Questing Oath

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

  • Let me just interject here!

    I have hit the mark on 30 games with my own book this weekend. This is what Grail characters and units look in my version and how it has affected our games:

    Grail Lord (KoE Duke) profile sits at OS8, DS8, S5, R4 , Att5, Agi7, Disc9 with Divine, passive 5+ Aegis, Fearless. Together with mundane upgrades and enhancements we are looking at a 800 point lord on horse or 900+ on hippo. Pretty much an equal match to a WDG Lord.

    Grail knights unit sports a huge upgrade: HP2, OS6, DS6, S4, R4, Att3, Agi 3 along with Divine, passive 5+ Aegis and Fearless. Together with a conditional Bodyguard (Damsel) and full unit with lances we are looking at 1000+ for a 6-man unit. Ever the equal of Vampire Knights, Chosen and WDG Knights.

    The change this has iterated is that my opponent feels like he is fighting the good human elite. He knows they are expensive, he knows they are powerful rather than just being glorified versions of our core knights. I have had several games where my opponents has been honestly scared of getting charged by these guys. Even seen WDG Chosens with a Footlord in them move backwards in order to increase my charge range. That NEVER happened with old GW Grails or T9A ones, not a single time for 14 years. Finally I can be the bully with my Grails that I've always wanted, instead of the other way around.

    Whenever there are Grail units or characters on the board it means they will take alot of the attention, both from me and my opponent. Not only because I pawn arms and legs for having them but because they CAN perform game-changing charges. A Grail Lord CAN duel a WDG Lord, a Vampire, a HBE lord and come out on the top reliably (depending on setup ofcourse).

    If the Grails are supposed to be the good human equivalent of the chosen WDGs, then why aren't they? What is the problem with making them cost equally and perform equally? We are both armies with high focus on melee-power and fighty characters. They trade "stronger" magic while we trade "stronger" shooting. Ain't nobody wanting WDG-stats with 0.202 Eq-costs... Right?

    Would T9A ever let a Chosen Lord be beaten by a goblin lord in single combat? No? Then how come it happens with Grail Dukes then?

    Rant over.

    Carry on.
    "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
  • jacobkjellerup wrote:

    I agree.Lethal Strike and a hefty point increase would make this a contender.
    Might be too strong with Renown but fluffy and fitting (assuming Grails knights are also badass in 9th age fluff) :)

    /Jacob
    The combo with renown is not much different then in 1.3 except it is reduced from d3+1 clipped wings to d3 wounds.
    If we examine the former we see both ignore regen and armour, but instead of ignoring wards the former version forced rerolls:
    4++ = 1/4
    5++ = 1/9
    6++ = 1/36

    So the real notable difference would be to 4+ aegis, however in return the damage starts at 1 and averages 2 now, as opposed to the old version where minimum damage was 2 (3 vs flyers) and averaged at full killing blow.

    Anyway If LS was deemed too good then I like the idea of +1AP but I would suggest +1 to wound as well. this combo would unlock quite a few weapon options too while being much less potent across the spectrum. And just as important to me these increases would not change the defining stats of a human.. strength, toughness, movement. Which is also why LS appeals to me.

    Just my opinion but I'd prefer our knights deal with supernatural threats by being humans. Our characters aren't hulking RnF blenders. They're duelers. Again IMO.
    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
    Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.