Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'd make them 10 points and give them the maces base. but allow them to swap for halberd for free. The point is though bretonnia units are expensive, the knights should hold true to that, especially when you have the best warmachine in the game, and they are extremely cheap.

@ DukeRstfield they kind of added a cannon to daemons, soul grinder, and no one uses it, but thats because like you said it doesnt cost nearly what it should, it is extremely overpriced to resprent the fact that daemons shouldnt be focused on warmachines/shooting.

In closing even 10 points is a bit cheap because the thing remains they are knights, bretonnia is expensive (mostly because of the lance rules) but bretonnia is suppose to be calvary. So 16 points is too much because the lance effect is lost and horses are 8 points. So 13-14 would be reasonable. Also This is a block of infantry that will move at the rate of M@A and peasant bowmen, making it much easier to keep a "knight" in range for the peasants to use their leadership. Freeing up points so that you do not need to put a paladin in the M@A unit.

@Duke: in terms of creating new units, I agree. Of course you can't re-balance all the other books every time you want to add one thing to one book. But the conversation had drifted into pretty general terms.

But yes, it's hard to keep an army's tone and purpose when adding a new unit. And in this case, these knights are going indeed against the grain of the army. Not as much as a unit of Daemon-archers would, but you're still correct.

That's actually why I'm usually against just adding a new unit to your army book.
Designing scenarios and cool new rules on a game-by-game basis is a part of Warhammer I feel many people are missing out on, and I am finding to be tremendously fun. It takes that tense, competitive edge out of the game, and lets you cut loose a little.

My point is, as I've said, if the OP plans on running these infantry-knights in each and every list his opponent's allow him to, I'd suggest that he's probably playing the wrong army.
But if these guys appeared in some ten-player Siege game where the Vampire Counts are trying to overtake one of the border-castles of Bretonnia, or a small game where a company of Questing Knights are on a pilgrimage to Athel Loren in search of the Grail, meeting with the Asrai and Beastmen and Daemons along the way, that would be awesome.
And, more over, I think that is the best way to introduce new ideas into this game. Have you guys seen the Warp Lightning Ratling Cannon-Cannon? Now that's the kind of stuff I want (and have) in my games. I'm spending a few hundred dollars on each of my armies, and burning a whole night playing a game. I want the experience to be unique and memorable!

@Tookyflakes:

- morning stars on S3 infantry is an awful idea.
- Bretonnian knights are expensive because they are cavalry, first and foremost. At 13pts, these guys cost 1pt more than a Saurus or Hammerer, nearly double a Stormvermin, etc. A model with WS4 S3 A1 with a 4+/6(5)+ is not worth 13pts, no matter what army it's in.
- your point about the Peasant's Duty, however, is an excellent one. I would say 10-11pts for the model would make it comparable to Dwarf Warriors, which I feel would serve an almost identical tactical purpose, adding on The Blessing and the full benefits of the Vow that you have brought to light.

@ Warpsolution maybe morning stars is bad, but some knights favored that I'm just trying to be more towards the lore of knights. 13 points when compaired to a Hammer or SV, sure you're right on that, and since lance formation is worth more than a few points IMO. I would pay 11-12 for these in my bret army. Though I probably wouldnt use too many, and they would most likely replace all my M@A, making the army all knights and losing the lore behind the peasants, other than bowmen/Yeomen.

Some knights did indeed favor them, but that's because reality's stats for them are better than Warhammer's. Plus, if you gave them the upgrade as standard, the unit could only ever use them.

I prefer the concept of "high and mighty" Knights on horseback alongside lowly Men-at-Arms. Horse mounted knights supported by foot peasants are what Bretonians are all about imho. Empire is meant to be more well-rounded.

That's actually a good point.

Well, of course it is. That's the #1 reason they don't have them right now, if not the only reason. Also, the term "knight" implies enough wealth and backing to get a horse. And being on a horse in fight is better than not, so why wouldn't they?

The answer to that is, "only in very specific, unusual circumstances", as I said before. If this new unit is going to make it into every casual list ever from here on in, something is definitely wrong.

Change them to

Fallen-Off-Horse-Knights and give them Stupidity.

historically, there were foot knights. sometimes, it was necessary for knights to dismount- the terrain is bad, perhaps. the flux killed all their horses maybe, or they are defending/attacking castle walls. i am making this unit so that when it is necessary, I have that option. if you do not like it, or think that it is unfluffy, you are not required to field them or play agaisnt them.

Tookyflakes wrote:I'd make them 10 points and give them the maces base. but allow them to swap for halberd for free. The point is though bretonnia units are expensive, the knights should hold true to that, especially when you have the best warmachine in the game, and they are extremely cheap.

@ DukeRstfield they kind of added a cannon to daemons, soul grinder, and no one uses it, but thats because like you said it doesnt cost nearly what it should, it is extremely overpriced to resprent the fact that daemons shouldnt be focused on warmachines/shooting.

In closing even 10 points is a bit cheap because the thing remains they are knights, bretonnia is expensive (mostly because of the lance rules) but bretonnia is suppose to be calvary. So 16 points is too much because the lance effect is lost and horses are 8 points. So 13-14 would be reasonable. Also This is a block of infantry that will move at the rate of M@A and peasant bowmen, making it much easier to keep a "knight" in range for the peasants to use their leadership. Freeing up points so that you do not need to put a paladin in the M@A unit.

hmmm... good points.

i dont want the maces base though, but 10 points considering they lack lance rules and can make better use of the knights vow seems fair. 13-14 is too high, though. 14 points for a 1 wound model that is nowhere near as good as the cheaper greatsword? too far

Warpsolution wrote:@Duke: in terms of creating new units, I agree. Of course you can't re-balance all the other books every time you want to add one thing to one book. But the conversation had drifted into pretty general terms.

But yes, it's hard to keep an army's tone and purpose when adding a new unit. And in this case, these knights are going indeed against the grain of the army. Not as much as a unit of Daemon-archers would, but you're still correct.

That's actually why I'm usually against just adding a new unit to your army book.
Designing scenarios and cool new rules on a game-by-game basis is a part of Warhammer I feel many people are missing out on, and I am finding to be tremendously fun. It takes that tense, competitive edge out of the game, and lets you cut loose a little.

My point is, as I've said, if the OP plans on running these infantry-knights in each and every list his opponent's allow him to, I'd suggest that he's probably playing the wrong army.
But if these guys appeared in some ten-player Siege game where the Vampire Counts are trying to overtake one of the border-castles of Bretonnia, or a small game where a company of Questing Knights are on a pilgrimage to Athel Loren in search of the Grail, meeting with the Asrai and Beastmen and Daemons along the way, that would be awesome.
And, more over, I think that is the best way to introduce new ideas into this game. Have you guys seen the Warp Lightning Ratling Cannon-Cannon? Now that's the kind of stuff I want (and have) in my games. I'm spending a few hundred dollars on each of my armies, and burning a whole night playing a game. I want the experience to be unique and memorable!

@Tookyflakes:

- morning stars on S3 infantry is an awful idea.
- Bretonnian knights are expensive because they are cavalry, first and foremost. At 13pts, these guys cost 1pt more than a Saurus or Hammerer, nearly double a Stormvermin, etc. A model with WS4 S3 A1 with a 4+/6(5)+ is not worth 13pts, no matter what army it's in.
- your point about the Peasant's Duty, however, is an excellent one. I would say 10-11pts for the model would make it comparable to Dwarf Warriors, which I feel would serve an almost identical tactical purpose, adding on The Blessing and the full benefits of the Vow that you have brought to light.

i do not plan to run these all the time, they are just for fun

Blackhoof wrote:
historically, there were foot knights. sometimes, it was necessary for knights to dismount- the terrain is bad, perhaps. the flux killed all their horses maybe, or they are defending/attacking castle walls. i am making this unit so that when it is necessary, I have that option. i do not plan to run these all the time, they are just for fun

That, as I've said quite often in this thread, is the best (or maybe the only) reason for designing such a unit. Well done, and good luck to you.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Yes you do. Because the options are there for the next game.

But they're not on the field. I don't win games because my Slann has an option to take Cupped Hands, I win games because he does take Cupped Hands.

A Lizardman army where Saurus can't use spears is worse than a Lizardman army where Saurus have the option of using spears.

But a Lizardman army that cannot take spears and a Lizardman army that can take spears but chose not to are exactly the same, and should cost the same.

If we ran simulations of 50,000 games or something, the spear-capable Lizardman army would win more often.

Not if the spears are worth the price of the upgrade, or the combat effectiveness of spears is equal to the default hand weapons.

Getting rid of all the nonsense about charging for options, and just focusing making options either power neutral or priced at the cost of the power upgrade is far better game design.

Yes. That's exactly the point and what I've been saying. My emphasis added.

Yes, because he can use those other languages. But in the field, with the army picked, the Chaos Warriors can't switch from Halberds to HW & Shield. The option that was valuable in the list building section is now worthless on the field.

So the actual comparison is to a guy who could have learned other programming languages, but didn't.

There are 2 places where units are priced. DURING a game and in the book itself. Buying a weapon/item/option obviously has a direct cost. But the options of more affects the static cost of the unit, even if you don't use it. A unit that has a 100pt magic item limit vs. a 50pt limit is more valuable even if you don't use that 50pts. By your logic if it wasn't more valuable, you could give every hero a 100pt magic limit and the only thing that matters is what they actually purchase. Hell, give them a 250pt limit. That's clearly not the case. The option of having that expanded list is valuable in and of itself.

The point of magic limits on characters is not one of power balance, but one of plausible armies - it'd be stupid if every character came to the field carrying ancient and rare artifacts.

In terms of power balance, then the point is it doesn't matter, provided gear is properly priced.

It's sucky.

Sorry to hear that :(

But they are. They are available all over the world at the very same second by any number of other players. They are even available to the same player in the next game.

But not in the game he is actually playing. Which is the only one that has to balanced.

They don't do that anymore, however.

They do do that. Go read the latest army book, it's called Empire. There you'll see State troops with identical stats. Halberdiers and Spearmen are identical except for the halberds and spears. Crossbowmen and Handgunners are identical except for the weapon of choice (and option to give the Handgunners a Hochland Long Rifle).

And whether they do it or not, the point remains clear. Having a single unit with two, three, or nine weapon choices is exactly the same thing as having two, three or nine units listed in the book. They're both kinds of flexibility given to the player in the army design phase.

And demanding that an army pay a premium for an option not taken, either in terms of an alternate weapon load out, or as an alternate unit, is just bad game design.

They did kind of in the past and you'll still see some units like that. Ironguts are just Bulls with GW and HA and the option of a banner. And they are incredibly more expensive.

You've gotten yourself confused. By your argument both units should be more expensive, because Bulls have the option of being Ironguts, and so should they should pay for that.

Part of the reason all those troops exist that are only fractionally different is because people have vast legacy armies around them and they aren't going to exclude them from the new rules. But yeah, when I see them and they are 5% different, that's pretty nonsensical. They could simply be one unit with options. But they don't exist because of balance reasons. If they were starting Empire from scratch, it would probably be just one unit.

You're confusing formatting with the practical armies that can actually be put onto the field. Whether it's three units or one unit with three options, the options you can put onto the field are the same.

And making someone to pay more points because instead of Halberdiers he could have taken Spearmen makes as much sense as making someone pay more points because he could have, but didn't, pay to upgrade his Foot Knights to wield great weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warpsolution wrote:
I'm going to agree with Sebster on this part. I don't think a unit of Chaos Warriors with halberds and the mark of Khorne should cost more because they could have taken shields and the mark of Tzeentch; you've got S5 guys with Frenzy, not guys with a 3+/5+. Their potential influences how good the army could be, not how good it is.
I'll take Sebster's example further: if I made Stormvermin an upgrade to Clanrats, would Clanrats need to cost more to reflect this flexibility? I don't think so. You're either paying for the upgrade, or you're not.
The job and shotgun examples are referring to the potential that those entities offer you "in-game". Your shotgun is not like a Chaos Warrior who could get a halberd, it's like a Warrior who actually has one. The gun that could be brought back to the shop and upgraded didn't cost more because of that potential to be upgraded, the upgrade has its own cost.

Thankyou. That made my point perfectly.

And I really do think option 2 as listed by you itself holds up perfectly. The only reason options are seen as absolutely good is because in most cases they're way undercosted (charge a hefty price per model for marks and they'll quickly be seen as a neutral thing that you can take, or just as easily leave off the list).

The major reason options are undercosted is because the base level units are generally way overcosted (due to the faulty reasoning that the existance of options should be paid for). To balance this you get options that are simply far too cheap for what they do. Slann are the classic example - a Slann with his single, free upgrade choice is far too pricy for what you get, but the power increase you get from 3 more choices is worth way more than 150 points.

Now, pricing is never going to be absolutely accurate, and as such more options will always have a positive value to the player, but trying to control that by charging a premium for the base level unit causes more problems than it solves. It just makes the default unit too expensive, and therefore never taken.

The answer I think lies in the rather clever argument you put forward - to consider one army's flexibility in one place a unique advantage to them, that should be offset not with a points increase, but by their limited options elsewhere. So Chaos Warriors have the flexibility of all those possible unit upgrades, but they have very limited shooting options. You may get a massive number of options for your Slann, but you're also limited to one type of genuinely effective infantry, and those units have no access to GWs. The Empire gets a wide range of troop choices and can field something in every category, but nothing it has is truly elite.