Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 326.

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.

  • The BSB problem

    Duke Niemar - - Kingdom of Equitaine (KoE)

    Post

    Both of the above is running practice in my homebrew. Works excellent.

  • Quote from Grouchy Badger: “Quote from Duke Niemar: “Quote from Grouchy Badger: “Quote from Duke Niemar: “Strictly from a fluff perspective, gameplay-wise I know it is a dead end for KoE to get anything that positively violates the SaW. ” How on earth would it positively violate the SaW? A Damsel is safer in a unit of Brigands than a unit of Knights Forlorn, it doesn't make sense. ” Because it buffs our infantry abilities. Only reason. I do not assign any logic to the current design, too many im…

  • Quote from Grouchy Badger: “Quote from Duke Niemar: “Strictly from a fluff perspective, gameplay-wise I know it is a dead end for KoE to get anything that positively violates the SaW. ” How on earth would it positively violate the SaW? A Damsel is safer in a unit of Brigands than a unit of Knights Forlorn, it doesn't make sense. ” Because it buffs our infantry abilities. Only reason. I do not assign any logic to the current design, too many implausible concepts present.

  • Strictly from a fluff perspective, gameplay-wise I know it is a dead end for KoE to get anything that positively violates the SaW.

  • Now, I do not really care about the KoE lore anymore, my homebrew got its own recently. But! Why would not forlorns try their hardest to protect the representatives of the lady, the damsels. If they wish to regain honour by reaching grailhood then surely failing to prevent harm coming to a defenseless damsel would be the wrong way to do so. Or are they not on a quest for the grail? Just bugs me a bit. If they are forlorn...

  • Quote from Etheneus: “Quote from Duke Niemar: “Or just let Beloved trigger on Oath of Fealty instead of on Lance formation... ” Won’t work with grails or questing then... ” Or simply Oath [insert type]. You are arguing semantics. You get my point, I hope...

  • Quote from Grouchy Badger: “Why not have a foot roll called "For our Lady" where she can hide in a unit of levy? ” Or just let Beloved trigger on Oath of Fealty instead of on Lance formation...

  • Well yeah, but if I could find legit rules that provided higher levels of immersion I would use them. I do not use the treb because it is stupid to use a siege weapon to kill troops in a high movement battle. For the rest, yeah some of them are lacking for whatever reason, but I cannot find rules to circumvent them. You have to agree that foot knights wanting to protect their damsels as much as when mounted is quite logical.

  • Fluffy but not plausible.

  • Well if the dubious rules still represent something that is plausible then it is green light for me. Really, just by being on foot does the knights completely ignore the damsel when they moments before did not while riding their horses. It is also far easier to protect someone from the ground than on horseback. It gets a pass.

  • Yes, but you build your characters as tanky as you can (forlorns do the damage) and you would not believe how greedy people are for CR. They simply ignore them... Even after knowing the mechanics just because they do not want to waste attacks on the characters and end up losing the fight. Or even cheesier: 3 damsels next to each other, bumping themselves back...

  • Quote from Grouchy Badger: “Quote from Duke Niemar: “Forlorn Death Star II with 1 lord, 1 bsb and one piety paladin in front rank. There is your full rank of Lance Formation on foot and the damsel can sit in the [Insert preferrable position] rank. It is cheesy and employs rules-exploit, but then again, Beloved should trigger on Oath of Fealty, not Lance formation... I haven't been defeated yet using such a unit in my meta. Not that I am playing the official version anymore, but you get it. ” Kni…

  • Forlorn Death Star II with 1 lord, 1 bsb and one piety paladin in front rank. There is your full rank of Lance Formation on foot and the damsel can sit in the [Insert preferrable position] rank. It is cheesy and employs rules-exploit, but then again, Beloved should trigger on Oath of Fealty, not Lance formation... I haven't been defeated yet using such a unit in my meta. Not that I am playing the official version anymore, but you get it.

  • I do not agree that the T-shirt Aegis is bad. It is dirt cheap and I cannot remember how many clutch combats have been saved by that one 6 out of a handful of dice. Afterall, it does come down to a 16,66% damage reduction.

  • Quote from Lagerlof: “Quote from Duke Niemar: “Quote from Lagerlof: “Quote from Duke Niemar: “The fact is, the representation of the unlikely happening that is represented by IC is something that adds flavor to the game. ” This is were I simply don't agree.Doesn't mean either of us is wrong or right. ” But it does. Too much flavour can ruin a dinner, so can too little. Special rules like this are maybe too strong for some peoples' tastes and THAT is where we are not in agreement. You think X spi…

  • Quote from Lagerlof: “Quote from Duke Niemar: “The fact is, the representation of the unlikely happening that is represented by IC is something that adds flavor to the game. ” This is were I simply don't agree. Doesn't mean either of us is wrong or right. ” But it does. Too much flavour can ruin a dinner, so can too little. Special rules like this are maybe too strong for some peoples' tastes and THAT is where we are not in agreement. You think X spice ruins the dish, others think it enhances it…

  • Quote from Squirrelloid: “Quote from Duke Niemar: “I think the battle you mention in helms deep doesn't fit well to be represented with 1 turn of combat. Sure, at turn 1 of the battle where gandalf goes all rohirrim on the uruks they might, or some of them might, heroically stand on those 1s. But doing it again becomes so much less likely that, in the long run, a rout is inevitable. And unless the storytelling of the game has NOTHING to do with making it enjoyable and all that matters is winning…

  • Quote from Lagerlof: “Quote from Duke Niemar: “Less casualties taken and more casualties done doesn't make for a losing situation. In that case the soviets at stalingrad would have routed intitially, no questions asked. The only reason they cold turn it around was holding DESPITE the horrendous losses. ” And the fact that they were shot by their own if the fled? ” Not wanting to start reciting Ww2 history, but the soviet pockets inside the Wehrmacht occupied city did not have commissars or polit…

  • Less casualties taken and more casualties done doesn't make for a losing situation. In that case the soviets at stalingrad would have routed intitially, no questions asked. The only reason they cold turn it around was holding DESPITE the horrendous losses.

  • I think the battle you mention in helms deep doesn't fit well to be represented with 1 turn of combat. Sure, at turn 1 of the battle where gandalf goes all rohirrim on the uruks they might, or some of them might, heroically stand on those 1s. But doing it again becomes so much less likely that, in the long run, a rout is inevitable. And unless the storytelling of the game has NOTHING to do with making it enjoyable and all that matters is winning the battle at all costs then I guess I am at a wro…