord on February 22, 2010, 05:19:30 AM
*and take a special slot* -right. serves me right for posting late at night.

 :wink: No probs.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Johedl on April 06, 2010, 08:13:10 AM
I came in a bit late in this discussion, but heres my two cents. The GW wielding knights isnt a problem. I have used the Order of the Sacret Scythe in my Stirland army and they do just fine. 2+ AS and S5 in all turns. They can block flanks from charges and against HE (I fight them alot) they strike last anyways.
If one think its need fixing then how about this:
Banner of the White Wolf, Magic banner, 30p, IC knights only, When the unit charges their opponents allways strikes last, even if they have ASF.
No need for new weapon rules, keeps to KoWW fluff vise and is an option for other orders that carries other forms of great weapons.
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Warlord on April 07, 2010, 01:32:39 AM
Inner Circle knights with Great Weapons are fine. Its the non-inner circle type that are useless that people complain about (don't forget GW only give +1S when mounted).
Title: Re: Army Book: Knights
Post by: Johedl on April 07, 2010, 01:54:10 AM
The discussion was revolving around KotWW so I thought people wanted IC with GW fixed. I agree that ordinary knights armed with GW aren't that great. Strik last with S4 isn't good and the cost of 1+ AS is high. But do Empire need to have good non-IC knights with GW? Take them specificaly against high T opponent with high Ld (Dwarf and perhaps WoC) or go with the ordinairy. GW from horseback is hard to wield and regulars are perhaps better of with lances.
Im OK with my banner suggestion beeing Knights only instead of IC only if it makes it better. I just don't think a new weapon rule is warrented.