|
Post by Cal1989 on Jul 29, 2015 18:55:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Jul 29, 2015 19:36:08 GMT
The only thing is that it is a name for mercenaries, and Brettonian lore doesn't really leave room for that. What about Knights of the Land.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Jul 29, 2015 22:43:54 GMT
What do you guys think about "Field Knights" as the name for the Foot Knights.
|
|
|
Post by TheREALricksalamone on Jul 29, 2015 23:01:08 GMT
Cool with me. Are there are round table guys on this forum? Did someone reach out to them?
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Jul 30, 2015 0:55:27 GMT
Terreliers? Portmanteau of the french "Terre" (land) with Chevalier (knight)
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Jul 30, 2015 17:03:54 GMT
Too much like terrier. I like field knights the best
|
|
|
Post by Baronthehumbled on Aug 1, 2015 18:09:31 GMT
Terreliers? Portmanteau of the french "Terre" (land) with Chevalier (knight) Good effort, friend, but the problem is that when translated to German it becomes landsknecht...that might be a little to close to the Empire for a Bretonnian's tastes. I personally think pauper knights would be a suitable name (poor knights or exiles unable to afford the fineries of most knights but still loyal to land and crown). I have posted this question in at the Round Table and will give you lads the feed back of the noble knights of that site when I can.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Aug 1, 2015 18:18:20 GMT
I really like 'Pauper Knights'.
|
|
|
Post by Baronthehumbled on Aug 1, 2015 19:37:26 GMT
Nice to hear that. It also would go with more well-established knights looking down on them with phrases like; "A pauper knight is not a proper knight."
|
|
|
Post by vazalaar on Aug 1, 2015 20:38:54 GMT
Yes, Pauper Knights is perfect!
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Aug 2, 2015 2:05:08 GMT
Oohhh. Pauper knights. So let it be written...
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Aug 2, 2015 13:43:23 GMT
Mmmm PAUPcorn chicken (when they refuse a challenge or break from combat) I love it when they call me big PAUPa (when your Bret hero slams some weedy unit of gits) Snap, Crackle, PAUP (when they get burned alive by some spell)
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Aug 2, 2015 13:58:56 GMT
LOL
|
|
|
Post by sorenj on Aug 3, 2015 9:32:54 GMT
I'm in for a bunch of comments on this armylist, which I think is a good initiative, and this is the first one. I don't play Bretonia myself but my regular opponent does.
First off denying steadfast. Steadfast is a major mechanism of the game and one should be very cautious when tampering with it. Many armies out there (O&G, Empire) are solely dependent on steadfast, so breaking that rule will have a big impact on said armies. I concur that Bretonia should have a powerful charge, and I believe they do and perhaps with some minor special add-ons they will wreck havoc on most units. Now the argument is that winning combat simply isn't enough because the opponent is steadfast. Okay, let's look at that argument for a moment. First; steadfast only occurs if the enemy has more ranks than you, which means that as a Bretonia player you do have the option of packing ranks yourself and with relatively cheap cavalry and infantry this isn't actually as impossible as it sounds. With Bowmen and the Trebucthet, Brettonia also has access to tools for thinning out these ranks before charging in. Secondly; even if the opponent is steadfast, the die could still come up 11 and 12 (it does happen) and again I will refer to the concept of strategy and tactics, meaning that you could try and take out the BSB or general before chragening in. Also keep in mind that steadfast works for and against everybody. 50 peasants will be steadfast also.
So overall I think that allowing for a rule that breaks steadfast will promote a death-star Bretonia play style, a simple point charge and win army that dosn't require any of the tactical plays that is one of the major appealing things of wargaming. People complain that canons and purple suns are boring because they require no thought or strategy, let's not make Bretonia boring.
|
|
|
Post by sorenj on Aug 3, 2015 9:55:04 GMT
Combined monster profile (the Hippogryph)
I see you've opted for a combined profile of the monsters. Although I am a fan of doing this in a general sense, I prefer the method akin to Monstrous Cavalry where you simply use a combined Toughness, Wounds, armour and ward save. Thus separating the attack profile means that magical weapons aren't as powerful add-ons as they are now because they only boost the rider. I can see that you have capped the armour save to 3+, although I don't think a 1+ armour save is going to break anyone's day, when it is really the 4+ ward save that is in many people views the biggest spoiler.
Edit: just noticed that you also made a combinded profile for the Pegasus Paladin. There is really no reason for this as the rules for putting characters on Monstrous Cavalry work fine as they are.
Secondly, you could consider adding upgrades for your monsters. As an Empire player our Pegasus can get 'Swift as the wind': re-roll 1's on charge and 'Iron-hard Hooves': re-roll failed To Wound rolls with stomp. Example suggestions for the Hippogryph could be 'Rasor Claws': Armour Piercing or 'Creature of Myth': Magical resistance (1 or 2) or 'Pure Blood': Immune to poison. (Poison really ruins your day when you're a high T monster).
|
|