|
Post by DiscoQing on Oct 8, 2017 14:58:03 GMT
I understand that, but you're ignoring my points, lol.
Also the 3 wide formation also means less attacks back, so is an offensive + defensive formation. Which makes sense...
So basically, the rules here have dumbed down the formation because it's confusing (which in itself, confuses me!), and the unit gets more attacks (maybe). At the cost of character and defense... Hmm...
Then the Lady's blessing is more confusing, haha. Give with one hand, take away with the other!
I think I'd rather just play empire or the 6th edition book.
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Oct 8, 2017 15:06:19 GMT
I understand that, but you're ignoring my points, lol. Also the 3 wide formation also means less attacks back, so is an offensive + defensive formation. Which makes sense... So basically, the rules here have dumbed down the formation because it's confusing (which in itself, confuses me!), and the unit gets more attacks (maybe). At the cost of character and defense... Hmm... Then the Lady's blessing is more confusing, haha. Give with one hand, take away with the other! I think I'd rather just play empire or the 6th edition book. I didn't ignore anything. You asked why, I explained. Read through the threads on the other drafts for a more in depth explanation of all of it. I also don't think it dumbs down anything. I do agree that the blessing is too complex. The part of other units outnumbering knight units is a bit rough, as the knights units are going to be in the thick of things more, thus whittled down sooner. The solution, though, is to just play with more knight units.
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Oct 8, 2017 15:09:05 GMT
I do agree that the blessing is too complex. The part of other units outnumbering knight units is a bit rough, as the knights units are going to be in the thick of things more, thus whittled down sooner. The solution, though, is to just play with more knight units. Or... Ignore it. Too complicated, long winded and unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Oct 8, 2017 15:36:16 GMT
I do agree that the blessing is too complex. The part of other units outnumbering knight units is a bit rough, as the knights units are going to be in the thick of things more, thus whittled down sooner. The solution, though, is to just play with more knight units. Or... Ignore it. Too complicated, long winded and unnecessary. It needs to be in there, but fewer conditions.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Oct 9, 2017 5:16:29 GMT
I understand that, but you're ignoring my points, lol. Also the 3 wide formation also means less attacks back, so is an offensive + defensive formation. Which makes sense... So basically, the rules here have dumbed down the formation because it's confusing (which in itself, confuses me!), and the unit gets more attacks (maybe). At the cost of character and defense... Hmm... Then the Lady's blessing is more confusing, haha. Give with one hand, take away with the other! I think I'd rather just play empire or the 6th edition book. ----------Hi DiscoQing, Thanks for the comments. You raise good points about the blessing. Regarding lance formation, why is it confusing? "Prowess of the Joust" gives the models two special rules: Impact Hits (1) and Fight in Extra ranks. To be clear, that means the models have the two specified special rules from the rulebook. Also, the knights can add their Strength bonus from their lance to the the impact hit. Could you recommend a better way to write it, if it's unclear? or tell me specifically what confused you? or do you mean something else? Regarding why the rule was created, it's partly aesthetics. I always hated the look of the three wide buses. This rule is designed to encouraged players to deploy their knights in a formation wider, which 1. looks cool and 2. makes it practical to deploy wider because doing so provides more impact hits. Lastly, it makes a Bret charge really scary.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Oct 10, 2017 11:37:10 GMT
Although I agree that I like the lance formation as it made the Bret Knights a bit different (although showing my age, I'm used to the old arrow formation rather that the 3 wide one), I actually like the new rules more, as I think it reflects the role of Calvary more accurately i.e. simulating the devastation of the initial charge. Just theory hammering a unit of 15 Knights of the realm with full command. New rules: 16 S6 attacks on the charge with 5 S6 impact hits. Plus 5 S3 attacks from the mounts. Old rules: 12 S6 attacks from the Knights + 11(?) S3 from the mounts (I'm assuming they all got to attack from the lance formation). From the charge/attacks side, I know which I would prefer. There are a couple of drawbacks to the new rules however. If they don't decimate the unit on the charge, then they are potentially in trouble as they are unlikely to be steadfast (again you could say this simulates reality). It seems you also need more Knights in a unit to be at effective (you really want at least 15 to take advantage of the rules, whereas you could previously take 9). You also are unlikely to be steadfast due to the lack of ranks. Edit - repeating myself, meant to say about the reduction in combat Rez, from fewer ranks and that casualties against the unit impact that more. Grail Knights are a bit of an odd one as with a unit of 9, I don't think they gain any attacks (bar the 5 impact hits), again this is assuming that in the old formation Knights not in the front rank still get 2 attacks. However the 2 wounds each gives them extra durability. I suppose the question becomes does the extra potential damage in the charge offset the loss of potential steadfast/ranks in follow up combat rounds? (I did toy with suggesting giving them devastating charge but the FiER rule is effectively the same but only favours large units and if they get devastating charge as well, I suspect this makes them too OP on the charge and if they were underpowered, this should have been picked up in testing way before this version). KevinC my one feedback on a character is on Louen. Having +2 Str on the sword (when charging) + D3 Str from his special rule seems potentially overkill on Str items. Without the sword he would still hit between S5 and S7. Is his aim to be particularly set up as a monster hunter? I'm not sure what I would change though, perhaps make the sword re-rolls to hit instead? A final point, he shows as also armed with a lance but the sword (being magical) would trump this. Is it a backup incase his sword is destroyed (e.g. Covering bases 😀). When I get a chance I'll have a proper look at the list but it's definitely swaying me (more than I was already) to start a Bret' army! (I do love the re-introduction of Pauper Knights and the new dreadknights)
|
|
bigal
New Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by bigal on Feb 10, 2018 3:30:05 GMT
How could you take out lance formation?!? That's the signature bret look! Who cares if it looks awkward, it was cool!
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Feb 10, 2018 15:47:22 GMT
How could you take out lance formation?!? That's the signature bret look! Who cares if it looks awkward, it was cool! ----------It's still there technically. So, the proper Lance Formation was only in 5th edition (the true wedge formation) and that looked cool. In 6th edition, they changed it to 'Bus Formation,' which was merely 3 Knights wide, and typically 9, 12, and 15 ranks deep. I hated this look. The Prowess of the Joust rule in this list is a great deal about the aesthetic. Wide units (7, 8, 9, 10! wide) of Knight look awesome, so the rules are designed to encourage this kind of deployment. The wider the Bretonnian Knight unit is, the more impact hits they receive on the charge.
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on Feb 10, 2018 22:00:23 GMT
I dunno Kevin. Problem is at the points cost of knights and steadfast rules it’s tough to justify going very wide. Agreee that the narrow look of Bret’s is iconic even if hard to use. Heck the bus ran for three editions of WFB the true lance only 1.
|
|
bigal
New Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by bigal on Feb 11, 2018 3:44:18 GMT
I dunno Kevin. Problem is at the points cost of knights and steadfast rules it’s tough to justify going very wide. Agreee that the narrow look of Bret’s is iconic even if hard to use. Heck the bus ran for three editions of WFB the true lance only 1. Yes! Nailed it! Steadfast VS cost, knights at 24+ per model would need almost 400pts to be 15 Strong for 3 ranks, a unit of 9 knights is under 250 for 3 ranks with old lance formation rule. You go from having 4-6 medium sized units and a small unit or two, to only 2 units of 15 knights after characters and trebs. If you want wide units of knights to break units on the charge, then they need something that negates steadfast.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Feb 11, 2018 3:56:24 GMT
I dunno Kevin. Problem is at the points cost of knights and steadfast rules it’s tough to justify going very wide. Agreee that the narrow look of Bret’s is iconic even if hard to use. Heck the bus ran for three editions of WFB the true lance only 1. Yes! Nailed it! Steadfast VS cost, knights at 24+ per model would need almost 400pts to be 15 Strong for 3 ranks, a unit of 9 knights is under 250 for 3 ranks with old lance formation rule. You go from having 4-6 medium sized units and a small unit or two, to only 2 units of 15 knights after characters and trebs. If you want wide units of knights to break units on the charge, then they need something that negates steadfast. ----------OR more damage output...are you guys only thinking about Goblins and Skaven? Elite units should be terrified of impact hits from Knights. In the playtest games I've seen, units of Bretonnian Knights are scary with their impact hits and they can destroy infantry units with 30 or fewer models.
|
|
bigal
New Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by bigal on Feb 11, 2018 4:04:05 GMT
How about high elves? Or armies that can fight hard with higher initiative, like WoC? After the initial charge, brets suck in combat, they need something to break through steadfast without having each unit cost a fortune.
|
|
|
Post by alanthemoderate on Feb 11, 2018 7:57:27 GMT
Forgive me if I am working purely from mathhammer, and theory on the 6th edition book, and on this, but doesn't it seem like the one thing Bretonnia really excelled at was killing elite units? The thing it seems to suffer with (At least on paper) is dealing with Steadfast hordes. Bringing huge hordes of Peasants as been incredibly nerfed by your points increase (One point for a spear peasant, and 2 points for a halberd peasant does seem strangely expensive), and removal of the peasant's Duty special rule.
Meaning a player can never engage a unit that s/he can't effectively bring down to less ranks than him/her own knight unit, making charging anything with high initiative or Always Strikes First with your knights a worryingly risky proposal. At least with the old rules you can bring a brick of peasants for the cost of clanrats, and use them to hold a unit while your knights get a flank charge, or bring 3 characters with good saves in a defensive line in front of your knights.
Just some thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on Feb 11, 2018 13:14:56 GMT
I haven’t tried your new rules Kevin. Just commenting on design philosophy. You are the EEFL rules writer and do it better with more skill then I could. But I have two issues one the math hammer and more importantly as a general principle I think you should keep the general rules of most books the same while updating the nuances. If I was an 8th Ed player who was showing up to play against someone with EEFl Brets I woul want the rules to be basically the same. Non monstrous cavalry with impact hits would be a shocker.
Three wide also gives those lance formation some protection with a character wall and lets you concentrate force better by combo charging two units.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Feb 11, 2018 14:20:42 GMT
Well, you guys raise good points, but remember too, that Bretonnian players don't have to use my list. If they prefer the 6th edition army book, they can use that. I'm a huge fan of the original 5th edition book written by Nigel Stillman. I never liked the 6th edition book.
Regarding the commoners, I didn't like that they turned commoners into human-goblins in 6th. The commoners in my list are humans with LD 6. They are a tad more expensive for two reasons: 1. they do have a better profile than before and Empire humans increased in cost too. 2. Bretonnians are suppose to be an army about Knights, if you want a strong infantry army backed by Knights, see Warhammer: Empire. I took out 'a peasants duty' because the human infantry in this list do not need special rules, again this army is about the Knights. I did make a commoner character to enhance their LD and for players that might like to play the Commoner Army.
Regarding the Lance. You guys make me wonder if maybe the special rule for them should just be negating steadfast. Perhaps it could be that when a unit of Bret Knights, consisting of 10 or more knight models, charge a unit of infantry, the charged unit loses steadfast for the turn (if they have it). A unit of ten is just under 300 points. This would also encourage players to field large units of Knights, not small units of 6.
And/or, may I should just bring back the REAL Lance Formation (wedge formation), which could operate similar to the original way and negate steadfast.
Another inspiration for the wide formation was, back in the 5th ed days, one of my all-time fav battle reports was Nigel Stillman's Bretonnians vs. Rick Priestley's High Elves. Nigel took a huge unit of 20 Knights of the Realm and deployed them in two ranks of ten (this was partly to minimize the penetrating ranks of the elven bolt throwers) and I think he gave the unit a magic banner that allowed them to pass through difficult ground without a problem. Anyway, the unit looked so cool. Again this is another reason 8th ed. would become my fav edition of WFB, because large and wide units look awesome and (finally) with 8th, these formations became extremely potent in the game (i.e. steadfast, Horde formation, etc.).
|
|