Personal opinion on the whole EOS army

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.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

  • Well its often 20 hallberds with banner, and sometime a musician.
    I usually get 2 of them for one death star. (could be IG or heavy infantry with flaming std)
    There role is flexible they could be dedicaced to protect artillery /light troops from ambush,or run for scoring on flank when necessary.

    But as soon its possible, they just follow the death star on each side at around 8" behind
    If you keep right distance they are difficult to redirect, and impossible to charge.

    Then the guys in the deathstar just yell at the opponent, and wait to be charged ;)...

    -Sometime the opponent could have forget that there is some support; ( especially if you manage a vicious flank countercharge not too obvious.)
    -Sometime the opponent just decide that its better to charge than been shooting by the rest of the army.
    -Sometime the opponent under estimate the bonus that gave this counter-charge.
    -Sometimes the opponent just estimate that his own multiple charge should be enough, and with abit of luck or with one missed charge, countercharge bonus could change the fight.
    -Sometimes the opponent decide to not charge afraid by the counter-charge; thats still good for me ;)

    In any case, our unit arent strong enough to play without all synergie possible; countercharge is one additionnal really easy to play with it. You should always try to have one.

    Website Team

      

    Art Team


    Graphic designer  cas-p.net
  • Herminard wrote:

    Phosphorus wrote:

    baexta wrote:

    greentide wrote:

    It´s difficult. Herminard was quite succesful with a maxed out parten/support army consisting
    of multiple IG parent and sword/board support units. Apart from him nobody came close to the Village Idiot from old game.
    If I'm not wrong you are talking about an army that also utilized 4 units of the old militia, right? Those old militia were very strong and single handedly enabled such an army.
    Yepp, that was ONE vital part of @Herminard s army . As such it wasn`t a Village Idiot style army (he hadn`t any missle units in it) . That is, why I call it a Herminard style army :) (Honour to whom honour is due). And as such is a bad example of shwoing that the battalion style (battle-line) style works currently (today ´s evening, I will try that once more..two parent units, two light inf. support units and tweo heavy inf. units + one militia ..I am still looking for a way to make it work...somehow 8-) ).Good to see that other EoS gamers see it the same: the mobile missle units made this style possible ...as such I wished the for light inf. would be able to move/march and shoot without the usual mali when in 8 of a parent unit.
    But we were given to understand , that this is not "in" for EoS (mobile missle units like e.g. Bombardiers).
    The Militia were a nice tool to make the enemy run towards the lines of EoS, and Orders were much better, but the Parent/Support mechanic is untouched.

    @Watertheplant have had some decent results with a similar list

    For myself I am certain that making a very potent EoS list is quite possible, but it is not an option that I am willing to explore.
    3x15 IGs, 4x20 HI, 1x20 LI, 4xartillery, 3xIR, 1x26 flaggies. Artificer, 2xMarshall, 2xWizard. It's a lot of fun to play! Herminard was of course my inspiration of the list. Charge reaction flee + steady men is a beastly combination.

    Army Design Team

  • Perfect summerization, I agree on almost all parts and that should come as no surprice to any of the úsual suspects on this part of the forum.

    The Stank is needed right now as it is the other of the 2 units EoS generaly field. The lists go 1 or two wizards maybe on an engien, a deathstar with 2-3 characters, griffon guys ( just maybe), some 2x20 shooters, maybe a scoring dart and maybe one or two small (3 models) groups of KOTSG, some militia and or some rangers, Stank and a cannon or some rockets. There are slight variations, sometimes the general is on a waralter. But almost all lists have 2x20ish shooters and an IG deathstar with a Stank to hold the flank.
  • When im talking about not seeing many armies it is because I play like this last list I played (before GOLD).

    [255pts]Marshal : Army General, Shield
    Special Equipment: Imperial Seal
    [265pts]Marshal : Battle Standard Bearer, Shield
    Special Equipment: Blacksteel, Death Warrant
    [430pts]Wizard : Alchemy, Wizard Master
    Special Equipment: Magical Heirloom - Dominant, Talisman of the Void
    [210pts]Heavy Infantry : Champion, 20x Heavy Infantry, Spear, Standard Bearer
    [210pts]Heavy Infantry : Champion, 20x Heavy Infantry, Spear, Standard Bearer
    [210pts]Heavy Infantry : Champion, 20x Heavy Infantry, Spear, Standard Bearer
    [210pts]Heavy Infantry : Champion, 20x Heavy Infantry, Spear, Standard Bearer
    [161pts]Light Infantry : 12x Light Infantry
    [148pts]Light Infantry : 11x Light Infantry
    [365pts]Imperial Guard : Champion, 20x Imperial Guard, Standard Bearer
    Banner Enchantment: Household Standard
    [325pts]Imperial Guard : Champion, 20x Imperial Guard, Standard Bearer
    [325pts]Imperial Guard : Champion, 20x Imperial Guard, Standard Bearer
    [325pts]Knights of the Sun Griffon : 3x Knights of the Sun Griffon, Replace Halberd with Lance and Shield
    [165pts]Artillery : Imperial Rocketeer (4+)
    [165pts]Artillery : Imperial Rocketeer (4+)
    [90pts]Imperial Rangers : 5x Imperial Ranger
    [90pts]Imperial Rangers : 5x Imperial Ranger
    [90pts]Imperial Rangers : 5x Imperial Ranger
    [230pts]Flagellants : 15x Flagellant
    [230pts]Flagellants : 15x Flagellant

    4499pts. (Battlescribe and i can't be bothered)

    -Cort

    Playes like this; Use 1h45min to deploy, take 1h25min on the first turn. Call the game 10/10....

    Joking, sort of. Deploy, screen with scouts and push like a madman, swarm the field and run flaggies like headless chicken along with the chickens on the flank forcing the opponent into a spot where there are too many super easy targets. The army is very slow, but the center will build 12 points of static when being charged, that will catch most off guard. If your enemy has a Deathstar (and they do 90% of the time)
    feed them chaff all game long and take objectives for 11-9 win. And, by your god remember to move your characters from unit to unit.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Cortrillion ().

  • that list is pure awesome. Ill bet it will score high in @Herminards battleline rating system.
    and I still believe; Light infantry should fight and shoot in 3 ranks, FREE command groups for EoS units. Imperial Guards should have weaponmaster and both parent and support, and that halbardiers should wear heavy armor. Brace for impact should be changed to, or there should be an extra order: " Have at THEM!" The unit gain battle focus.
    For Sunna and the Emperor!!

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

  • There is no standard net list, like in 8th edition(light council)
    and there are variations from rooster to rooster.
    But Cort mentions the Imperial Guard as the centre of the army list,
    supported by the steam tank, a wizard master and light infantry.
    These elements can be found in a lot of lists(not all though).
    I see more cav and flying griffons in the US meta and even the odd dragon in the polish, german and scandinavian meta.

    Since ETC players are rather conservative, I expect this concept quite often over there:

    Cortrillion wrote:

    But almost all lists have 2x20ish shooters and an IG deathstar with a Stank to hold the flank.
    Or the stank in the centre, but we had this discussion before..
    favourite quote:
    Kruber wrote:
    Imperial Rangers burn the woods ---> Sylvan Elves go cry in the corner.

    My armies:
    :EoS: :O&G: :KoE: :OK:
  • Your right, @greentide. Clearly i am exaggerating, just look at my own list/lists they look nothing like the meta picture i paint. But i think you will Find that i am right about 80% .

    Stank in the center or whereever i dont really Play mine.

    I did not play 8th so that means nothing to me. I played 4th to 7th. Then 0.9 to 1.9orsomething then my local gaiming droppede 9th and i have a hardcore time getting any games. 9th slowed to a crawl and then, belly up. Enthusiasm is gone or something. I heared so many diffrent complaints but i think the topdown leadership of the project was the main problem. People expected to be heard, where told they would be heard, but in the end they felt like they where not. Enthusiasm turned to frustration, people startede leaving. /Sidetrack...

    Anyway, I m still here, lurking and being salty because i dont want anyone to quit because they expected to be heard.

    You All hear that!!!? They dont care about your suggestions, have fun with the game as IT IS! Be happy if it gets better.
  • I can agree on nearly all of your opinions. Except maybe Banner of Unity. In some lists its a good way to get an extra order for (just) 40 points. Banner is fine i think.

    Agree that Inquisitor needs dis 9 to give a more tactical reason to include the Inquisitor in lists.

    I also like the idea of champion Upgrade. First knight (dis 9) for our knights and maybe captain Upgrade for parent units (dis 8 and 1 order for the unit its in).

    But all in all our book is fine and better then anything the Company with the name that shall not be written has ever published.
  • greentide wrote:

    But Cort mentions the Imperial Guard as the centre of the army list,
    supported by the steam tank, a wizard master and light infantry.
    These elements can be found in a lot of lists(not all though).
    So, would you, or anyone else, say these are taken that often, that it can be followed that they are too strong (army-internally)? Because on my experience i would definetly disagree. However, i do not have a real overview over what other play (for example etc or lists that get posted here).

    Adaephon_Delat wrote:

    Except maybe Banner of Unity. In some lists its a good way to get an extra order for (just) 40 points. Banner is fine i think.
    You are not the first one to mention this. But i remain unconvinced. I tried it. It was never worth it's points and the magic banner slot for me. The main question regarding the banner is: When do you really profit from the extra order? As i wrote in the OP i really can't see it. But obviously there are people of vastly different opinion.
  • When you play in line with two parent and three support units like
    Li hi li ig li. Keep hi 8'' from bsb in ig and you can give an order to the li on the left side. This is a good Option when you don't want take a Marshal General and hh Standard in your list. Expands the order range of your bsb for more than 8'' for that one order.

    So its also about extending range beside getting an additional order.
  • greentide wrote:

    There is no standard net list, like in 8th edition(light council)
    and there are variations from rooster to rooster.
    But Cort mentions the Imperial Guard as the centre of the army list,
    supported by the steam tank, a wizard master and light infantry.
    These elements can be found in a lot of lists(not all though).
    I see more cav and flying griffons in the US meta and even the odd dragon in the polish, german and scandinavian meta.

    Since ETC players are rather conservative, I expect this concept quite often over there:

    Cortrillion wrote:

    But almost all lists have 2x20ish shooters and an IG deathstar with a Stank to hold the flank.
    Or the stank in the centre, but we had this discussion before..
    I am personally giving up on multiple griffons in my list.
  • baexta wrote:

    So, would you, or anyone else, say these are taken that often, that it can be followed that they are too strong (army-internally)? Because on my experience i would definetly disagree. However, i do not have a real overview over what other play (for example etc or lists that get posted here).
    Imperial Guard seems to be in a very strong place internally right now(and externally according to my opponents comments).
    All other units appartently can be replaced by something else, even light infantry so far.

    But then there is the variety in fluff-gamers and semi-competitive lists, who allows for lots of different units
    and there is ETC, US and UK top tables and the polish scene, where you´ll find rather similiar lists(lots of IG and LI).

    But still we sometimes see handgunners, dragons, rocket batteries and even flagellants in big tournaments again.
    That´s a big improvement to the situation years ago.
    favourite quote:
    Kruber wrote:
    Imperial Rangers burn the woods ---> Sylvan Elves go cry in the corner.

    My armies:
    :EoS: :O&G: :KoE: :OK:
  • The Changing Constant wrote:

    I am personally giving up on multiple griffons in my list.
    Care to elaborate?

    I was playing the very basic version of Marshal with lance, shield, basalt infusion on griffon and really liked what he brings for his points. However i often saw people buying him things that just needlessly increase his point costs. I'm planning a 4 griffon list for my next tournament.
  • greentide wrote:

    baexta wrote:

    So, would you, or anyone else, say these are taken that often, that it can be followed that they are too strong (army-internally)? Because on my experience i would definetly disagree. However, i do not have a real overview over what other play (for example etc or lists that get posted here).
    Imperial Guard seems to be in a very strong place internally right now(and externally according to my opponents comments).All other units appartently can be replaced by something else, even light infantry so far.

    But then there is the variety in fluff-gamers and semi-competitive lists, who allows for lots of different units
    and there is ETC, US and UK top tables and the polish scene, where you´ll find rather similiar lists(lots of IG and LI).

    But still we sometimes see handgunners, dragons, rocket batteries and even flagellants in big tournaments again.
    That´s a big improvement to the situation years ago.
    Agreed...but what we very seldome see are concepts with heavy infantry as support units..that is, which rely to a certain degree on the battalion-style(concept).
    Veteran of the Chaff Wars
  • I actually don't mind the "constraining" bubbles too much. If you go for more Cav oriented lists you can sort of eschew the bubbles altogether. It could be argued those aren't ideal lists, but to say the play-style doesn't exist would be wrong. Where the bubbles exist most is in the heavy infantry-style lists and there I find the bubbles to be enjoyable as they require a certain kind of creativity to make work. Honestly, with the change to 8" bubbles things got far easier.

    Counter-charges make up something like 1/6 of the Parent/Support system rules and I would say that they get utilized about that much, so it's fine with me. I think the biggest factor to counter-charges is the threat aspect. Their existence allows you to dictate fights nicely: Charge a parent unit? You get supporting counter-charge; charge the support, they flee+Steady, Men! Order. Most of my opponents see the mess and don't charge at all in those scenarios (thus why you don't see counter-charges happen, it doesn't mean they aren't impacting the game).

    Karadon's Courser is indeed sub-par. I actively tried it in about a dozen games and I wasn't ever terribly impressed and would agree a banner version would be nice again. Or at least if it allowed you to use it after you've rolled for charge ranges. The one use and 6" don't bother me too much. In very specific Cav heavy lists I found it can be an almost decent replacement for great tactician to save 10 points, and I still use it for that sometimes, but it's incredibly niche.

    I don't understand the dislike for banner of unity. I use it in nearly every infantry list I make and I'm the kind of person that hates wasting points on banners. In fact, in some strategies where you're pushing the 8" bubble range I'd say it's nearly required to make a list work by extending order range. Also being able to give an order to a parent unit AND one of it's supporting units every turn is so good. There have been very few times where I felt that the extra order was ever a "waste". It helps keep fight in extra rank active on your parent unit, it helps multiple blocks move at the same increased rate, it helps distribute accurate and gives more flexibility to help support units with rallying. I don't see what there is to complain about, it's basically a budget great tactician most of the time.

    As someone who plays EC and KO a lot I would never say no to some buffs. 9 Discipline for KO would be awesome, I wouldn't say it's direly needed, but it would open up some play-styles. Personally, I'd rather see shields taken down to 3 points per model and Great Weapons down to 1 point per model. Inquisitor is fun, but just not worth the points. Models like Inquisitor are a difficult balance. If they're too cheap they become too powerful a utility in the army and get taken everywhere and on the other hand if they're just slightly too expensive they never get taken. In my mind the solution is to increase inner-army synergy rather than adjust points; as such 9 Discipline might be enough but I'd rather see better synergy with Reiters for instance.

    Imperial Guard are nuts, both versions. If people want supporting great weapons just let Heavy infantry have them at like 4 points per model or something. Imperial Guard have a very solid role as the elite parent unit. The army doesn't need more random support units, heavy/light infantry should be enough for nearly any strategy. Heavy Infantry should also be allowed access to Heavy Armor, but that's another discussion altogether.

    Lastly, just a thought on Steam Tanks: In my mind this model should be 500pts or nerfed a little. It's just an absurd model. I've effectively lost several games to opposing STanks that I just couldn't stop and I've won a lot of games I shouldn't have because of STank. Admittedly, there are plenty of counters to STank, but the fact of the matter is that EoS has it at a hefty discount. The argument that it's the only thing that works independently in the army is a weird argument. Big units of Kosg work great independently, as do reiters. That aside however, EoS is an army of weak components that synergize together to make something collectively powerful. If there were any more independently powerful units it would serve to break the army's theme and design.
  • Thanks @Nerocrossius for the comprehensive input. However i disagree on plenty of the stuff you wrote and agree on some:

    Nerocrossius wrote:

    I find the bubbles to be enjoyable as they require a certain kind of creativity to make work. Honestly, with the change to 8" bubbles things got far easier.
    I agree 100%. But I would also like to increase the ability of the EoS to operate outside of their bubbbles. And I was not talking about the 8" of orders or Parent/support. I was mainly talking about BSB/inspiring presence and to a lesser extent the buffwaggons (wich I simply don't play because of personal preference).


    Nerocrossius wrote:

    Charge a parent unit? You get supporting counter-charge; charge the support, they flee+Steady, Men! Order. Most of my opponents see the mess and don't charge at all in those scenarios (thus why you don't see counter-charges happen, it doesn't mean they aren't impacting the game).
    Here I have to say that what you are writing is a) magic christmans land, where all your wishes come true and b) how does it help when you flee with a charged support unit? The enemy can just redirect. Also the statement about most of your opponents seems not only anecdotal, but also as if said opponents are just lacking practice. I'm just guessing here, tho :) .


    Nerocrossius wrote:

    Or at least if it allowed you to use it after you've rolled for charge ranges. The one use and 6" don't bother me too much.
    Here it seems that your suggestion is trying to fix the "one use only" clause, but in the next sentence you claim to not be bothered by it. But obviously we agree on supbar design here, right? I tend to restrain from making "easy" suggestion to fix things myself, because there are people with a much deeper understanding of the game's rules interactions and game design and there are far too many bad suggestions at the same time :D .


    Nerocrossius wrote:

    I don't see what there is to complain about, it's basically a budget great tactician most of the time.
    That's what I "complain" about: it's basically a budget great tactitian that works far too seldom. I thought I made that obvious :D (we can of course disagree on that). But I accept that I am in a minority here, I have no problem accepting that :) .


    Nerocrossius wrote:

    As someone who plays EC and KO a lot I would never say no to some buffs. 9 Discipline for KO would be awesome, I wouldn't say it's direly needed, but it would open up some play-styles. Personally, I'd rather see shields taken down to 3 points per model and Great Weapons down to 1 point per model. Inquisitor is fun, but just not worth the points. Models like Inquisitor are a difficult balance. If they're too cheap they become too powerful a utility in the army and get taken everywhere and on the other hand if they're just slightly too expensive they never get taken. In my mind the solution is to increase inner-army synergy rather than adjust points; as such 9 Discipline might be enough but I'd rather see better synergy with Reiters for instance.
    Don't get me wrong, I don't want to "buff" the knights. The reason i proposed dis 9 lies simply in my desire, to have a unit that can operate without BSB/inspiring presence (my main point of critique in the OP).


    Nerocrossius wrote:

    Imperial Guard are nuts, both versions. If people want supporting great weapons just let Heavy infantry have them at like 4 points per model or something. Imperial Guard have a very solid role as the elite parent unit. The army doesn't need more random support units, heavy/light infantry should be enough for nearly any strategy. Heavy Infantry should also be allowed access to Heavy Armor, but that's another discussion altogether.
    I disagree on the assumption that a great weapon-wielding core unit would be healthier for the army than the option of supporting IGs. However i do not disagree strongly. I just think it would be very hard to balance over the existing choices and there are no models for representing those units in most player's collections. Do you have any arguments for your claim that IGs shouldn't be able to become supporting units? @greentide allready hinted some reasons, do you agree with those?


    Nerocrossius wrote:

    Big units of Kosg work great independently, as do reiters. That aside however, EoS is an army of weak components that synergize together to make something collectively powerful. If there were any more independently powerful units it would serve to break the army's theme and design.
    This is the most irritating statement to me. I would rate KotSG (especially big units) as one of the most risky units to leave them without support. Here are many points that will be lost uppon failing a single panick test or break test after a close (maybe unlucky) combat. Care to elaborate? With small cheap KotSG units this is another thing. I tend to play 3 with halberds as a throwaway unit. Here the loss doesn't hurt. However my original point was more aimed at actual "fighting" units, which is why the reiters don't really count against my argument (while I of course love the reiters, maybe my favorite unit).

    While i didn't follow your logic at many points, I appretiate the input!
    Peace!
  • @baexta Banner of discipline on those kotsg.
    Then they are independant. Because they can actually fight without tones of buffs.
    To me its just sad that we can't do it with knights, personal prefference here.
    and I still believe; Light infantry should fight and shoot in 3 ranks, FREE command groups for EoS units. Imperial Guards should have weaponmaster and both parent and support, and that halbardiers should wear heavy armor. Brace for impact should be changed to, or there should be an extra order: " Have at THEM!" The unit gain battle focus.
    For Sunna and the Emperor!!
  • baexta wrote:

    I agree 100%. But I would also like to increase the ability of the EoS to operate outside of their bubbbles. And I was not talking about the 8" of orders or Parent/support. I was mainly talking about BSB/inspiring presence and to a lesser extent the buffwaggons (wich I simply don't play because of personal preference).

    BSB/Commanding Presence bubbles are a game warping factor in most armies for better or for worse. However, In my opinion they make the most sense in EoS. My understanding of EoS is that it is a synergy-focused army where chains of command are meant to exist and the army consists of individually weaker units that are supposed to depend on one another and work together. The design execution of this could be debated, but under the current rules philosophy we have bubbles. I'm not sure how EoS could change in this regard without overarching changes to The Ninth Age in general.

    baexta wrote:

    Here I have to say that what you are writing is a) magic christmans land, where all your wishes come true and b) how does it help when you flee with a charged support unit? The enemy can just redirect. Also the statement about most of your opponents seems not only anecdotal, but also as if said opponents are just lacking practice. I'm just guessing here, tho .
    Well, I guess I'm Santa then! Sharing a little bit of Christmas year-round

    As for redirection: What do they redirect to? The Parent unit? The other supporting unit? Obviously, this example is void of numerous contexts, but in most of my infantry oriented armies my parent units have two supporting units. And depending upon the angle of the charge and what exactly is charging all of these things can change. I was merely attempting to provide a mundane example of how counter-charges have a less visible impact on a game, I apologize if the example was poor.

    Anecdotal? I'm sorry I didn't provide battle reps in an already long-winded post. I don't know any other way to put this shortly: when I'm using a list with a strong focus on infantry units a majority of what I would personally gauge as "good opponents" don't directly charge either of my parent units or support units in their frontal arc when my units are in advantageous positioning with one another. In other words they don't let me have my magical christmas land. They find a way to outmaneuver me and attack flanks or block/chaff counter-charges, or focus on weaker lines of defense. And yes, I've played against less-practiced players who didn't understand counter-charges and died to combat res as well as more experienced players who had lapses of judgment and simply underestimated the potential of my combat res. I've also had situations where opposing units where strong enough that they utterly broke and destroyed the combat in which a counter charge occurred, but I don't include those few extreme scenarios under "most opponents". The point still stands that counter-charge as an EoS ability discourages charges that would have been realistic in some scenarios. Does that make it a powerful component of the army rules, no, but it does still play a role in opponents' decision making sometimes.

    baexta wrote:

    Here it seems that your suggestion is trying to fix the "one use only" clause, but in the next sentence you claim to not be bothered by it. But obviously we agree on supbar design here, right? I tend to restrain from making "easy" suggestion to fix things myself, because there are people with a much deeper understanding of the game's rules interactions and game design and there are far too many bad suggestions at the same time .
    I'm fine with the one-use only. What I attempted to communicate was that I would want it to be either a one-use banner (which was in agreement with you and others) or that it allowed you to utilize the one-use after a failed charge range roll. To be clear, I have no intention for my random musings to ever be considered mandates for change, the people in charge of change in this project couldn't care less about my musings, but I, like the EoS community, enjoy discussion so here we are. I used the courser multiple times and each time I said to myself "I wish I could've used this after I rolled" because I didn't like using my one-use item and then not needing it anyways.

    baexta wrote:

    That's what I "complain" about: it's basically a budget great tactitian that works far too seldom. I thought I made that obvious (we can of course disagree on that). But I accept that I am in a minority here, I have no problem accepting that .

    And my argument was that the additional order from the banner was worth the 40pts in my experience and was rarely a waste. I'm sorry the banner works seldomly for you. I assume you dislike Great Tactician as well, or do you really like stacking orders on the same unit?

    baexta wrote:

    I disagree on the assumption that a great weapon-wielding core unit would be healthier for the army than the option of supporting IGs. However i do not disagree strongly. I just think it would be very hard to balance over the existing choices and there are no models for representing those units in most player's collections. Do you have any arguments for your claim that IGs shouldn't be able to become supporting units? @greentide allready hinted some reasons, do you agree with those?
    I find both to be unrealistic. Perhaps the full army book will have a new unit that is purely a greatsword support unit, who knows.

    My argument would be that making a parent/support hybrid unit outside of core is complex and difficult to balance. How would they become support units? Just give them an option to replace parent rule with support? How do I distinguish them on the board from each other then? They can't be both parent and support because then multiple blocks of Imperial Guard together would just be absurd. It was suggested in another thread that they follow the same rules as Heavy Infantry, but then concerns about fluff were brought up and how the community is very split on Imperial guard being support units. Additionally, I've seen it communicated that adding a support unit function to Imperial Guards adds too many new elements to be balanced. I feel that the imperial guard are in an amazing place right now and don't need any changes. If it ain't broke don't fix it, I say. The argument I kept seeing was that people wanted support units to have great weapons, so I figured I'd suggest something to change the discussion paradigm. Heavy Infantry I think are more widely considered in need of a re-haul, so why not add the supporting great weapon discussion to a unit that already needs the redesign rather than one that doesn't need it?

    baexta wrote:

    This is the most irritating statement to me. I would rate KotSG (especially big units) as one of the most risky units to leave them without support. Here are many points that will be lost uppon failing a single panick test or break test after a close (maybe unlucky) combat. Care to elaborate? With small cheap KotSG units this is another thing. I tend to play 3 with halberds as a throwaway unit. Here the loss doesn't hurt. However my original point was more aimed at actual "fighting" units, which is why the reiters don't really count against my argument (while I of course love the reiters, maybe my favorite unit).
    I'm sorry any of the statements were irritating. I guess I rate kotsg better than you do. I almost always have a unit of 4-5 of the lancers hold up a flank in my cavalry lists and even sometimes in infantry lists. They obviously don't do as good as the Steam Tank, but they don't need to be babysat. I guess the root issue is that I'm not as scared of Discipline 8 as some. In a vacuum it's roughly a 10% difference between Discipline 8 and 9 success rates and that is a legitimate margin of error over the course of a lot of games. But as @Smythen mentioned the banner of discipline helps a lot there though. I certainly lose plenty of them to unlucky panic and break tests (and dangerous terrain, but that's another matter), but I also have had Discipline 9 with re-roll break on me plenty too, so there's that. Overall, I really like my big units of kotsg, but I'm sure that comes down to personal preference. They don't smash everything like a Steam Tank can, but they work very well independently when hunting down chaff and medium level threats and with a little luck or support they can even wrestle with scary elite units. So, yes, if you define an independent unit as an elite combat unit that can fearlessly engage with most threats, than kotsg aren't that, but they don't have to be glued to supporting units in order to earn their points either.

    I still stand by my argument that EoS units weren't meant to fight independently and thus not having any Discipline 9 units makes sense to me.