KoE vs. EoS, compare contrast, and new ideas

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

The latest T9A Scroll is released!! Check out the latest issue for new background information, an exciting battle report and much much more!

  • Here is what I am not understanding in this discussion, and to an extent what I'm not understanding in these recent videos discussing the options of possibly consolidating both human factions in 9th Age.

    What I don't understand with KOE is the mechanical comparison with EOS.

    I have written many strong posts supporting my continued assertion that KOE's cavalry should be much stronger in games and KOE charges should be much stronger to reflect aspects of their lore as a knightly culture/society. Those assertions have not changed. Our gaming group has created house rules for KOE that strengthen knights on the charge because of this.

    BUT - where I am not getting this is where the focus comes on comparing it with EOS's cavalry and other types of units that it has in its army. Most of us agree that there are things that need to be addressed with KOE as it currently stands as an army in terms of gameplay, with strength of cavalry being a primary one. Most of us agree that KOE should have a stronger presence on the field when units of knights are present on the table.

    But what do these issues have to do with the EMPIRE OF SONNSTAHL as a faction and a culture?

    All factions have different things, strengths and weaknesses. This whole idea that HR put forward of ohhh look at all the things that EOS got that KOE should have gotten, I think is ridiculous. To me, that's like playing O & G and complaining about what the Dark Elves have! I'm serious. KOE is a fragile army, there is no doubting that. One has to be careful when playing them, it's certainly not an army you can just throw casually forward. The knight units will tend to be small and have to be preserved so they can have an impact. Now some may say that this is KOE in an unfairly impotent position. Others will say that KOE is actually pretty fairly represented on the tabletop and that it's consistent with the lore. That debate can go on forever.

    However, the comparison with KOE's knights to EOS's knights for example, I simply don't get. Yes, EOS has very effective cavalry. Why wouldn't they? They are a military nation, are they not? Just because they do not have the religiously guided by the hand of god knights that KOE has doesn't mean that by default EOS cavalry would automatically be weaker. In fact, one could argue that indeed EOS cavalry perhaps should be better than KOE, due to the way EOS uses them, equips them, etc.

    Another element of KOE that I actually think the devs. got right is in making them a mass peasant infantry-type army. If we are staying with the feudal theme of lords and the underclasses, then it makes sense for a KOE army to have as its most numerous core a mass of peasantry infantry. And in fact, in some ways a KOE army would use their peasant masses to win a battle over throwing its knights into harm's way simply because of the idea of perseveration of life! A lord would certainly rather see peasants die in battle than his beloved knights. Why lose your best, most noble men when you can use up the lower classes? See, people hear that and say it doesn't translate, because it sounds like it makes KOE's cavalry unimportant to the game. That's not what it's saying. It's saying that a kingdom that marches forth to battle is going to use tactics and strategies that will employ their most numerous and cheapest soldiers. Therefore peasant infantry wouldn't have secondary role but rather a PRIMARY ROLE in the battle. And in this regard, as I said I think the devs. got this exactly right. And I think this is also why in the rules it is possible for a KOE peasant horde to fight and possibly defeat EOS militia/citizen infantry. Why NOT? EOS infantry is trained, yes, but they are not HIGHLY trained. They're still ordinary infantry. It is reasonable to suggest that KOE's peasant units would receive enough training in marching and combat techniques that they wouldn't be all that much different man for man from EOS's common infantry. Just another way to look at it.

    As far as contrasting technologies, again you are talking about TWO DIFFERENT cultures that embrace different things. Bretonnia/KOE harks back to chivalry and faith, relying on the might of almighty god himself to assist them in their battles and conquests. EOS by contrast is more grounded in the reality of theworld, relying on technology such as gunpowder and mechanisms and wheels to defend their empire. The Empire has a multitude of religions and belief systems, all welded together by a military state that comes together for battle. KOE by contrast has one undisputed religion, one undisputed savior of mankind, a belief in one supreme power that will set all things right. It is sort of that lofty, arrogance of relying on faith that perhaps makes their armies ironically weaker in some ways. They ride forth sure of god being on their side, and so might feel that they don't need as many troops or knights. The Empire on the other hand may be more practical than the Kingdom in its thinking, not relying on any god for any kind of foolish, fake mystical advantage or perceived delusional benefit based on holy relics.

    You could not possibly have two more widely different mindsets guiding two different human cultures/nations!

    And that being said, it comes down to this - is there some strange need to compare and contrast them and consider consolidating them simply because both factions are HUMAN factions? And if so, why is THAT the factor? Again, HR almost seems to imply that it's unacceptable for a fantasy game to have more than one human faction because...... it irritates him personally? It gets in the way? It's the faction that frustrated him the most when playing Warhammer because of the long absence of updates? I'm being serious here. I studied psychology extensively in college and I can tell you that often times when someone openly declares that "something needs to go" or that "something needs to be cancelled", it is due more to personal hurt feelings about the topic than it is really is about the mechanics of the game.

    I'll say it here, and I'll accept any backlash for it, that's fine. I think this is more about two dynamics than anything else. One: personal anger/frustration and hurt feelings that translates into attempting to make it into a legitimate "issue of the game" worthy of being a "topic of discussion", and Two: Because some gamers/people have a human tendency to want to constantly try to "wrap their heads around" and get the best of something, and sort of have to always find the extreme edges of things and "defeat the content" as quickly as possible. Rather than experience the game, their satisfaction comes from dissecting it, EVEN those elements of the game that really are not necessary to be dissected. Why spend 50 hours experiencing an RPG console game when you can finish it in 10? Why experience anything longer than you have to? Why have unique lore for two factions when you can roll them into one and save yourself all of that extra story-telling?

    I mean, statements from HR like, "it's time to have the discussion about KOE" - I mean I can hear funeral music playing in the background! He talks to us like we're employees being called in to the bosses' office because we're in trouble! OMG nooooooo...."we all know that KOE is a dead faction and probably should never have been created in the first place". I mean don't call me out for reacting to it. The reaction should be to the crazy notion that he even brings these things up in the first place. Bretonnia has been around since 1984!!! It was a faction even BEFORE GW began to make separate army books for its factions! It has a THIRTY year history for games through eight editions of Warhammer! That history didn't just vanish into thin air because WH was cancelled. And it didn't vanish into thin air when 9th Age was started as a project!

    Just because Anthony is frustrated with what GW did with Bretonnia from 2003-2013 doesn't account for all the passion people had for Bretonnia from 1984-2002. You don't throw out the whole thing just because certain elements of it irritated you. That's crazy and is his own personal issue.
    There are many magic rings in the world Bilbo Baggins, and none of them should be used lightly!

    The post was edited 6 times, last by Baranovich ().

  • @Baranovich Both armies are designed around a theme, that much we agree. And the themes are exaggerated in both armies. EoS has technology and Renaissance represented in tanks and canons, armor, and state units, etc. and KoE has chivalry and medieval represented in virtues/blessings/Knights, and the extreme of Knights or peasants (no middle ground although it existed, but again is because of highlighting the theme) What doesn't fit... is powerful Knights in a Renaissance theme army.

    Are they better equipped? Yes, plate armor and some weapon choices, that's fine because that's another thing give to empire that has become part of what makes them special. I like that. But thats not what makes their cavalry better. It's hatred and lightening reflexes alone that do that. Take I away that and they're not better. Done. (Hatred should be removed from the entire game, way too strong for any unit) It's the potential that they have for their cavalry, that we don't and only have for our infantry that we feel is not needed, nor wanted. So if we're considering exaggerated elements of themes picked for each army, they should not have stronger cavalry.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Marcos24 ().

  • To get the hatred, you either have to invest in a prelate on altar, or on horse. Seems to me not the big deal, because it get´s expensive. In a lot of discussions it seems that everybody claims that those rules come for free and no additional charakters that provide the buff have to be paid.
    The same is true with the buff wagon, and the wagon will have some issues to stay in range for the buff. :)

    So basically compare the electoral knights to core knights of KOE, and see which unit is better. Taking some hundred additional points into the calculation and claim the knights are better seems strange to me. Sure, the things are something you can´t dispell, but just add a flying charakter and hunt down the lightning reflexes wagon? Will be comparable point costs (or just send some pegasus knights in)
  • Individual unit costs aside for both factions, I think the designers did a great job with EOS cav in making two typically generic human cavalry units appealing and worth fielding (not easy). They have the usual empirical synergy with characters like the knight commander and the buff wagons. That is their thing.

    KOE otoh is a whole other level. They are the special forces of the cavalry world.
    Here again I feel the designers did an amazing job conveying this feeling. From lance formation to the blessing to weapon master-lances to more controllable frenzy to oaths and vows with mw(2), strider (forests), scout/vanguard to divine attacks with freaking monstrous support! Are you freaking kidding me?! Its literally night and day.

    EOS does get superior technology in the form of plate. But KOE gets the same protection once the blessing is factored in, and from there it just depends but roughly equal. So EOS gets halberds and bodyguard. KOE gets.. everything else.


    The only issue I see is that separate from all these traits exists the Prelate. His hatred and blessings step all over the realm of KOE. And here I I can see its a bit too much.

    Hatred reroll wounds and 5+ ward just next levels knightly orders or even electoral cav too much and leaves you going wait, 'the blessing' or blessings and hatred and bodyguard? Hmm.

    Priests should probably be a KOE thing too but EOS needs these dudes more IMO. Only they need them for infantry. So why not just limit the priests from effecting cavalry and be done with it? Buff wagons are fine and good for EOS.
    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
    Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.
  • I have played Bretonnians (KoE) since the beginning of 6th Edition WFB. I have several other armies, including EoS, but KoE holds a special endearment for me BECAUSE of their theme. I fully agree with the video discussion from Mr. Swisher and really felt that creating the Knights Forlorn was a bad move. I think this discussion was likely generated by recent changes to the KoE and EoS lists that moved them closer to each other (KoE increasing the viability of their infantry and EoS increasing the viability of their mounted). Personally, I think that is the wrong direction. You may take the below as wishlisting or as an example of how the two books could become more unique, but these are my thoughts/hopes for them.

    For KoE:

    1. I like the tweaks to the knight options and think Thunderous Charge on the mounts is good, but would replace it with impact hits (1) across the board to better fit with the lance. This could actually be done for all non-fast cavalry mounts in every army since most mounted units aren't in deep formations. That would reduce imbalance across lists and help cavalry in general.

    2. Remove Knights Forlorn and option to have knightly characters on foot. Knights on foot, and characters on foot other than the damsels or castellans move the army toward the "foot-centric" play style of the EoS.

    3. Add Bodyguard (Knights and Damsels) to Knights of the Realm to both encourage their use and help with staying power. Fluff is that these are landed nobility whose property, position, etc. are dependent upon the survival of the more powerful nobles in the realm whom they serve.

    4. Add some sort of fay infantry or monstrous infantry option for variety.

    5. Tie the peasant crusaders back to the Grail Reliquae as a unit upgrade (0-24) and rename them grail fanatics. The option to bring them without the reliquae increases foot options.

    For EoS:

    1. Eliminate the Knight Commander and the Imperial Cavalry upgrade for Electoral Cavalry (too similar to KoE). The Marshal on a barded horse with brace of pistols or lance/shield would be sufficient.

    2. Eliminate Pegasus mount option and make that KoE only

    3. Move Electoral Cavalry to special and eliminate Knightly Orders. This de-emphasizes the knights.

    4. Add pistol and brace of pistol options replacing lance/shield for Electoral Cavalry and give them Fire on Impact. These could be the "Imperial Cavalry" upgrade. If EoS is truly advanced and more like a Renaissance army, then their elite cavalry would be more like Reiters than lancers.

    There would undoubtedly be some adjustments needed for the EoS foot to make them more desirable and re-balance EoS, but that is not my purpose here. As I said, the above was meant to show how the armies could be made more unique and follow their original intended theme, because I think recent changes in the list since 9th began have done the opposite. As long as EoS has mounted options that are nearly the same as KoE, the tendency will be to want to merge them.
  • ChaosCajun wrote:

    For EoS:

    1. Eliminate the Knight Commander and the Imperial Cavalry upgrade for Electoral Cavalry (too similar to KoE). The Marshal on a barded horse with brace of pistols or lance/shield would be sufficient.

    2. Eliminate Pegasus mount option and make that KoE only

    3. Move Electoral Cavalry to special and eliminate Knightly Orders. This de-emphasizes the knights.

    4. Add pistol and brace of pistol options replacing lance/shield for Electoral Cavalry and give them Fire on Impact. These could be the "Imperial Cavalry" upgrade. If EoS is truly advanced and more like a Renaissance army, then their elite cavalry would be more like Reiters than lancers.

    There would undoubtedly be some adjustments needed for the EoS foot to make them more desirable and re-balance EoS, but that is not my purpose here. As I said, the above was meant to show how the armies could be made more unique and follow their original intended theme, because I think recent changes in the list since 9th began have done the opposite. As long as EoS has mounted options that are nearly the same as KoE, the tendency will be to want to merge them.
    Your assessment of how/why the two moved closer together seems accurate. But this looks like it would gut EOS knights and they have been around a long time too.

    Edit- wouldn't limiting the prelate from effecting/joining cavalry be enough on the EOS side?
    And on the KOE side limiting the effectiveness/viability of forlorns.. like current.
    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
    Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.
  • Baranovich wrote:

    something something HR something something
    Do you have something against that guy ? You seem to bring him up a lot.

    Back to the topic, I think a lot of bretonian players came to this project because they thought the devs would be kinder to KoE than GW had been in the past. In the beginning people were bursting with ideas and you could not visit the KoE forums without seeing a brainstorming thread. The resulting books were good but not very innovative. This was never the goal of the project but in the minds of the community the guys in red and orange had set themselves the task of doing better than GW, and that included showing some love to KoE. Then we learned we were not going to be in the first batch of new books, after that came the 30% core debacle. I don't know if we're even in the second batch and I doubt that we see a revised version of KoE before 2019. To be quite honnest I don't know if I will keep the faith that long.

    I think that our current overlords are as fond of KoE as our previous ones were, and I think that's where this talk of a merge comes from. The question is not the rules or the fluff, it's the lack of attention, so much could have been done, so little has been. Fluff keeps most of us happy, but one can't eat fluff forever.
  • Well our peasant armies certainly got better, since we got an all purpose excellent buff wagon you can't snipe out with Warmachines.

    I think Equitaine should remain the realm of heroes though, and things like buff wagons for knights shouldn't exist. Instead, characters should be what defines a unit's role. Whether it be as a character bus to provide ranks and safety before he deals death, or with Virtues to protect his unit (Piety) or make their charge better (Daring).

    I do feel we need more virtues that emphasize unit buffing though in a more direct way, but I'll leave my suggestions for these virtues in my own thread dedicated to it.

    I don't really see an issue with EoS cavalry from a game balance stand point, they aren't OP. They are just stepping on KoE's niche territory, and holding a claim on things that prevent KoE from getting something similar.
    I am a mostly virtual tabletop player owing to the difficulties of participating in the hobby in the South-East Asia area. I primarily enjoy fluff, and possess armies for KoE, SA, DH, and EoS.
  • ChaosCajun wrote:

    I have played Bretonnians (KoE) since the beginning of 6th Edition WFB. I have several other armies, including EoS, but KoE holds a special endearment for me BECAUSE of their theme. I fully agree with the video discussion from Mr. Swisher and really felt that creating the Knights Forlorn was a bad move. I think this discussion was likely generated by recent changes to the KoE and EoS lists that moved them closer to each other (KoE increasing the viability of their infantry and EoS increasing the viability of their mounted). Personally, I think that is the wrong direction. You may take the below as wishlisting or as an example of how the two books could become more unique, but these are my thoughts/hopes for them.

    For KoE:

    1. I like the tweaks to the knight options and think Thunderous Charge on the mounts is good, but would replace it with impact hits (1) across the board to better fit with the lance. This could actually be done for all non-fast cavalry mounts in every army since most mounted units aren't in deep formations. That would reduce imbalance across lists and help cavalry in general.

    2. Remove Knights Forlorn and option to have knightly characters on foot. Knights on foot, and characters on foot other than the damsels or castellans move the army toward the "foot-centric" play style of the EoS.

    3. Add Bodyguard (Knights and Damsels) to Knights of the Realm to both encourage their use and help with staying power. Fluff is that these are landed nobility whose property, position, etc. are dependent upon the survival of the more powerful nobles in the realm whom they serve.

    4. Add some sort of fay infantry or monstrous infantry option for variety.

    5. Tie the peasant crusaders back to the Grail Reliquae as a unit upgrade (0-24) and rename them grail fanatics. The option to bring them without the reliquae increases foot options.

    For EoS:

    1. Eliminate the Knight Commander and the Imperial Cavalry upgrade for Electoral Cavalry (too similar to KoE). The Marshal on a barded horse with brace of pistols or lance/shield would be sufficient.

    2. Eliminate Pegasus mount option and make that KoE only

    3. Move Electoral Cavalry to special and eliminate Knightly Orders. This de-emphasizes the knights.

    4. Add pistol and brace of pistol options replacing lance/shield for Electoral Cavalry and give them Fire on Impact. These could be the "Imperial Cavalry" upgrade. If EoS is truly advanced and more like a Renaissance army, then their elite cavalry would be more like Reiters than lancers.

    There would undoubtedly be some adjustments needed for the EoS foot to make them more desirable and re-balance EoS, but that is not my purpose here. As I said, the above was meant to show how the armies could be made more unique and follow their original intended theme, because I think recent changes in the list since 9th began have done the opposite. As long as EoS has mounted options that are nearly the same as KoE, the tendency will be to want to merge them.

    The idea of moving all cavalry into special... At first, I hated the idea. As such a thing would step on the idea of EoS being a 'Red Mage' faction. Where you can pull just about any tactic you want, though not as effectively as others...

    However, the more I thought about it, the more I've warmed up to it. Granted, such an action would pose an issue toward pulling an 'all-cav' army; but would it pose a problem for armies that are heavily 'cav-centric'? Where you have a lot of cavalry, but still also have some other units as well... Which is actually ideal and a bit more realistic, I think... I'm no historian. I don't know. All you'd have to do would be take the minimal amount of core and then spam the cavalry units, who would likely receive a point cut from having their stats somewhat decreased... I don't know.

    THAT SAID, I have no issue with cavalry being in EoS core. As I don't think it's harming anything. I personally think the only thing that would need to be done would be remove the Imperial Cavalry upgrade, then slap the Imperial Cavalry's stats on the Knightly Orders, and just call it there.
    However, the idea of having the cav in special is intriguing... Also found the idea of granting all EoS cavalry the options to take guns interesting. I've thought of that before, or something similar. (Though, that was for a different faction, admittedly.) Though I'm not sure how that would gell with the reiters, who already exist and would arguably do the job better... Unless you fused the two together, which would be extremely weird. Also that would severely limit the number of cavalry units you could have...

    Campaign Team


  • Yeah, S4 core cavalry in EoS is bit good.
    I say leave Electoral Cavalry in core, increase their WS to 4 (they should be more skilled than footsloggers), but remove Imperial cavalry upgrade.
    Knighty Orders would remain in special with WS4, St4, In4 and A1.
    Knight Commander could give the units of Electoral Cav or KO he joins the Devastating Charge instead of allowing IC upgrade.

    As for KOE, I think it is very difficult to come up with new units that would fit.
    Someone mentioned adding some fey to the army, someone mentioned etherals.
    Maybe an army could indeed have some Etheral units? This would fit Green Knight theme, and add something unique. This would be non inherently undead army that uses etheral troops, also the only army with etherals other than VC. This time however it would be good ghosts, or at least used for good - much like army of the dead in LotR.
  • Perhaps leaving the EOS book as it is, and just working on KOE book instead. There are a lot of things in KOE book, that make their knights a lot stronger. St.4 on core knights? +1 St. on charge in addition on the knights? Lance formation and monstrous ranks?
    In my opinion there are a lot of things that make KOW knights by far superior to EOS knights, and still there is whining about the EOS Knights.

    Cavallry is not a KOE exclusive thing.
    Even strong cavalry is not a KOE thing alone.
    There are plenty of cavalry units in all the armys, and they should all be viable choices.
    EOS should have a lot of viable playstyles, and one of them is the cavalry approach.

    And regarding the prelate. Blessings are like every other magic...so there is magic in bretonian book too. Only hatred is a thing that is left then, and I don´t think that it is the big offender alone, and if I compare it to the AWSR for knights in KOE army it just gets ridicoulus.
  • berti wrote:

    Perhaps leaving the EOS book as it is, and just working on KOE book instead. There are a lot of things in KOE book, that make their knights a lot stronger. St.4 on core knights? +1 St. on charge in addition on the knights? Lance formation and monstrous ranks?

    In my opinion there are a lot of things that make KOW knights by far superior to EOS knights, and still there is whining about the EOS Knights.
    AS much as I have a lot of issues with the 2 Videos that started these threads, they do identify one major issue, in that Empire/EoS has consistently (and continues to) take areas of expansion that Brettonia/KoE could have gone into. Where is left that we can expand without brand new rules or completely rewritten fluff that feels alien?
    - Monstrous Cav... GW Said "lets give that to Empire"
    - Priests/Priestesses to PASSIVELY Buff Cav Units.. GW Said "lets give that to Empire"
    - Peg Paladin (or Equivalent).. GW Said "lets give the Captasus to Empire"
    - S4 Knights in Core (Brettonia Didn't even have this) - GW Said "Lets Give that to Empire"
    - Brettonia has a Hippo (Not used but we had one), GW Said, "Here Empire - have Karl Franz"
    - Brettonia has access to 3 lores, GW says let's give Empire 8...
    - Then looking at T9A...
    - EoS gets the banner to RR charge distance
    - EoS gets the RR to Hit and RR to Wound on the Charge with Cav
    - Brettonia was about pageantry and banners and military tradition - signified by free champions and BSB - but now please remind me which army gets the free BSB?
    - Brettonia was know for honoring and serving the lady - but given the lore in the main book, who is the chosen race of the lady (Suna) now? (I'll give you a hint - what is the last sentence of the Suna Myth- "Greatest of glories was reserved for the Askar, the Breidar and the Gjothar, who would unite under the symbol of Sonnstahl, the sword of light borne by our saviour, Sunna. May we always live in her light."

    Problem is with all of this flowing in one direction, what are the chances of Empire ever willingly giving any of this up to re-balance? Empire with passive buffs (let alone your 4+ bound spells) can easily buff any cav well beyond what KoE can, I can show mathematically that 1+ will beat 2+/6++ unless the attacker is S3(with no AP) or S9+, so your plate armor cancels our Blessing

    I'm not saying KoE hasn't recieved (some) buffs - but what we have has been 90% infantry, whilst EoS continues to have passive and active buffs poured into comparable knights. And then we have seen iconic fluff (Free BSB, An entire nation in service to the Lady) taken by Empire also

    berti wrote:

    Cavallry is not a KOE exclusive thing.Even strong cavalry is not a KOE thing alone.
    There are plenty of cavalry units in all the armys, and they should all be viable choices.
    EOS should have a lot of viable playstyles, and one of them is the cavalry approach.

    And regarding the prelate. Blessings are like every other magic...so there is magic in bretonian book too. Only hatred is a thing that is left then, and I don´t think that it is the big offender alone, and if I compare it to the AWSR for knights in KOE army it just gets ridicoulus.
    Not saying no other army should have access to cavalry, or that EoS's cavalry options shouldn't be viable. What we are saying is that the army that is meant to be known for combined arms, AND infantry, AND war machines should NOT be able to put together a better Cavalry force than the army which is meant to be known for it. At the moment EoS can and does quite easily (In fact the best chance we have of beating EoS is to go Peasant heavy and just out-grind you point for point)

    ...(and may I suggest if you cannot see the power of hatred for cavalry which has +2S on the charge, you may need to re-look at those numbers. I would gladly swap a 6++ save for Hatred for my cav and 1+ armour for my knights)) . That has actually inspired me. I'm going to ask one of my normal opponents if he would mind me playing a game where instead of 6++ I get 1+ armor and Hatred for any unit with a Paladin. I will have to buy him a beer as I think it would be a VERY short game.

    KoE Community Support

  • Interesting....the passive buffs....3 to be clear...come from 3 different sources. I am eager to see how you can fit all of them in a cavallry army, that is so strong as you claim. Because they are not for free...and so is the BSB upgrade not for free...but you pay it in the basic point costs....just compare the cost of KOE BSB mounted with those of marshal, very similar. Orders are infantry only thing, and for infantry there is some buff thing in KOW army too, isn´t it? Cavalry already got a big boost out of AWSR, but in all those comparisons theses AWSR are forgotten....

    In addition you just have to soak up 1 round of damage IF EOS knights get the charge (with KOW knights having more range), and then there is no hatred any more. I prefer getting "free" +1 attack (on cheapest knights) or St4 (knights of the realm) without the need to invest in a knight commander in addition to get the upgrade) and +1 St. on my charge over rerolling the to hit rolls if there is a prelate present.
    In addition to monstrous ranks and additional fight in extra rank if I charge in lance formation. Perhaps you should try to see the things both armys have, instead of only looking at the things you don´t have, and others have without seeing what others lack. (and I have both armies)

    And in addition you have a 5+ ward save against attacks that realy matter (St5+) and are dangerous to your cavallry, not a 6+ as you claim. At least I would nearly always take this instead the basic one.
  • berti wrote:

    Perhaps you should try to see the things both armys have, instead of only looking at the things you don´t have, and others have without seeing what others lack. (and I have both armies)
    We have. Lots of times. This really isn't a new problem to 1.3
    We can and many of us have, made more functional cavalry armies in EoS than in KoE. We can also do it with HBE, but that not really the subject of the thread.

    And as someone who loves his Knights Aspirants, let me tell you that rerolling a failed charge is a massive, massive boon, making your charges so much more reliable and if you can then remove the danger of "rubber lance syndrome" by hatred and blessing buffs as well...
    I haz a blog! the-ninth-age.com/blog/index.p…-the-moment-aslo-batreps/.

    Mostly KoE and ID stuff. Now also some Void
  • I am also interested in those lists. I am sure there are cavalry based bretonian lists, that will be a lot stronger than their EOS counterpart, or at least at the same power level.

    And in addition....where does the reroll charge range come from? I miss this thing in my EOS book.
    There is the stallion banner that allows to reroll 1´s on the charge range but not the whole roll. Works on units in 12" with swiftstride rule.
    FIne thing sure. Aren´t there some things a KOW paladin can buy to increase the charge range? :)

    Oh....just searched the book....in KOE book there is a reroll charge range for the knight aspirants....in addition to getting frenzy when the charge was successful.....I see now how the "stronger EOS" cavalry army is taken...just add some fantasy rules in the comparison, and leave the own rules out.