home

Author Topic: Army Book: Knights  (Read 12283 times)

Offline kk14

  • Posts: 554
Army Book: Knights
« 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.
If you can't convince the voters to accept your view, and you take to the gun, you are by definition anti-American.

Veni, Vidi, domum meum redire volo.

Offline Obi

  • Posts: 6225
  • Rest in peace Nate
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #1 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 ;)
Hello Athiuen and welcome to the Back Table.

caveat lector
I killed a duck with a spear, can't read train timetables though
"To be is to do"-Socrates;
"To do is to be"-Sartre;
"Do Be Do Be Do"-Sinatra

Offline der Hurenwiebel

  • Posts: 1078
  • Adversus Malum Pugnamus
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #2 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. 
"DEfighter wrote:
Hey, trolls stay the hell out, this is a serious thread. Empire are cheese. 2 steam tanks, a war altar and 4 cannons is so obviously overpowered. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't had their dragon shot down on turn 1 yet."

oh really now.  LOL ROFLMAO oh the irony.

Offline Warlord

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 10112
  • Sydney, Australia
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #3 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).
Quote from: Gneisenau
I hate people who don't paint their armies, hate them with all my guts. Beats me how they value other things over painting, like eating or brushing teeth.

Offline Fandir Nightshade

  • Posts: 10157
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #4 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:

Offline kk14

  • Posts: 554
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #5 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:
If you can't convince the voters to accept your view, and you take to the gun, you are by definition anti-American.

Veni, Vidi, domum meum redire volo.

Offline Warlord

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 10112
  • Sydney, Australia
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #6 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.
Quote from: Gneisenau
I hate people who don't paint their armies, hate them with all my guts. Beats me how they value other things over painting, like eating or brushing teeth.

Offline Fandir Nightshade

  • Posts: 10157
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #7 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.

Offline laribold

  • Posts: 104
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #8 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.

Offline kk14

  • Posts: 554
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #9 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.
If you can't convince the voters to accept your view, and you take to the gun, you are by definition anti-American.

Veni, Vidi, domum meum redire volo.

Offline der Hurenwiebel

  • Posts: 1078
  • Adversus Malum Pugnamus
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #10 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.

"DEfighter wrote:
Hey, trolls stay the hell out, this is a serious thread. Empire are cheese. 2 steam tanks, a war altar and 4 cannons is so obviously overpowered. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't had their dragon shot down on turn 1 yet."

oh really now.  LOL ROFLMAO oh the irony.

Offline Warlord

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 10112
  • Sydney, Australia
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #11 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.
Quote from: Gneisenau
I hate people who don't paint their armies, hate them with all my guts. Beats me how they value other things over painting, like eating or brushing teeth.

Offline Fandir Nightshade

  • Posts: 10157
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #12 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.

Offline kk14

  • Posts: 554
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #13 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?
If you can't convince the voters to accept your view, and you take to the gun, you are by definition anti-American.

Veni, Vidi, domum meum redire volo.

Offline Warlord

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 10112
  • Sydney, Australia
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #14 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.
Quote from: Gneisenau
I hate people who don't paint their armies, hate them with all my guts. Beats me how they value other things over painting, like eating or brushing teeth.

Offline der Hurenwiebel

  • Posts: 1078
  • Adversus Malum Pugnamus
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #15 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.

"DEfighter wrote:
Hey, trolls stay the hell out, this is a serious thread. Empire are cheese. 2 steam tanks, a war altar and 4 cannons is so obviously overpowered. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't had their dragon shot down on turn 1 yet."

oh really now.  LOL ROFLMAO oh the irony.

Offline kk14

  • Posts: 554
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #16 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.
If you can't convince the voters to accept your view, and you take to the gun, you are by definition anti-American.

Veni, Vidi, domum meum redire volo.

Offline der Hurenwiebel

  • Posts: 1078
  • Adversus Malum Pugnamus
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #17 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. 

"DEfighter wrote:
Hey, trolls stay the hell out, this is a serious thread. Empire are cheese. 2 steam tanks, a war altar and 4 cannons is so obviously overpowered. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't had their dragon shot down on turn 1 yet."

oh really now.  LOL ROFLMAO oh the irony.

Offline Warlord

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 10112
  • Sydney, Australia
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #18 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.
Quote from: Gneisenau
I hate people who don't paint their armies, hate them with all my guts. Beats me how they value other things over painting, like eating or brushing teeth.

Offline der Hurenwiebel

  • Posts: 1078
  • Adversus Malum Pugnamus
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #19 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.

"DEfighter wrote:
Hey, trolls stay the hell out, this is a serious thread. Empire are cheese. 2 steam tanks, a war altar and 4 cannons is so obviously overpowered. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't had their dragon shot down on turn 1 yet."

oh really now.  LOL ROFLMAO oh the irony.

Offline Warlord

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 10112
  • Sydney, Australia
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2010, 02:22:09 AM »
Agree. Though only to a degree. Too much flexibility then becomes hard to manage.
Quote from: Gneisenau
I hate people who don't paint their armies, hate them with all my guts. Beats me how they value other things over painting, like eating or brushing teeth.

Offline der Hurenwiebel

  • Posts: 1078
  • Adversus Malum Pugnamus
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #21 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?
"DEfighter wrote:
Hey, trolls stay the hell out, this is a serious thread. Empire are cheese. 2 steam tanks, a war altar and 4 cannons is so obviously overpowered. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't had their dragon shot down on turn 1 yet."

oh really now.  LOL ROFLMAO oh the irony.

Offline kk14

  • Posts: 554
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #22 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.
If you can't convince the voters to accept your view, and you take to the gun, you are by definition anti-American.

Veni, Vidi, domum meum redire volo.

Offline Northern Storm

  • Posts: 773
  • Retired from community as of 25 NOV 10
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #23 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.

Offline kk14

  • Posts: 554
Re: Army Book: Knights
« Reply #24 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.
If you can't convince the voters to accept your view, and you take to the gun, you are by definition anti-American.

Veni, Vidi, domum meum redire volo.