Duke Niemar's Homebrew Equitaine

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

    Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

    • Read through it mate and I am intrigued by your thought process, where you would like KoE to be on the power scale and what each unit should be able to perform on a more fluff driven perspective.
      From my POV some things seem immensly powerful compared to how they should perform according to my view but that is fine ^^. We all percieve and wish for things to be, well differently than what our peers do ^^.
      I hope that you enjoy your creation.
      Cheers
    • Kapten Kluns wrote:

      Read through it mate and I am intrigued by your thought process, where you would like KoE to be on the power scale and what each unit should be able to perform on a more fluff driven perspective.
      From my POV some things seem immensly powerful compared to how they should perform according to my view but that is fine ^^. We all percieve and wish for things to be, well differently than what our peers do ^^.
      I hope that you enjoy your creation.
      Cheers
      Always diverting to intrigue someone with my thought process, however often that happens.

      I have always viewed the KoE as martial but arrogant. Supremely confident in their own ability and downgrading of everyone elses. The grail Knights should for me be really that much more powerful, being the very best of this already skillful upperclass warrior elite, having their skills further empowered by Fey magic. They are unfortunately exceedingly rare (said arrogance versus recieving a blessing only the pure can survive might have something to do with that).

      The normal knights are just human however and the peasants and commoners are even more so...

      Gamewise I would like my kingdom to be one of martial extremes. From the Superhuman Grail Knights all the way down to the pitiful peasants. One cannot thrive completely without the other though, neither on or off the battlefield. Combining these extremes and playing to the fluff of the Knights is what I would like the ground concept to be like. I hope I have succeeded in this endeavour and that my work spark inspiration in those who read it aswell, either to start their own proud army or by working to improve upon its rules.
      "In the end rules are just the groundwork for 2 players to have an agreement on how the game is played. If you friends/gaming group is fine with it you can do what ever you want with the game." - Smart Guy on the T9A forum

      "By the Lady, is that Elderberries I smell?" - Duke Niemar of Snowfall's Eves

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Duke Niemar ().

    • KoE should be a mix between the weakest and the strongest. Much like how VC works. Strong vampires and their ilk doing the heavy lifting while the enemy is busy killing the weaker elements.

      But like the VC we are pretty dependant on our characters for individual strength and if one falls we are at a terrible disadvantage. We have either few numbers if relying on our nobles or scores of weak bodies if relying on the peasants.

      An enemy with area attacks against our weaker elements and armour piercing and hard hits against our nobles will be amply kitted to destroy us. Our most common Knights should be weakest if they are outplayed in the movement phase and thus not allowed to be charged. Some more elite regiments can hold their own in either, but those are few in number and expensive.

      Our tactics should first and foremost be to lock down enemies with our peasants in order to try and destroy all other elements that can threaten our nobles. If we play full peasant then it will be a war of attrition, who can bring the enemy to crumble first trough slow damage output.

      But the playstyle I wish to bring forth is that of the full cavalry. An elite army with relatively few bodies relying on the concentration of force in order to destroy the enemy before he can recover from our charge. It is all about getting the right units Into the right enemy at the right time. This playstyle is the easiest to counter, with spears and stubborn units our charges lose momentum and we will eventually get destroyed by the enemies' supposedly greater numbers.

      A great weakness is our susception to ranged damage with armour piercing. Due to our low body count our knights cannot be afforded to be picked off at range before they manage to get Into melee. Sure, the Lady protects, but a fully wiped out knight unit puts a massive dent in our ability to win the battle.

      Another weakness is our inability to fight in dense terrain. Open grund is where the Knights thrive, their horses being much to fragile to risk traversing rough grund or rocky outcrops.

      Our magic should differ from that of the WDG in that it is focused on protecting our troops rather than destroying the enemy, thus reflecting that in our strengths and weaknesses. Only winning is not enough, if there are no knights left after the battle then what is there to return home to?
      "In the end rules are just the groundwork for 2 players to have an agreement on how the game is played. If you friends/gaming group is fine with it you can do what ever you want with the game." - Smart Guy on the T9A forum

      "By the Lady, is that Elderberries I smell?" - Duke Niemar of Snowfall's Eves
    • My 2 cents. I dislike some name choices but will only comment on rule changes. With all the home-brew topics atm you will have to bear with some comparisons sadly.

      Army wide rules.

      Blessing. I'd prefer the true Aegis safe solution of varriing strenth for varriing units instead of a flexible Aegis but am not totally opposed to this. What I don't like though is making the +1 Aegis dependent on giving up first turn again. :(

      Oaths I have to say I kind of liked @echoctrl s idea of removing both the quest and grail oath from the common rule table to clear it uo a little. Still I missed a supernatural character choice from his book and I really like your stat boosts for grailbound characters.

      My prefered solution atm would probably be no special oaths as army-wide rules but a 0-1 character choice named "living Saint" or something similar. Basically a duke/paladin with your grail-bound stat-boosts.

      Give the normal Duke/Paladin +1 Off/Def standard and remove oaths and oath options.

      In my head this also solves another problem I fear. Too many powerfull/mystical models in the army. I want strong and mystical fighters, don't get me wrong. But also few in numbers to 1) underline their rareness and status and 2) to please gamers who do not want too many super-human elements in their army.

      This is why I like the idea of 2 wound (expensive! few in numbers!) grails and solo supernatural characters as center piece models. They are rare and something truely special. With Grail upgrades for all characters and our flying units, I fear the supernatural becoming too common..

      Serf Good. If this CR solution works and not for example @Caledoriv suggesting of counting serf casualties half would be easier I would have to playtest.

      Jousting. I'm fine with it. A more cost-effecient alternative could be ignore parry as in the other home brews.

      Battle formations.

      Both seem playable. My only issue is that I am wondering if we really need two instead of changing our unit's to all work fine with just one. Reasons against having two: 1) It adds another rule to the game 2) takes away from the uniqueness that is our lance formation. Is wedge really needed considering lance now let's corner models attack with all of their attacks instead of just support attack with one w/o mount?

      Broadsword Fine, although I am wondering if we really should pay for more defensive with parry in addition to strong armour and Aegis. I suggested moring stars with +1 Str, +1 AP and/or ignore parry for only select units and our characters. It seems strong but you have to keep in mind the low number of attacks most knights dish out.

      Pavise Not sure this is still needed with Serf rule preventing the many Serf deaths impaacting our knights. Also the + armour vs shooting seems fluffy and logical but useless game-play-wise (can be fine if it does not add points).

      Virtues

      I will not comment on each one but just want to say I like the general idea of Wingborne. While it does not have to be on a virtue some rule to improve our flying circus would be nice. Could change %ages as well.

      Magical Items.
      Again I will not comment on each one.

      Steelcore Lance. I like the mechanic but as with @echoctrl s saint of penance I am wondering if it would not be too strong. 3-4 hits turning into 3-4 Str 8 + 12-16 Str 4?

      Characters

      See Oath comments.

      I like the 40% increase on Lady's chosen...I'd put it on my 0-1 Living Saint (See above).

      For some consistency, why not have the Wingborne rule be dependent on the general riding a flying monster or pegasus? This could also shift %ages.


      Devout protector. Not sure if necessary. What is the idea here? To make the hero cheaper? Why doesn't the duke care about damsels anymore?

      Why does noone add griffon mounts for heroes? Hero small monsters are a thing in other armies, right? And ours has the flying circus stregth...Too OP?

      Core

      Aspirants work like that. Still I'd like the option to have them as cheap blocks/sacrificial units. Remove Blessing, remove, scoring, remove some of their offensive punch or make it optional to cheapen them. I'm missing the barding option.

      KotR with Str 3 again. I hate that change. Str 4, AP0 is what I would have done to cheapen them a bit but never ever should they have Str 3 even with Broad swords/Morning Stars.

      Would always love more weapon choices on knights to make up for the few mounted units we have.

      Special

      KotQ are fine. I'd move (deleted) questing oath rules here.

      Foot Knights, I'd incorporate some of the upgrades and remove them.

      Reliqaury

      I think the buff is a bit weak even though I like the discarded veil token mechanic. Also maybe add a second more offensive effect?

      Also also why has noone thought up rules yet to make this thing easier to get into combats with knights ans support them? Swiftstride charge when assisting Knights? Increased march so it does not need to go for far charges in the first place? I'd like this to be able to play as an infantry or cavalry support piece.

      Castellan

      I have no idea why this has to be in special and not characters. Do we max our characters too often? Is this thing so powerfull that we have to force people to refrain from using other stuff in Sworn to serve?

      I dislike Agitator as it goes against my image of the army. Tax collector looks fun though.

      I like the idea of Mounted Squires as an in-between of Knight Aspirants and Yeoman. I'd move the 3+ armour heavy hitters into this unit choice. Light troops and you are done.

      Either Yeoman or Squires could count as core on 8+ models.

      Like the warmachines upgrades. Choice = good. To go with our anti-gunline themes I'd probably reduce their dam though and have them apply debuffs to work in concert with our knights. For examply no clipped wings on balista but reduces movement for monsters hit = easiert to charge with knights.

      I'd really like a 2Att grindy knight unit. Didn't we want one of those? Where are the people who suggested questers becoming something like that? EoS losing it's 2 Att cavalry and our grails moving to "heroic" status with 3 Att/2 HP leaves the design space open for it.

      The Ladys chosen


      @ All One of a Kind "Legendaries". Why not make their base size 50mm*50mm for mounted, 40*40 mm on foot. If these are supposed to be our centerpiece models this would make tons of sence. It also makes it easier to use non-GW models. Some people like elementals or angels I heard for example.


      So for a "Saint" you could use a more or less normal looking knight. Or something like




      How do you fit that on 25*50mm? You went for 40mm*40 mm for the black knight. Good.

      Also I think these sort of supernaturals really need a true Aegis safe to show their devotion/status. I'd also increase their HP for the same reason and to weather some shooting.

      Green Knight

      Only +1 HP because he can be summoned. I like whoevers idea of summoning him in a terrain piece but would make it terrain piece OR 6" around damsel. This ensures that he can be summoned at all if no fitting terrain is there too. Still dislike giving up Veil tokens but whatever.

      Grails
      Move Aegis into stat-line (removed grailboand). If these get too expensive, I'd suggest lowering Off/Def to 5. I'd like to have the option to field 2 units.

      Black knight.

      Kinda like it especially the You Shall not pass rule. I'd make him mounted or increase his march though to make him more usefull for all mounted armies (I did see the vanguards, yes).

      Relentness grit feels a bit weak as it might take too long to really start off. He also only has two attacks. Maybe combine this entry with @echoctrl penitent sage (low base Att, more HP, lost HP = more attacks).


      More Supernaturals

      I'd like one or better two more One-of-a-kind Legendaries to have some choice in centrepieces.

      Personally I'd really really like a Jean D'Arc/Repanse De La Lyonesse character. Low combat stats but Rally around the flag, Standard Bearer and the ability to buff units w/i Rally around the flag. Some buffs I thought about: Double CR from all banners w/i 12". Free reform for one/multiple units after moving/marching. Improved Ward vs Ranged/Magic.

      Airborne
      Remove Oaths.

      The post was edited 7 times, last by Diablo_DF ().

    • Kapten Kluns wrote:

      cool ideas. If I could ask you a more personal question then as I myself only play a single army. How should KoE compare to DL? the goal is a 50-50% chance at winning this I understand but what should be the armies strong points against eachothers?
      I would guess that DL works a bit like the Eldar in 40k (blasphemy, I know!). They are extreme specialists that if you can get them into their preferred target they would wreck the opponent. The trouble is always with the opponent not letting you (trust me, I have bashed my head against a wall with my old Eldar).

      Equitaine would be more of a general specialist role, not equally strong, but better at handling some (read few) other situations. A normal duke might be kitted well for duels but is generally weak against rank and file or monsters for example, even if he CAN kill a monster or some zombies. A DL character on the same level which I have to assume would be a Greater Demon is more of an all rounder, as opposed to his own rank and file.

      Demons are also consistently unbreakable, making our shock-cavalry weaker in that they cannot break you and run you over. A well placed (is it sloth nowdays?) unit in the way would do wonders to lock a knight unit in place and create opportunities for your other killy units (I'll assume it is wrath for those?) to go in and finish them off. This works with all armies in general, but since both KoE and DL have more of the specialist "tag" on them, they would be better in their chosen field.

      DL can also pick lots of high movement options in order to outplay the knights in the movement phase, a charging knight is a dangerous knight. A charged knight, much less so...

      The biggest strength against KoE for DL is the versatility I would say. Your option to pick from a myriad of specialists that can exterminate their preferred targets. Remember how knights are easy to counter with armour piercing and being charged?

      I have not played much against DL unfortunately, only on the rare occations I go off to bigger tournaments since we do not have a regular DL player in our local meta. I hope this shed some light on my view of the two armies and their correlation.
      "In the end rules are just the groundwork for 2 players to have an agreement on how the game is played. If you friends/gaming group is fine with it you can do what ever you want with the game." - Smart Guy on the T9A forum

      "By the Lady, is that Elderberries I smell?" - Duke Niemar of Snowfall's Eves
    • Diablo_DF wrote:

      My 2 cents. I dislike some name choices but will only comment on rule changes. With all the home-brew topics atm you will have to bear with some comparisons sadly.

      Army wide rules.

      Blessing. I'd prefer the true Aegis safe solution of varriing strenth for varriing units instead of a flexible Aegis but am not totally opposed to this. What I don't like though is making the +1 Aegis dependent on giving up first turn again. :(


      Yeah, I am also conflicted about this. I like the choice of praying, but I also like to not having to in every game. It should be a difficult choice if you should pray or not.


      Oaths I have to say I kind of liked @echoctrl s idea of removing both the quest and grail oath from the common rule table to clear it uo a little. Still I missed a supernatural character choice from his book and I really like your stat boosts for grailbound characters.


      I really like the option to pick from a cheaper or a more expensive option for character. Also, since you have read my book, I assume you have noticed that I write rules from fluff first, then into theory, last into practical sense. I really do not want a supernatural "character" and I hope the point costs of the Grail Dukes and Paladins will scare some players off into buying a cheaper lord and a Green or Black knight instead.


      My prefered solution atm would probably be no special oaths as army-wide rules but a 0-1 character choice named "living Saint" or something similar. Basically a duke/paladin with your grail-bound stat-boosts.

      Give the normal Duke/Paladin +1 Off/Def standard and remove oaths and oath options.

      In my head this also solves another problem I fear. Too many powerfull/mystical models in the army. I want strong and mystical fighters, don't get me wrong. But also few in numbers to 1) underline their rareness and status and 2) to please gamers who do not want too many super-human elements in their army.

      This is why I like the idea of 2 wound (expensive! few in numbers!) grails and solo supernatural characters as center piece models. They are rare and something truely special. With Grail upgrades for all characters and our flying units, I fear the supernatural becoming too common..

      Serf Good. If this CR solution works and not for example @Caledoriv suggesting of counting serf casualties half would be easier I would have to playtest.

      Jousting. I'm fine with it. A more cost-effecient alternative could be ignore parry as in the other home brews.


      Yeah, it would bring down costs a bit. But I am fine with having few knights as long as they actually can do something on the charge.


      Battle formations.

      Both seem playable. My only issue is that I am wondering if we really need two instead of changing our unit's to all work fine with just one. Reasons against having two: 1) It adds another rule to the game 2) takes away from the uniqueness that is our lance formation. Is wedge really needed considering lance now let's corner models attack with all of their attacks instead of just support attack with one w/o mount?


      Our uniqueness would still be preserved in that we actually have cavalry formations other than the bland "5 models in a rank and attack" formation. It brings a tactical choice to the KoE player which formation to use in what situation.


      Broadsword Fine, although I am wondering if we really should pay for more defensive with parry in addition to strong armour and Aegis. I suggested moring stars with +1 Str, +1 AP and/or ignore parry for only select units and our characters. It seems strong but you have to keep in mind the low number of attacks most knights dish out.


      The parry is only used in the round after the charge, in which our knights naturally should revert to a more defensive role (since they obviously didn't manage to break the enemy) in order to survive until another unit can charge instead. As again: I write rules with fluff and fantasy-realism in focus first, then I try to balance it practically.


      Pavise Not sure this is still needed with Serf rule preventing the many Serf deaths impaacting our knights. Also the + armour vs shooting seems fluffy and logical but useless game-play-wise (can be fine if it does not add points).

      Again with the fluff. Brings so much more character to the army if you can have it reflected in the rules.



      Virtues

      I will not comment on each one but just want to say I like the general idea of Wingborne. While it does not have to be on a virtue some rule to improve our flying circus would be nice. Could change %ages as well.

      I have considered this aswell. Might change it if I feel so inclined.



      Magical Items.
      Again I will not comment on each one.

      Steelcore Lance. I like the mechanic but as with @echoctrl s saint of penance I am wondering if it would not be too strong. 3-4 hits turning into 3-4 Str 8 + 12-16 Str 4?


      There is only 1 attack with penetrating. The correct number of attacks would be 3-5 normal attacks with 1 additional attack with penetrating. The 3-5 normal attacks would be at S6 or S7 depending on Grail or not.


      Characters

      See Oath comments.

      I like the 40% increase on Lady's chosen...I'd put it on my 0-1 Living Saint (See above).

      For some consistency, why not have the Wingborne rule be dependent on the general riding a flying monster or pegasus? This could also shift %ages.

      Again something I have already considered and still is conflicted about. Might change.


      Devout protector. Not sure if necessary. What is the idea here? To make the hero cheaper? Why doesn't the duke care about damsels anymore?


      FLUFF! Also because I want to give incentive to bring a paladin for a different role than that of a weaker hero-general or cowboy. Bring him as a guardian for the damsel. So fluffy I can die! Also push us towards more synergy through individual might rather than strength of unity. The paladin protects because he wishes to, not because someone ordered him to do it.


      Why does noone add griffon mounts for heroes? Hero small monsters are a thing in other armies, right? And ours has the flying circus stregth...Too OP?


      Pegasus? Maybe because it has been mainly an Empire feature? With the Hippogryph I would deem it unnecessary, but perhamaybe.


      Core

      Aspirants work like that. Still I'd like the option to have them as cheap blocks/sacrificial units. Remove Blessing, remove, scoring, remove some of their offensive punch or make it optional to cheapen them. I'm missing the barding option.


      You want to sacrifice a knight?! HANG HIM! If you want to have units to sacrifice, bring peasants. These knights are weaker versions of the KotR, more focused on the charge in order to prove themselves than trying to survive the battle (teenage hormones?).


      KotR with Str 3 again. I hate that change. Str 4, AP0 is what I would have done to cheapen them a bit but never ever should they have Str 3 even with Broad swords/Morning Stars.


      I want to have them become mere humans again. Skillful humans, sure! But normal ones nonetheless. The Knight Broadsword and the Lance helps bring them into the game against tougher enemies. They also have, unlike the Aspirants, the ability to perform Formations, giving them a bigger punch depending on the enemy.


      Would always love more weapon choices on knights to make up for the few mounted units we have.


      I go with fluff here, but most weapons used by medieval knights were one-handed in order to pair with a shield. Maces, morning stars, swords, lances. I have collected most of them under "Knight Broadsword" but it can be fleshed out, I agree with you!


      Special

      KotQ are fine. I'd move (deleted) questing oath rules here.


      Do not really get which rules you are referring to here, but okay, whatever floats your boat.


      Foot Knights, I'd incorporate some of the upgrades and remove them.


      I like having a choice and again with the fluff. Normal dismounted knights, maybe poor ones? Questing knights that have lost their mount? Forlorn knights that have lost their honor and had their mount taken from them?


      Reliqaury

      I think the buff is a bit weak even though I like the discarded veil token mechanic. Also maybe add a second more offensive effect?

      Also also why has noone thought up rules yet to make this thing easier to get into combats with knights ans support them? Swiftstride charge when assisting Knights? Increased march so it does not need to go for far charges in the first place? I'd like this to be able to play as an infantry or cavalry support piece.


      First and foremost because I do not want us to become a buff-wagon army. We were in 1.3 with the peasant uprising and that is in my opinion VS and EoS territory. The Reliquae can stay because of fluff and it is awesome as a model, but I wanted to tone it down a bit, less of an auto-take.


      Castellan

      I have no idea why this has to be in special and not characters. Do we max our characters too often? Is this thing so powerfull that we have to force people to refrain from using other stuff in Sworn to serve?


      Castellan was a weak character, here he is a strong peasantbuffer. I never took him in games I wanted to win... Here, it might be possible.


      I dislike Agitator as it goes against my image of the army. Tax collector looks fun though.


      Option for playing Peasant Uprising for those players who want to. Sub-par playstyle, but available nonetheless. Tax Collector is again for the sake of the fluff, and because peasants cannot pay in time!


      I like the idea of Mounted Squires as an in-between of Knight Aspirants and Yeoman. I'd move the 3+ armour heavy hitters into this unit choice. Light troops and you are done.

      Either Yeoman or Squires could count as core on 8+ models.


      Possible. Just like dogs for VC. I will ponder this knowledge.


      Like the warmachines upgrades. Choice = good. To go with our anti-gunline themes I'd probably reduce their dam though and have them apply debuffs to work in concert with our knights. For examply no clipped wings on balista but reduces movement for monsters hit = easiert to charge with knights.


      Restriction of numbers would be sufficient, no? Equitaine CAN make good warmachines, but they are rare and expensive. Only the richest Dukes can afford one to be sent into battle.


      I'd really like a 2Att grindy knight unit. Didn't we want one of those? Where are the people who suggested questers becoming something like that? EoS losing it's 2 Att cavalry and our grails moving to "heroic" status with 3 Att/2 HP leaves the design space open for it.


      I thought about Questing Knights having 2 attacks each. But that would make the gap between the normal humans and the superhumans (grails) become less apparent. Instead I wanted them to have a fluffy, yet useful, role in the army similar to the Dwarven grudges.


      The Ladys chosen


      @ All One of a Kind "Legendaries". Why not make their base size 50mm*50mm for mounted, 40*40 mm on foot. If these are supposed to be our centerpiece models this would make tons of sence. It also makes it easier to use non-GW models. Some people like elementals or angels I heard for example.


      So for a "Saint" you could use a more or less normal looking knight. Or something like


      I do not approve for adding a "saint" entry in the list. Sure, you can take a saint as The Black Knight if you wish, the choice of which models to use is rather flexible, which I like.





      How do you fit that on 25*50mm? You went for 40mm*40 mm for the black knight. Good.


      Because The Green Knight is a cavalry model. At least most of us having one has it riding on a horse. The base can easily be changed to 50x50 though, with the normal model.


      Also I think these sort of supernaturals really need a true Aegis safe to show their devotion/status. I'd also increase their HP for the same reason and to weather some shooting.

      Green Knight

      Only +1 HP because he can be summoned. I like whoevers idea of summoning him in a terrain piece but would make it terrain piece OR 6" around damsel. This ensures that he can be summoned at all if no fitting terrain is there too. Still dislike giving up Veil tokens but whatever.


      The summoning of him into terrain is a feature I ported over from old 5th edition Bretonnia. But in that one he could be resummoned when destroyed...


      Grails
      Move Aegis into stat-line (removed grailboand). If these get too expensive, I'd suggest lowering Off/Def to 5. I'd like to have the option to field 2 units.


      2 units, sure. Maybe only if general is a Grail Knight himself? I want them to be expensive and killy. Nothing more, nothing less. I am still PRO having Oaths (bindings in my version) for the sake of choice on other units, so I kept the rule for the sake of simplicity in this regard.


      Black knight.

      Kinda like it especially the You Shall not pass rule. I'd make him mounted or increase his march though to make him more usefull for all mounted armies (I did see the vanguards, yes).

      Relentness grit feels a bit weak as it might take too long to really start off. He also only has two attacks. Maybe combine this entry with @echoctrl penitent sage (low base Att, more HP, lost HP = more attacks).


      He has 3 attacks as soon as he gets into combat. The effect triggers at the START of the combat round, first round he has +1, second he has +2 and on it goes and on it goes. He is a model you want to trap your enemy elites into, they cannot use stronger attacks to kill him, it just makes him tougher. Eventually they will get destroyed by his Bastard Sword wielding attacks.


      As for him being on foot: Monthy Python and the Holy Grail, yes? No? Nothing? Okay...



      More Supernaturals

      I'd like one or better two more One-of-a-kind Legendaries to have some choice in centrepieces.


      Can always be added.


      Personally I'd really really like a Jean D'Arc/Repanse De La Lyonesse character. Low combat stats but Rally around the flag, Standard Bearer and the ability to buff units w/i Rally around the flag. Some buffs I thought about: Double CR from all banners w/i 12". Free reform for one/multiple units after moving/marching. Improved Ward vs Ranged/Magic.


      I loved that character, still playing my mounted general with that model (somewhat converted albeit). I have thought about a unit entry with more buffing knights in focus. Still not found one I am happy with, so I left that part empty.


      Airborne
      Remove Oaths.


      MAKE ME! Sorry, I just love having a choice of playing elite and scarce or average and plentiful. Also with the fluff here, why should not a Grail Knight and his friends on pegasi want to join the battle? Rare, sure! Expensive, absolutely! But impossible, I'd think not!
      In case you are colourblind: I am deeply sorry and hope I have not offended you by typing my answers in red.

      This was a lengthy proposition, but fun nonetheless! Always healthy to have your ideas scrutinized. If you cannot allow them to be, then perhaps they are not very good ideas afterall?

      Thank you!
      "In the end rules are just the groundwork for 2 players to have an agreement on how the game is played. If you friends/gaming group is fine with it you can do what ever you want with the game." - Smart Guy on the T9A forum

      "By the Lady, is that Elderberries I smell?" - Duke Niemar of Snowfall's Eves
    • I used to tell my opponents back in the warhammer days "Give me 1 minute to justify ANY win-at-all-cost min-maxed list or OP rule with a fluffy excuse and I'll do it no problem".

      To me fluff and gameplay have to go hand in hand. A fluffy rule that does no good I can go without.

      That is not saying that any of my proposals are good or should be used. Just that fluff should not be the be-all-end-all of things and one should look a bit more neutral at things. Especially since NO fluff exists on KoE atm.

      So, when you say that you for example don't want cheap generic KA (with possible offensive upgrades) but want to keep cheap generic foot knights upgradable to forlorn that's not the fluff talking but our personal tastes. :)
    • Diablo_DF wrote:

      I used to tell my opponents back in the warhammer days "Give me 1 minute to justify ANY win-at-all-cost min-maxed list or OP rule with a fluffy excuse and I'll do it no problem".

      To me fluff and gameplay have to go hand in hand. A fluffy rule that does no good I can go without.

      That is not saying that any of my proposals are good or should be used. Just that fluff should not be the be-all-end-all of things and one should look a bit more neutral at things. Especially since NO fluff exists on KoE atm.

      So, when you say that you for example don't want cheap generic KA (with possible offensive upgrades) but want to keep cheap generic foot knights upgradable to forlorn that's not the fluff talking but our personal tastes. :)
      This is my personal version we are talking about or have I missed something?
      "In the end rules are just the groundwork for 2 players to have an agreement on how the game is played. If you friends/gaming group is fine with it you can do what ever you want with the game." - Smart Guy on the T9A forum

      "By the Lady, is that Elderberries I smell?" - Duke Niemar of Snowfall's Eves
    • Diablo_DF wrote:

      Duke Niemar wrote:

      This is my personal version we are talking about or have I missed something?
      What do I need to explain?
      You stated that we are talking about personal preferences and how there is no official fluff yet. My "fluff" does not come from any official statements, just my perception of my army and what it should feel like.
      "In the end rules are just the groundwork for 2 players to have an agreement on how the game is played. If you friends/gaming group is fine with it you can do what ever you want with the game." - Smart Guy on the T9A forum

      "By the Lady, is that Elderberries I smell?" - Duke Niemar of Snowfall's Eves
    • @Duke Niemar

      "Why does noone add griffon mounts for heroes? Hero small monsters are a thing in other armies, right? And ours has the flying circus stregth...Too OP?"


      @Diablo_DF
      "Pegasus? Maybe because it has been mainly an Empire feature? With the Hippogryph I would deem it unnecessary, but perhamaybe."

      That is a good question: Why others army can put a hero like our palladin to small monster ( Manticore in WoTDG and DE, Griffon and Young Dragon in HBE, Carnosaur in SA, etc) give to him BSB and KoE dont have this option?

      @Jurid @tulmir Why you didnt do your best to get this option for KoE players? Why other @ACS members can but you dont ?
      Some arguments ?
    • I might consider weak flying mounts for characters it if I had a low level fighty character in my book and I did not already have the pegasus. Although I see your point @Glegut I do not think more flying "cowboys" is the way to go for our flying circuses. One or two more units, or better options for them, is enough to me.

      Also, I am aware that other armies has them. But I am honestly fine with another army having something we do not. Imagine that!
      "In the end rules are just the groundwork for 2 players to have an agreement on how the game is played. If you friends/gaming group is fine with it you can do what ever you want with the game." - Smart Guy on the T9A forum

      "By the Lady, is that Elderberries I smell?" - Duke Niemar of Snowfall's Eves
    • Glegut wrote:

      @Jurid @tulmir Why you didnt do your best to get this option for KoE players? Why other @ACS members can but you dont ?
      Some arguments ?
      Number 1- Please Don't Assume we haven't tried our best for many things the community wanted that we didn't get. That's not helpful language at all. I loved the RAF Build (I actually have a Squadron of 11, half of which are Painted up in British RAF Livery). I used to Run Hippo, 3x3 Vanguarding Pegs, and a massive bus of Knights with Speed Banner - My "How the heck is your ENTIRE army in my back line turn 2" list... The Los of RAF for me I really hate.

      But secondly, I don't think that more monsters is the way to go. We are a race of Monster SLAYERS not monster BREEDERS. Hippo is, I think, one of the coolest models - a near Monster who can wear armor. And our Pegs, I wish that with all the streamlining they would streamline the movement back up to be consistent, but I don't think we need a monster level for Heroes, we have to be weak at something, and monster mash fits both our tactics and fluff.

      KoE Community Support


      "Since it is so likely that children will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage"... CS Lewis

    • Glegut wrote:

      @Jurid
      Number 1
      Hippo + 3 x 3 Vanguarding Peg is still 10 not 11 of your squardon ;)
      The 11th Slot was the Challenging Quest Peg Paladin... Could only fit him in if you went Magicless though. But used to Terrorise the Enemy Casters hiding in their big blocks

      (1.3 Version)
      Paladin, Questing Vow, Great Weapon, Valour, DragonScale Helm, Shield, Lucky Charm

      Fly him in and out of Forests for Cover, Get him into the block of infantry with the most characters and go to town whilst he single handedly holds it in place... If you could take out enemy caster by turn 3 it would drastically shift fight in your favour and make up for no magic of your own.

      KoE Community Support


      "Since it is so likely that children will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage"... CS Lewis