Taking Input on New Character Idea - Troubadour

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

  • about the part you edited later; Questing Knights also don't have the land but they are still knight. It is not about having the land or a castle. It just simple doesn't fit for a knightly character, I can tell you couple more reasons but I think you already got the point

    Social Media Team


    The Round Table of Bretonnia 9th Age Forum
    ETC '17 - Team Turkey; Kingdom of Equitaine Player
    ETC '16 - Team Turkey; Highborn Elves Player
    ETC '15 - Team Turkey; Bretonnia Player
  • He cannot join peasant units without insignificant. I didn't want to give him access to virtues just so he can purchase Humility. So he is starting out as insignificant. And, again he can be an insignificant of a noble birth or he can be a full Knight. Not all Troubadours were knights. Also, the Oath of Fealty could be a free upgrade. I will amend it so the character loses Stand Behind if he selects an Oath. That will make the trade off more likely to be free.
    Now my only concern is that the power level might be too high.
    <div class="userTitle"> <p class="badge userTitleBadge brown" itemprop="title">Army Design Team</p></div>
  • I understand the reasons but we are a knight army. I really don't like the idea of having a non-knight Troubadour in a knight army. There can be Troubadour who weren't knights but there were Troubadour who were knights. I think second part fits us better. Also we should avoid to buff foot units more. This is a secret trap we fall into time to time.

    Social Media Team


    The Round Table of Bretonnia 9th Age Forum
    ETC '17 - Team Turkey; Kingdom of Equitaine Player
    ETC '16 - Team Turkey; Highborn Elves Player
    ETC '15 - Team Turkey; Bretonnia Player
  • Sorry what? Since when questing knights don't have lands? They're on a quest. That means suspension of functions, not stopping to have lands and titles.

    Also I much rather troubadours be non knights, or the knights sons which don't get to inherit things. Seems much better than making them obligatory knights and unable to be fielded on peasant units
  • alltaken wrote:

    Sorry what? Since when questing knights don't have lands? They're on a quest. That means suspension of functions, not stopping to have lands and titles.

    Also I much rather troubadours be non knights, or the knights sons which don't get to inherit things. Seems much better than making them obligatory knights and unable to be fielded on peasant units
    The don't have lands to administer to and so do not have Oath of Fealty you need to be the subject of a serfs fealty. I have asked BGT in the past and this is ruffly what Giladis had said.

    You are welcome to have an insignificant troubadour. It is an option.
    Now my only concern is that the power level might be too high.
    <div class="userTitle"> <p class="badge userTitleBadge brown" itemprop="title">Army Design Team</p></div>
  • echoctrl wrote:

    He cannot join peasant units without insignificant. I didn't want to give him access to virtues just so he can purchase Humility. So he is starting out as insignificant. And, again he can be an insignificant of a noble birth or he can be a full Knight. Not all Troubadours were knights. Also, the Oath of Fealty could be a free upgrade. I will amend it so the character loses Stand Behind if he selects an Oath. That will make the trade off more likely to be free.
    Humility, just as the Virtue in WHFB, is a sad upgrade that blurs the line between elite and commoner and works against our Combined Arms lists. Without it peasant uprisings would be limited to castellan Commanders and would not have been such a problem for us during 1.3 and previously.

    Remove it completely. Knights are knights and peasants are trash. Keep them separate and let synergy come from strength of opposites instead of compromizing their concepts...
    "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 wrote:

    Humility, just as the Virtue in WHFB, is a sad upgrade that blurs the line between elite and commoner and works against our Combined Arms lists. Without it peasant uprisings would be limited to castellan Commanders and would not have been such a problem for us during 1.3 and previously.
    Remove it completely. Knights are knights and peasants are trash. Keep them separate and let synergy come from strength of opposites instead of compromizing their concepts...
    I have to say that I agree with this.

    Humility could become all sorts of stuff like:
    • Models that choose to attack this model take a S3 hit for each wound they score (before saves).
    • R&F models cannot choose to attack this model unless they are also a Champion.
    • Split Fortress up - So humility becomes the you must attack this model bit. This would make the cost more reasonable in Magic allowance and prevent people from taking an attacking virtue with this build.
    As to synergy between knights and peasants, loads of stuff has been suggested and my favourite would be peasant deaths do not generate CR in a combat with R&F knights. This would allow peasants to be the anvils - which is what they are meant to do. Die while holding the enemy in place for the knights.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Yes, the important wording is "peasants are anvils, they DIE while knights get into place for a charge". Peasants are not anvils through resilience or saves, but through mass of cheap bodies. Their expendability makes them prone to flee without disciplined help from nearby knights as opposed to deep watch Dwarves which are elite anvils that can manage great on their own with high morale and durability.

    Without peasants, Knights lack tarpits and without knights, peasants lack killing power and leadership. Synergy between extremes, which is exactly what the core concept of our Combined Arms lists should be about.
    "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
  • Playing to the strength of two opposites and making them work together for victory is not imbalance, it requires skill, tactical wit and a deep understanding of the limit of your different troops. Nothing the players should be punished for, it is just great play.

    Using only one aspect and abusing it competitively in all situations on the other hand is bad design.

    The first one is Combined Arms with different branches of our army.

    The second... You know what that is...

    Using team tournaments as basis for creating armies will spawn singleminded lists like peasant uprising because they can pick fights. Sure, if that is the way they want it...
    "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
  • Would be nice if that would work though....

    As soon as knights charge an enemy which is hold by peasants they are reliability.

    Undead are a little different as they a: unbreakable. Immune to terror effects

    And especially even if you loose with your elite flanking block because undead skeletons dropped to much CR it doesn't mean auto loose the whole block because you are undead.


    This is why undead skeletons work.

    That is why we need an exception to.

    • Different break test for knights and peasants
    • Auto flee if a knight charges (if you want)
    • Any defensive bonus (towershield. Zero dmg but parry AND distracting perhaps ward?)
    • Halfing CR from peasants if knights are near
    Too close to home; too lightly guarded!

  • Different break tests are by far the easiest to balance there. Towershields might see people play full peasant point denial and use warmachines to score points. Not what we want to encourage.
    "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 wrote:

    Different break tests are by far the easiest to balance there. Towershields might see people play full peasant point denial and use warmachines to score points. Not what we want to encourage.
    Which would be easy to balance by forcing a least 20% Cavalry and making towershields max 2 units and reduce bowmen number.

    Or the other idea you get X peasants points when you play Y knight points
    Too close to home; too lightly guarded!

  • My homebrew has a system with peasants and knights similar to WHFB Skaven Mainstay. Each unit (not characters) with Oathbound, Oath of Fealty, supports 1 duplicate of all Serf units.

    If you have 1 unit of Sworn Cavaliers for example, you can take up to 1 unit of bowmen, 1 crusaders, 1 castellan etc.

    2 units of Cavaliers gives option to take up to 2 of each serf unit.

    It means you cannot field 1 unit of Grail Cavaliers and 3 units of peasant levy. You have to take 2 more knightly units or 2 less peasant levy.

    If Castellan is General then this restriction is lifted but you cannot take any knights or characters with Oathbound. Eg. peasant uprising.
    "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 wrote:

    My homebrew has a system with peasants and knights similar to WHFB Skaven Mainstay. Each unit (not characters) with Oathbound, Oath of Fealty, supports 1 duplicate of all Serf units.

    If you have 1 unit of Sworn Cavaliers for example, you can take up to 1 unit of bowmen, 1 crusaders, 1 castellan etc.

    Klexe wrote:

    Or the other idea you get X peasants points when you play Y knight points
    This sort of stuff would be cool but I suspect that the team won't allow us to do it because of "balance" reasons. I think what they really mean is that they can't be bottomed to balance it properly. That seems to be their standard approach to fluffy rules
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.