Fixing empire knights

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.

  • Even though my examples are not a reason to prevent the KC or bring KO to core, it does open up the door for others to argue for such changes. Why would my Priest General not bring Flaggelant worshippers as his main force?

    As for a KC general needing ‘irrelevant infantry’ is not true. Not all armies with a KC general aim for a full Cavalry army. You could easily spend half the core requirements on a unit of KO. Add a few light troops and core is filled. Next we add 2x IG units in special to make use of the light troops for detachment rules and you have fairly elite army list for EoS. Might as well say that KO drops core requirement by 50%.

    Then the question comes, why does EoS favour cavalry armies like this? Why not the same for infantry lists? Or blackpowder lists? Or Holy Lists?

    I rather see the KC general bring orders for mounted units. Either by enabling the cavalry to be part of the current detachment system (core troops act as support units only and the KO as Parent Units) or have the KC run with its own set of orders aimed at cavalary (increase order range perhaps). I listed a more detailed suggestions a while ago for FAB rework.

    I’d vote for an Auxiliary Army that would enable stronger (all cavalry) list for EoS. Or an army focussed around an Order of the player’s choice.

    EDIT: I am arguing for the situation where KO are locked in Special and no longer are a core option. If they are not moved to special, then this whole discussion is pointless :)
  • Cyprinus wrote:

    Even though my examples are not a reason to prevent the KC or bring KO to core, it does open up the door for others to argue for such changes. Why would my Priest General not bring Flaggelant worshippers as his main force?
    I don't think that characters moving units into core will be allowed. Units are put into special so they compete for the same points. Moving a unit into core would mean that they now don't compete with units like the Steam Tank, Chicken knights, buffwagons, etc for points. I'm not sure that you can put a price on the value of that.

    It also allows other armies to get in on the act. E.g. KoE would argue why shouldn't a Grail Oath General get Grail Knights in core? It makes sense from a fluff perspective...

    I could fill up core with 2 units of 9 grail knights, I can then get chaff, peg knights and maybe even a big unit of quests without having to worry about using up points for grail knights. That's amazing and almost certainty overpowered.

    I'd be very interested to see an auxiliary list for a Knightly Order's army and I don't think this should be part of the main army book.

    NB: That's not to say that EoS shouldn't be able to do fully mounted, but a fluffy Knightly Orders army is exactly why Auxiliary lists were introduced.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • @wombat I agree with you, the only thing I think you’re misunderstanding is, KoE is based around the Arthurian legends, which began to be popular in the 12th century and grow (though I’m aware the earliest source was from a monk in the 6th century). And not based on the historical time period of Arthur (which possibly never actually existed). Those tales and art associated with it, including the popularity of the legends that grew in the French court are why this style and heavy French influence was chosen for Bretonnia, and now maintained for KoE. And the heavy French influence I’m sure is one major reason there is a greater emphasis on Heavy Cavalry
  • Cyprinus wrote:

    Even though my examples are not a reason to prevent the KC or bring KO to core, it does open up the door for others to argue for such changes. Why would my Priest General not bring Flaggelant worshippers as his main force?

    As for a KC general needing ‘irrelevant infantry’ is not true. Not all armies with a KC general aim for a full Cavalry army. You could easily spend half the core requirements on a unit of KO. Add a few light troops and core is filled. Next we add 2x IG units in special to make use of the light troops for detachment rules and you have fairly elite army list for EoS. Might as well say that KO drops core requirement by 50%.

    Then the question comes, why does EoS favour cavalry armies like this? Why not the same for infantry lists? Or blackpowder lists? Or Holy Lists?

    I rather see the KC general bring orders for mounted units. Either by enabling the cavalry to be part of the current detachment system (core troops act as support units only and the KO as Parent Units) or have the KC run with its own set of orders aimed at cavalary (increase order range perhaps). I listed a more detailed suggestions a while ago for FAB rework.

    I’d vote for an Auxiliary Army that would enable stronger (all cavalry) list for EoS. Or an army focussed around an Order of the player’s choice.

    EDIT: I am arguing for the situation where KO are locked in Special and no longer are a core option. If they are not moved to special, then this whole discussion is pointless :)
    You are being inconsistent. You say that half the core requirement can be filled by one unit of KO, but you can't if KO are special-only-and-never-core as you advocate.

    When it comes to army composition, my take on it is simple. If it isn't OP and it doesn't take the fun out of the game for the opponent, it should be allowed. OP is straightforward, and Empire cav-heavy hasn't turned out to be OP so far, even though using KO as core has been possible to do for a good while now. I don't think it would make the game unfun either, it's an army that passes the aesthetic test of looking like an actual army, and it leads to a tactical game of maneuver that both players are engaged in meaningfully.

    EoS doesn't need a specific army list variant for infantry, because the main list does that. All ranked infantry except IG is in core to begin with. Ditto for blackpowder, which the main list already allows you to take as much as the devs have deemed you can be allowed to take without your army becoming an extreme gunline that's unfun to play against.

    Letting KO be in Special by default and get moved to Core for armies with a KC general fulfils the dual purpose of letting KO be appropriately available both for infantry-heavy and cavalry-heavy armies.
    Sunna is not with the big battalions, but with the ones whose parts move with the best coordination.
  • Another thing. To make knight-centered armies more viable (and most significantly, properly differentiated from Equitanians), Knight Commanders should be able to be BSB (paying the usual 50 pts if need be). Furthermore, all KCs should be able to make their own knight unit into a Parent Unit, not just a KC general.

    It might be interesting to play an MSU-ish army with two or three knight parent units, and loads of infantry support units used in MSU style.
    Sunna is not with the big battalions, but with the ones whose parts move with the best coordination.
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    @wombat I agree with you, the only thing I think you’re misunderstanding is, KoE is based around the Arthurian legends, which began to be popular in the 12th century and grow (though I’m aware the earliest source was from a monk in the 6th century). And not based on the historical time period of Arthur (which possibly never actually existed). Those tales and art associated with it, including the popularity of the legends that grew in the French court are why this style and heavy French influence was chosen for Bretonnia, and now maintained for KoE. And the heavy French influence I’m sure is one major reason there is a greater emphasis on Heavy Cavalry
    My bad. I should have explained more fully at the outset which would have avoided the confusion

    The monk you mention is most likely BEDE who wrote the Anglo Saxon Chronicles in the 6th Century.

    As to Arthur himself there is a lot to suggest that he did indeed exist in early 5th Century with Camelot being Colchester in Essex.

    If I ever get round to doing K of E I would probably use an Anglo Saxon Inf force with hard hitting Roman Byzantine Cav. to represent a Solid Cav force going around the country being supported by the local warlord. I just feel this would be more accurate than being beholden to GWs concept.

    That just my view and as such is not meant to upset anybody.
  • wombat wrote:

    Marcos24 wrote:

    wombat wrote:

    Marcos24 wrote:

    Well for starters, if you want to be more historically correct (kinda impossible in T9A) with your knights you'd be better off playing with KoE, since EoS is based around 250-300 yrs after the Templars disbanded
    The Knights Templar were still around in the 14th Century so maybe nearer 150 years. But even here Chanfron Armour dates back to 12th Century so there would be some overlap of the 2 armour types. ( There is no reason why somebody cant do an Roman Empire army using Cataphracts in which case the Knight Templars would be circa 1000 years too late !)As you say T9A is fantasy so may be in the T9A World the Knights Templar survived even to the present day ! :love:
    That kinda defeats your point of why changing it to Holy Orders is needed though no? And i'm aware, but i only mentioned knights Templar for a reason, and thats the one you used for your army. Besides for the "look" of the military monastic orders, they fit KoE better. By far. And KoE has the deeply religious knighthood anyway. KoE knights > EoS knights ;)
    I feel that we are going somewhat off Thread with this, but I will try to explain my views and reasons for the suggested ( not demanded or by necessity needed) change of name to Holy Orders..
    As you yourself quite correctly pointed out the main Knightly Orders of the Early and middle Medieval Periods were without exception Religious Orders and therefore I just feel that Holy Orders is more fitting. You may either disagree or not, that is fine we are both allowed to hold separate views on this.

    I put the Elite status of the Religious Orders in the main to the fact that they lived and trained as a body enabling them to fight as a unit rather than as a group of individuals. ( a comparison would be Spartan Hoplites in the Greek City State era. I dont see them as superior as Individuals but their training as a body made them far better when being used a a trained unit.) I would humbly suggest that the same effect happened with the Religious Orders . I know of NO OCCASION of Nobles getting together to train as a unit. This ability to fight as a unit is massive imho.
    We also have to be careful of some cases in history of units described as bodyguards. Take Richard 111 at Battle of Bosworth. He is mentioned as charging at the Head of his bodyguard. Even here the Bodyguard where important Noble Knights who would never have trained as a unit.

    My use of Teutonic Knights Painted as Templars as KO. Many reasons for this.
    I was buying Fireforge Figures ( a company who support T9A )
    I wasnt buying even more GW Figures ( who dont support T9A)
    The Fireforge Figures provide different Armour to enable both myself and my opponent a clear WYSIWYG Between EC and KO.
    Cost. I bought 24 Knights for 45 Euro. GW would have been more than twice as expensive.
    I also play WRG Ancients ( Army Book 4 covers Early Medieval) Therefore I can use the same figures in both game systems
    It is a lot easier to paint Templars. White Robes, White Cape, White and Black Halved Shields with a red Cross rather than paint freehand 24 different Coat of Arms.

    I completely disagree that the look fits KofE better. In my view KofE is more to do with the Legends of King Arthur so I would submit that the look for KofE should be more late 4th or 5th Century than the GW look which imho is just wrong.

    Let's not forget that EoS and WHFB before it are based on the late 15th and early 16th Holy Roman empire army (mostly of the Habsburg Grand Duchy of Austria). By that time, Men at Arms were in the process of becoming professionalised. The two forerunners of this were the French Compagnies d'Ordonnance and their elite Gendarmes (Men at Arms in French) created in the 1430s and the Burgundian Compagnies d'Ordonnance created by Charles the Bold on the French model. So it is actually incorrect to say that monastic military orders were alone in training in fighting together as a unit in the second half of the 15th century.

    French and burgundian Gendarmes were doing it by that time, and the former showed their superiority many times against their imperial, italian and spanish counterparts mostly because of their exemplary discipline and superior leadership. However, the Gendarmes were still socially noble in their overwhelming majority although they were lodging in barracks on a permanent basis (absenteeism was widespread though). So, it was a true standing army.

    That said, I'm not sure how much these models were influential in Germany and Spain. As far as I know, Men at Arms remained a noble militia in these armies, but they were most certainly paid for their service and not serving based on the obsolete medieval Ost of 40 days of free service.

    Spartans were far from the only hoplites trained to fight as a body in the Greek area. In fact, trainning as a body was a characteristic of hoplites since this was based on forming a shield wall. The superiority of Spartans cane from their extreme training regimen that started in infancy and that was much harder than the hoplites of other poleis. Where most Greek citizens trained part time to serve as hoplites when at war, the Spartan system allowed citizen to train almost continuously since they had helots to work for them. So, their soldiers were trully professional where other hoplites were more like what we would call reservists.

    What is true is that medieval town militias were special for training to fight as a body while sergeants and knights trained for single combat. That would give a huge advantage to Flemish and Swiss militiamen against the French and Austrians knights respectively.

    Also, in the 14th and 15th century, secular chivalric orders were multiplying although they were quite exclusive. The english Order of the Garter (1348), the burgundian Order of the Golden Fleece (1430), the french Order of Saint-Michael (1469) and the Order of the Dragon (founded by the emperor Sigismund of Luxembourg in 1408 and famous for having Vlad II Dracul, the Voivoid of Wallachia and father of Vlad the Impaler, amongst its members) are some of the best known examples. "Secular" should be taken in the larger sense of "not made of clergymen" as most of them were open only to catholics, but the members were secular. So it's inaccurate to say that most orders were religious by the 16th century. Religious military orders were on the decline, like I explained in another post, except the Knights Hospitaliers of St-John which survived as a military force until Napoleon conquered Malta in 1798. They were mostly a naval force by the 16th century though.

    What do all of this means for our debate?

    1. Starting in the 15th century, heavy cavalry was in the process of being professionalised and being cut from its feudal roots. Holy orders were no longer special for this.
    2. Religious orders still existed in the 16th century albeit on decline, but secular ones were numerous too.
    3. Changing the name of Knightly Orders to Holy Orders isn't necessary and would be misguided since secular chivalric orders did existed. Doing the hange would reduce the ability of players to write their own fluff. I, for one, would probably build an EoS army as either a Burgundian or French Ordnance army with historical minies so that it can be played either as a Fantasy or historical army. I don't intent to paint my knights as an holy order.
    4. T9A is a Fantasy game. Even if it is and it should be inspired by history, the interest of such an universe is that it gives you the freedom go against the historical reality or keeping close to it. We should be careful to impose certain views of reality in the fluff so that all players have the possibility of making their army trully their own.
    Armies:


    • Orcs & Goblins
    • Kingdom of Breton.. ah! I mean Equitaine! ;)
  • Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    My position is still the same as it was in the May Update thread on knights: Give a slight points reduction to the starting 5 models. Give a larger points reduction to extra models added to the unit. This applies for both Electoral Cavalry and Knightly Orders.

    The TLDR of it is: That way, large knight units become a points-efficient viable alternative to war chickens as a heavy-duty combat unit, without making small knight units too points-efficient as raiders/flankers/antichaff/heavy chaff/scoring darts.

    Also, make Knightly Orders a special unit, rather than a limited upgrade option. Make armies with Knight Commander generals count Knightly Orders as core.

    Also, for fluff purposes, rename Electoral Cavalry as Imperial Knights. Being full plate armoured, they should be aristocratic rich boys. They can still be OS/DS 3. The best and brightest of the youth of our aristocracy become rulers, military officers, scholars and public officials. The leftovers become knights. In the Empire, real chivalric martial prowess is found in the Knightly Orders.
    I like the Electoral Cavalry name. It makes them sound like being part of the standing army of the Count Electors. It reminds me of the Ordonnance army of Charles the Bold who, as th duke of Burgundy was the vassal of the King of France, but was independent in all intent of purpose. Nothing stops them from being nobles. French and Burgundian Gendarmes were massively aristocratic. They simply belonged to permanent companies instead of being a noble militia. If you want an Imperial Cavalry unit, we could either rename Knightly Orders as Imperial Cavalry or add back the Imperial Cavalry as a separate Special Unit and make Knightly Orders an upgrade for Electoral Cavalry again. I feel that the lowest level of EoS heavy cavalry should have a provincial flair about it. But I'm not, super hellbend on it either. I just find that Electoral Cavalry sounds well and it kind of illustrates well how the Empire isn't centralised.
    Armies:


    • Orcs & Goblins
    • Kingdom of Breton.. ah! I mean Equitaine! ;)
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    Hasn't been established yet but just the name itself implies its an order. I doubt anything that comes out in the future would rule that out. Guys keep in mind that someone being a knight doesn't necessarily mean he's part of an order. Its really just a social class
    With regards to the "First Knight" rule. It would be good if that was usable with the Knights of the Sun Griffon not just "Knightly Orders". Otherwise why have the Young Griffon mount option?
  • Hexed wrote:

    Marcos24 wrote:

    Hasn't been established yet but just the name itself implies its an order. I doubt anything that comes out in the future would rule that out. Guys keep in mind that someone being a knight doesn't necessarily mean he's part of an order. Its really just a social class
    With regards to the "First Knight" rule. It would be good if that was usable with the Knights of the Sun Griffon not just "Knightly Orders". Otherwise why have the Young Griffon mount option?
    For balance reasons. I think the Knights of Sun are strong enough already. They don't need to be immune to Psychology as well.
    Armies:


    • Orcs & Goblins
    • Kingdom of Breton.. ah! I mean Equitaine! ;)
  • Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    You are being inconsistent. You say that half the core requirement can be filled by one unit of KO, but you can't if KO are special-only-and-never-core as you advocate.
    Not sure if you are just being difficult here... It was quite obvious the example was under the assumption that KO became core choices. You’d be able to field an all elite (choice) army that way.

    As for the other arguments. I feel this is going in circles. You’d like the KC to move KO into core, whereas I dislike the idea. One reason for this is that I personally dislike the fact this opens up an ‘all elite’ army for the Empire. It’s not the way i see the Empire should be played. Secondly, this would not ‘fix EoS knights’, but instead enhances the all cavalry and/or KC as general play style. Any other army composition still suffers.

    I’ve argued it before and have seen others do it. Make different factions for KC and KO units. Allow minor upgrades to core knights when KC is general (in line with the Order chosen of the KC). But do not simply replace them for their elite counter part (especially if we wish for the KO to become more diverse and useful on the field with implementation of Order Rules).

    NOTE: Moving KO to core could be a solution till the FAB rewrite (the current situation is similar), but I’d hate to see this become a design choice when it is rewrite time. May as well go back to a single Knight entry, which allows additinal rule based on the Order (which opens up with a KC general).
  • Kovlovsky wrote:

    I like the Electoral Cavalry name. It makes them sound like being part of the standing army of the Count Electors. It reminds me of the Ordonnance army of Charles the Bold who, as th duke of Burgundy was the vassal of the King of France, but was independent in all intent of purpose. Nothing stops them from being nobles. French and Burgundian Gendarmes were massively aristocratic. They simply belonged to permanent companies instead of being a noble militia. If you want an Imperial Cavalry unit, we could either rename Knightly Orders as Imperial Cavalry or add back the Imperial Cavalry as a separate Special Unit and make Knightly Orders an upgrade for Electoral Cavalry again. I feel that the lowest level of EoS heavy cavalry should have a provincial flair about it. But I'm not, super hellbend on it either. I just find that Electoral Cavalry sounds well and it kind of illustrates well how the Empire isn't centralised.
    Perhaps Knightly Orders can be renamed into Imperial Cavalry (brothers of Imperial Guard).

    Having a KC (general or not?) allows for the Imperial Guard to become Knightly Orders (with additional bonusses based on Order). Imperial Cavalry would be similar to the Inperial Guard - but mounted.

    The KC could offer similar upgrades to Electoral Cavalry, making them linked to the Order of choice. Perhaps this only when KC is general?

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

  • Cyprinus wrote:

    Kovlovsky wrote:

    I like the Electoral Cavalry name. It makes them sound like being part of the standing army of the Count Electors. It reminds me of the Ordonnance army of Charles the Bold who, as th duke of Burgundy was the vassal of the King of France, but was independent in all intent of purpose. Nothing stops them from being nobles. French and Burgundian Gendarmes were massively aristocratic. They simply belonged to permanent companies instead of being a noble militia. If you want an Imperial Cavalry unit, we could either rename Knightly Orders as Imperial Cavalry or add back the Imperial Cavalry as a separate Special Unit and make Knightly Orders an upgrade for Electoral Cavalry again. I feel that the lowest level of EoS heavy cavalry should have a provincial flair about it. But I'm not, super hellbend on it either. I just find that Electoral Cavalry sounds well and it kind of illustrates well how the Empire isn't centralised.
    Perhaps Knightly Orders can be renamed into Imperial Cavalry (brothers of Imperial Guard).
    Having a KC (general or not?) allows for the Imperial Guard to become Knightly Orders (with additional bonusses based on Order). Imperial Cavalry would be similar to the Inperial Guard - but mounted.

    The KC could offer similar upgrades to Electoral Cavalry, making them linked to the Order of choice. Perhaps this only when KC is general?
    For a different topic i know. BUT you gave me a brilliant idea.
    What if each unit has its own options for orders. (its not like our light infantry can benefit from FIER). An then the Marshalls just triggers the special rule be giving an order.
    That way we can differentiate between the units, and price them more correctly.
    and I still believe; Light infantry should fight and shoot in 3 ranks, Imperial Guards should have weaponmaster and both parent and support, and that halbardiers should wear heavy armor. For Sunna and the Emperor!!