PDA

View Full Version : Fixing Knights - What do they need?



Faultie
10-07-2009, 06:58 AM
So, it seems that many comments I've viewed online have mainly bad things to say about basic human knights. Around here and elsewhere, it seems that Brettonians aren't viewed as a high-tier list, and they're supposed to be the best cavalry army (flying V and all that).

I admit that generic ones (S3 T3 for ~20-24pts) are not so hot, but otherwise I'm not quite sure exactly what's so bad about them. Ranks, attacks, Ld...?

So my question: Do you think human knights/heavy cavalry are crappy? If so, how would you improve them (least possible change) to make them worthwhile?

Lord Azaghul
10-07-2009, 07:36 AM
Asked and Answered:

In my opinion that problem with human knights is the way the unit works in the game.

1)They often have a 1+ or 2+ AS, but much in the game either reduces it or negates it all together.

2)Most knights only have 1 attack, with any killing power, and that is only on the charge (horse attack not included)

3)Most knights are WS 4, this is current only average or below average - so your chances of the 1 attack hitting are already reduced to 50%

4) Price: knights are too expensive to overcome the lack of killing power with static combat rez. One static rank cost can easily cost you 100-140 pts, once that first models fails, no rank bonus = 140 wasted points so that can not fight.

5) no killing power once engaging in CC, 2nd rounds. The execption to this is great weapons, but striking last, at only +1 S isn't a great option with a 2+ AS (and its probably against something S4!)

Its the combination of all of these that make knights not worth it.

Fixes:
S4 Impact hits for barded horses. 1 Hit per model in the front rank.
Or Go with what we know works already:
Allow models with lances to fight in 2 ranks on the turn they charge - this would mean all the expensive knights you're paying for could actually be used!

Faultie
10-07-2009, 07:50 AM
I like the 2-ranks on a charge with Lancers. I think it fixes the problem of wasted points, lack of power, and makes the charge itself (the whole purpose of cavalry, really) more effective.

It also encourages larger units of knights, meaning more models sold, which is good for GW!

Lord Azaghul
10-07-2009, 07:54 AM
I like the 2-ranks on a charge with Lancers. I think it fixes the problem of wasted points, lack of power, and makes the charge itself (the whole purpose of cavalry, really) more effective.

It also encourages larger units of knights, meaning more models sold, which is good for GW!

I do really like the idea...and it seems more realistic as to how knights would work in game.

Faultie
10-07-2009, 07:56 AM
Also with this idea, Brettonians still get to be better than everyone else, since their middle guy in a unit of 6 or 9 could attack. If they widened the unit, several guys in the middle could attack (it might take some tweaking of their rules to make it clearer). Regardless, they stand to gain an extra few attacks, just like everyone.

It might even make my Lancers good!

Kjal
10-07-2009, 08:48 AM
Ive been thinking for quite a while now why are there two "persons" who attack (rider and horse) and why do they have only one wound together?

Lord Azaghul
10-07-2009, 09:54 AM
Ive been thinking for quite a while now why are there two "persons" who attack (rider and horse) and why do they have only one wound together?

First theres the practical reason: You’d have to have both knights on foot, and horses with out knights and that would complicate the gaming process.


Then theres the astetic or game feel reason:
But the reason you’re getting at is ‘why not add an additional wound’ – If they did that then they would really have to increase the cost of mounted models – and that still doesn’t solve the problem of not being more effective in combat – yes they would be more durible against shooting and magic, but in cc, they don’t gain a whole lot, for the price increase – even nasty/expensive chaos knights only have 1 wound.
2 wounds is too much of a ‘hero’ thing for knights to have.

wittdooley
10-07-2009, 10:21 AM
Call me crazy, call me nuts, but what about this:

How about Cav Heavy armies (hello Bretonnians!) get a trample/move through rule where the Cav (GASP) runs through a unit of infantry like the would in a real battle. They take their normal attacks as they're moving through, plus a impact hit is delivered.

Of course, you could throw in the obvious caveat that they's have to be able to move completely through the unit to complete the Through Charge, and you could even have a leadership skill roll off or something, where as long as the Knights won, they were allowed to pull of their through charge. This makes sense to me, as Knights SHOULD be able to move through packs of low leadership infantry like butter, but it should be harder against better trained, higher leadership infantry. If not leadership, you could even go with initiative as your determining number.

I know the High Elves chariots can do this, or something similar. Why can't Cav?

Herald of Nurgle
10-07-2009, 03:57 PM
Ive been thinking for quite a while now why are there two "persons" who attack (rider and horse) and why do they have only one wound together?
If the Rider is killed, the Horse will flee. If the Horse is killed, the Rider will be trampled.

brominated
10-07-2009, 07:20 PM
I'm curious about your usage of the knights. I used to play Bretonnians and still love the army dearly and personally I think the Brets work well-ish. I ran 2000 pts of entirely mounted troops to include mostly Knights of the Realm at 9 per unit supported by Mounted Yeomen and then the heavier Grail Knights. I would always double charge enemy block troops to ensure that I would break through. I think Empire knights major strength is that of a heavy flanker, not so much a line-buster unit. I would never run a unit of knights unsupported, even my Lizard Cold One Cav cant attack a block troop unit without some sort of support. Also knights are great for running off skirmishers and preventing enemy flanking attacks. Yes, they're expensive but their speed is wholly necessary. Also they are quite useful as an "oooh scary" unit. I've been playing for some time and Chaos knights scare the crap out of me still.

L192837465
10-08-2009, 07:43 AM
I agree with the post above. Take this:

10 knights. you get 5 extra attacks with the proposed second rank with lances attacking. Doesn't sound broken, and 11 attacks is hardly game breaking.

Now try 12 chaos knights 6 wide. suddenly you have 25 s6 attacks from a unit that should cost a lot more for that ability. What if they're frenzied? 37 s6 attacks is not balanced.

Lets take this to the extreme. 12 Blood Knights. 6 wide. do you really want 49 attacks at s7 and KB to hit anything? EVER? that unit would blast through anything in the game. It doesn't matter if it's Deamons or whatever. Try and think of something ranked.

that unit will hit 32.34 times, and wound 26.8 times. 4.4 of those will be KB. Lets see you try.

Lord Azaghul
10-08-2009, 07:48 AM
I agree with the post above. Take this:

10 knights. you get 5 extra attacks with the proposed second rank with lances attacking. Doesn't sound broken, and 11 attacks is hardly game breaking.

Now try 12 chaos knights 6 wide. suddenly you have 25 s6 attacks from a unit that should cost a lot more for that ability. What if they're frenzied? 37 s6 attacks is not balanced.

Lets take this to the extreme. 12 Blood Knights. 6 wide. do you really want 49 attacks at s7 and KB to hit anything? EVER? that unit would blast through anything in the game. It doesn't matter if it's Deamons or whatever. Try and think of something ranked.

that unit will hit 32.34 times, and wound 26.8 times. 4.4 of those will be KB. Lets see you try.


Oh I had that thought! My first reaction was that the volumn of attacks sounds about right for DoC, VC, and DE, and of Course MoC.

But if some one wants to spend 700pts on a unit of chaos knights - my 4 dwarf warmachines have no problem killing that unit before it reaches my table edge.

The 2nd thought I had: just make it book specific - place in in the new empire book 0 problem solved!

Faultie
10-08-2009, 07:53 AM
I agree with the post above. Take this:

10 knights. you get 5 extra attacks with the proposed second rank with lances attacking. Doesn't sound broken, and 11 attacks is hardly game breaking.

Now try 12 chaos knights 6 wide. suddenly you have 25 s6 attacks from a unit that should cost a lot more for that ability. What if they're frenzied? 37 s6 attacks is not balanced.

Lets take this to the extreme. 12 Blood Knights. 6 wide. do you really want 49 attacks at s7 and KB to hit anything? EVER? that unit would blast through anything in the game. It doesn't matter if it's Deamons or whatever. Try and think of something ranked.

that unit will hit 32.34 times, and wound 26.8 times. 4.4 of those will be KB. Lets see you try.

Go away, math! We don't need your reasonable solutions!

Honestly, though, I think that it would still work with the right caveats.

Xas
10-08-2009, 11:30 AM
In my opinion the problem about knights isnt their charge but the fact that they dont do any damage afterwards. there are many units and whole armies who can shrug off any sort of human knight attack (and even those of chaos or bloodknights. althogh THOSE carve trough them on the follow up turns) and then kill/run them down with their static bonus in the rounds to follow.

what I'd like to see is that cavalry can ignore static modifiers to combat re soltuion if the loose combat (meaning your oponent has to kill more than you did or you just test on your normal lds) AND be allowed to willingly dissengage. this can be seen in many films that the cavalry runs in, fights a bit and then deissengages to regroup.

wittdooley
10-08-2009, 12:33 PM
what I'd like to see is that cavalry can ignore static modifiers to combat re soltuion if the loose combat (meaning your oponent has to kill more than you did or you just test on your normal lds) AND be allowed to willingly dissengage. this can be seen in many films that the cavalry runs in, fights a bit and then deissengages to regroup.

Exactly. That was kind of my thought with the idea of a "through-charge." The knights should be able to get out of the combat if they want to. I still like the idea of a "through-charge," but after thinking about it, the knights should only get one impact hit and one regular attack, as they're charging through too fast to take the normal number of attacks.

Aldramelech
10-08-2009, 02:36 PM
I have to say, I think Knights are about right as they are.

If the Warhammer world is loosely based on the late medieval/early Renaissance period then the Mounted Knight had lost the edge there too. The Pikeman had become king of the battlefield and English armies had all but abandoned using knights as cavalry for nearly a hundred years before that. I have always thought that there should be an option to dismount your knights in the game.

With large amounts of artillery and hand gunners with crossbows and longbows still hanging around the period best reflects the French wars of religion, and the most common and effective form of cavalry in that conflict were armored pistol armed cavalry i.e Pistoliers.

Lord Azaghul
10-08-2009, 02:41 PM
I have to say, I think Knights are about right as they are.

If the Warhammer world is loosely based on the late medieval/early Renaissance period then the Mounted Knight had lost the edge there too. The Pikeman had become king of the battlefield and English armies had all but abandoned using knights as cavalry for nearly a hundred years before that. I have always thought that there should be an option to dismount your knights in the game.

With large amounts of artillery and hand gunners with crossbows and longbows still hanging around the period best reflects the French wars of religion, and the most common and effective form of cavalry in that conflict were armored pistol armed cavalry i.e Pistoliers.


THere effectiveness may feel about right to you, but if that's the case then their point cost is still far too high (human only).

I still don't think you get your points worth out of them: if you only 5 or so you don't have enough attacks to do enough damage to most any units.
If you take more you're paying an inefficient amount of point for 1 point of static rez.
The way I look at human knights is kind of 'damned if you do, and damned if you don't'

Aldramelech
10-09-2009, 04:00 AM
But I think this fits.

Knights should be rare and expensive. The cost of a good suit of Armour in the middle ages wold cost the equivalent of a Super car in todays money. Also Knights as a rule were not the heroic charge anything that moves superheros that most people think they were. In alot of situations Knights would only charge an enemy if they were damn sure of winning and charging "Core" units would be right out... no money to be made there!

To use Knights properly they should skulk about the battle field looking for easy kills and cash making opportunities (i.e combat with other knights) or raiding the enemies baggage.

Now if you can dismount them and use them as detachments, well thats a whole other ball game.

Spanky Harrison
10-11-2009, 01:10 PM
But I think this fits.

Knights should be rare and expensive. The cost of a good suit of Armour in the middle ages wold cost the equivalent of a Super car in todays money. Also Knights as a rule were not the heroic charge anything that moves superheros that most people think they were. In alot of situations Knights would only charge an enemy if they were damn sure of winning and charging "Core" units would be right out... no money to be made there!

To use Knights properly they should skulk about the battle field looking for easy kills and cash making opportunities (i.e combat with other knights) or raiding the enemies baggage.

Now if you can dismount them and use them as detachments, well thats a whole other ball game.

You seem to have the game we are talking about confused with some kind of 'historical'.

This is Warhammer. The knights are awesome heroic charging jerks.

As for empire knights, they have their advantages, in that they are actually cheap enough compared to other cavalry to take in large units. The down side is that in the current WH environment, ranked things suck.

Compared to other "good" units, static combat res is simply in-sufficient. Your either facing some kind of 'super-cavalry' that gets a billion strength 40 attacks and kills 10 or 15 guys, making your static res irrelevant, or your facing some kind of un-killable infantry of doom, who kill 3 or 4 guys, don't lose anyone, AND have full static combat res plus a bunch of random bonuses from who knows what.

At this point, if you want knights to be good, they need to get better not cheaper. Unless something gets changed drastically, 'cheaper' things will never be effective unless they are backed up by some weird thing that is super awesome and better that gives them super bonuses, like a character or warshrine/cauldron type thing.

Aldramelech
10-11-2009, 01:46 PM
The inspiration for all Warhammer armies is historical actually..............

Spanky Harrison
10-11-2009, 07:39 PM
The inspiration for all Warhammer armies is historical actually..............

Sure, the inspiration.

Thats where we started. Its different now, and expectations should be dictated from the fluff in the book. Not history.

Vindur
10-12-2009, 04:43 AM
I tend to agree with the points being made with human knights but there are units of knights that are more than happy to charge head long into blocks. CoK with the Standard of Slaughter are my personal choice of block breakers

Aldramelech
10-12-2009, 08:50 AM
Sure, the inspiration.

Thats where we started. Its different now, and expectations should be dictated from the fluff in the book. Not history.

Fine, The fluff states they are ordinary, well trained humans. Nowhere does it state they are superhuman killing juggernauts. I find nothing in the fluff to suggest they are anything but slightly above average fighters. Leave them be........

Lord Azaghul
10-12-2009, 09:08 AM
Fine, The fluff states they are ordinary, well trained humans. Nowhere does it state they are superhuman killing juggernauts. I find nothing in the fluff to suggest they are anything but slightly above average fighters. Leave them be........

I must disagree here. The knights aren't even 'slightly' above average fighters. with a WS of 4, which is pretty much a standard in the game now - that places them at best on average. a 50 change of hitting in a unit that is designed to run with about 5 models is silly. This places your changes of succesfully charging/breaking any ranked unit very low. If you take a FC, thats 6 or 7 lance attacks and 5 or 6 horse attacks. You just can't expect to beat a static rez of 5, especially if they have armour.
And we all know that flanking with knights it at best tricky.

Aldramelech
10-12-2009, 09:24 AM
I must disagree here. The knights aren't even 'slightly' above average fighters. with a WS of 4, which is pretty much a standard in the game now - that places them at best on average. a 50 change of hitting in a unit that is designed to run with about 5 models is silly. This places your changes of succesfully charging/breaking any ranked unit very low. If you take a FC, thats 6 or 7 lance attacks and 5 or 6 horse attacks. You just can't expect to beat a static rez of 5, especially if they have armour.
And we all know that flanking with knights it at best tricky.

Above average compared to the rest of the Empire army.

L192837465
10-12-2009, 03:42 PM
I must disagree here. The knights aren't even 'slightly' above average fighters. with a WS of 4, which is pretty much a standard in the game now - that places them at best on average. a 50 change of hitting in a unit that is designed to run with about 5 models is silly. This places your changes of succesfully charging/breaking any ranked unit very low. If you take a FC, thats 6 or 7 lance attacks and 5 or 6 horse attacks. You just can't expect to beat a static rez of 5, especially if they have armour.
And we all know that flanking with knights it at best tricky.


Ok. If you're sending wimpy Empire knights into the front of armoured static 5 infantry, you deserve to have them smashed to pieces. lets try this: 6 empire knights charging 25 chaos warriors with shields on the flank. we'll assume no marks or more than normal unit upgrades.

knights: 7 attacks, 3ish hit, 2ish wound, 1 fails. 6 horses, 3 hit, 1 wounds, and it'll probably be saved.
warriors back: 12 attacks, 8 hit, 5 wound, and you lose 1.

combat res: warriors: 3. banner, 1 wound, and outnumber.
knights: 3. banner, flank, 1 wound.

a 120 point unit of knights just tied a 300 point unit of killing monstrosities at their own game. Don't take me wrong, they'll lose the following round, but by then you should get more dudes involved.

Empire knights are not like chaos knights or blood knights. Think of them as fast cav. Harassers and opportunistic chargers. 8 knights with a bsb and a grand master will give most rank and file units a really hard time.



as for the dwarf 4 warmachines, alright. lets see you kill 12 ITP knights with a 1+ as and regen before they hit your lines. Oh, btw: they recover their losses.

Or 12 chaos knights with a 1+as and a 4+ ward save to all shooting (magic banner, MoT)

Have fun.

Lord Azaghul
10-12-2009, 04:24 PM
Ok. If you're sending wimpy Empire knights into the front of armoured static 5 infantry, you deserve to have them smashed to pieces. lets try this: 6 empire knights charging 25 chaos warriors with shields on the flank. we'll assume no marks or more than normal unit upgrades.

knights: 7 attacks, 3ish hit, 2ish wound, 1 fails. 6 horses, 3 hit, 1 wounds, and it'll probably be saved.
warriors back: 12 attacks, 8 hit, 5 wound, and you lose 1.

combat res: warriors: 3. banner, 1 wound, and outnumber.
knights: 3. banner, flank, 1 wound.

a 120 point unit of knights just tied a 300 point unit of killing monstrosities at their own game. Don't take me wrong, they'll lose the following round, but by then you should get more dudes involved.

Empire knights are not like chaos knights or blood knights. Think of them as fast cav. Harassers and opportunistic chargers. 8 knights with a bsb and a grand master will give most rank and file units a really hard time.



as for the dwarf 4 warmachines, alright. lets see you kill 12 ITP knights with a 1+ as and regen before they hit your lines. Oh, btw: they recover their losses.

Or 12 chaos knights with a 1+as and a 4+ ward save to all shooting (magic banner, MoT)

Have fun.

You're missing hte point lad. And Yes I do know my math, thus I wouldn't make such a charge. I'm just stating how I think knights would be better. Knights by design (not in game) are designed for frontal charges - in this game - that doesn't work.

Dwarf warmachine: you hit dead on - also why I don't waste my time with fantasty anymore. The game is not fun.

elrodogg
10-14-2009, 08:12 AM
I hate to disagree with all of you, but there is nothing wrong with the basic human knight. I play empire and 2 units of 5 knight with musician make it into every list of mine and they rock. IMHO A standard unit of plain old human knights should not be able to punch through an infantry block. Now, if you go 9 strong plus a character, give it a standard and a magic standard then you have a unit that could potentially punch through an opposing infantry block. Then again, you're talking about au 400pt investment which should be able to do so.

If you are dead set on making knights better, you should look at the rules for Warhammer Historicals. IIRC if on the charge the unit of knights wins, the opposing unit is auto-broken.

S0ULDU5T
11-03-2009, 09:09 PM
1)They often have a 1+ or 2+ AS, but much in the game either reduces it or negates it all together.
Reduction of the armor save vs. strength is true for any model but honestly there isn't much that negates armor saves in fantasy so this isn't really a valid point. Sure, you have characters with a few expensive weapons, and artillery but I'm not fualting those becuase thats what magical weapons and cannons are supposed to do. However, there are no power fists, lightning claws, thunder hammers, force weapons, or power weapons laying around for each unit to have something that ignores armor so I'd say the majority of the time the greatest threat a 1+ armor save model is going to face is a great weapon...a great weapon which would reduce the armor save of the attacking model and make them always strike last.


2)Most knights only have 1 attack, with any killing power, and that is only on the charge (horse attack not included)

It makes no sense not to include the horses. Sure they have a different stateline, but the extra attack from the horse is built into the point cost as much as the speed that it provides. Besides, all good fantasy players know that the horses always do better than the riders.


3)Most knights are WS 4, this is current only average or below average - so your chances of the 1 attack hitting are already reduced to 50%

It might be average (most certiantly NOT below average, shesh), but there are plenty of whole armies that would kill for WS4 such as lizardmen, undead, etc so still nothing to scoff at .


4) Price: knights are too expensive to overcome the lack of killing power with static combat rez. One static rank cost can easily cost you 100-140 pts, once that first models fails, no rank bonus = 140 wasted points so that can not fight.

This is why Brettonia can get rank bonuses while only having three models in a rank, I've never seen a Bretonnia player lacking in SCR.


no killing power once engaging in CC, 2nd rounds.

I would have to agree. At my LGS where fantasy is very popular Bretonnia is viewed as a very 'one trick pony' kinda army becuase once the charge is over theres not much left. Theres one great Bretonnian player that, after the charge he's so talented that he still puts up a hell of a fight and wins often - seeing it happen against a compotent VC was amazing but the majority of the time a Brettonian army is all about the charge and nothing else. To really fix them, they just need the overhual LM got, a rebalancing and more choices rather than just more power.


(and its probably against something S4!) Strength of the target wouldn't matter so I can only guess you meant T4, to which I reply to quit your *****ing. Tired of everyone *****ing about 2 attack models and t4 models when it's simply people seeing what they want to and overlooking the rest.


Ok. If you're sending wimpy Empire knights into the front of armoured static 5 infantry, you deserve to have them smashed to pieces.

Awesome. Right on.

Lord Azaghul
11-04-2009, 07:36 AM
Reduction of the armor save vs. strength is true for any model but honestly there isn't much that negates armor saves in fantasy so this isn't really a valid point.


It Strength of the target wouldn't matter so I can only guess you meant T4, to which I reply to quit your *****ing. Tired of everyone *****ing about 2 attack models and t4 models when it's simply people seeing what they want to and overlooking the rest.


.

Armour reduction, so you missed the the slew of ' no armour saves allowed' over the last year. And DE geting armour piecing in half of their army? WS 4 on lizards: so you also missed the 20+ attacks at WS3 S4 ?
Clearly you don't even play this game

On the gripping note. You're wrong. Just plan wrong. GW will not change the product until the realized that something is wrong with it. And there is. Fantasy isn't selling must anymore any they now it.

And you should know better then to try and silence someone by baiting them. You silence them by ignoring them.

Aldramelech
11-04-2009, 11:20 AM
I hate to disagree with all of you, but there is nothing wrong with the basic human knight. I play empire and 2 units of 5 knight with musician make it into every list of mine and they rock. IMHO A standard unit of plain old human knights should not be able to punch through an infantry block. Now, if you go 9 strong plus a character, give it a standard and a magic standard then you have a unit that could potentially punch through an opposing infantry block. Then again, you're talking about au 400pt investment which should be able to do so.

If you are dead set on making knights better, you should look at the rules for Warhammer Historicals. IIRC if on the charge the unit of knights wins, the opposing unit is auto-broken.

Agreed.

S0ULDU5T
11-04-2009, 11:44 AM
Armour reduction, so you missed the the slew of ' no armour saves allowed' over the last year. And DE geting armour piecing in half of their army? WS 4 on lizards: so you also missed the 20+ attacks at WS3 S4 ?
Clearly you don't even play this game

On the gripping note. You're wrong. Just plan wrong. GW will not change the product until the realized that something is wrong with it. And there is. Fantasy isn't selling must anymore any they now it.

And you should know better then to try and silence someone by baiting them. You silence them by ignoring them.

What the hell are you talking about? There has been no slew of "no armor saves", DE getting armor piercing was done before with black powder weapons and no one complained and lizards are WS3 (not to mention initiative 1) at best unless you pay 16 pts for a temple guard.

You really need to lay off the drugs.

L192837465
11-06-2009, 02:39 PM
Originally Posted by Lord Azaghul View Post
Armour reduction, so you missed the the slew of ' no armour saves allowed' over the last year. And DE geting armour piecing in half of their army? WS 4 on lizards: so you also missed the 20+ attacks at WS3 S4 ?
Clearly you don't even play this game

On the gripping note. You're wrong. Just plan wrong. GW will not change the product until the realized that something is wrong with it. And there is. Fantasy isn't selling must anymore any they now it.

And you should know better then to try and silence someone by baiting them. You silence them by ignoring them.

I would LOVE to see where you're getting your inside GW financials. Fantasy sells fine. Not as much as 40k, but that's like saying Ferrari's should sell more than Civics.

A full unit of heavily armored dudes is good. No matter where you slice it.