Addition of knights

[madcam2us]

Hello,

At one time it was the general consensus that the addition of 10-12 Lh in DBM would take many armies "up" a level (i.e. from a perceived B to an A)

I think after 60+ games and two tournaments, I would say the inclusion of HA knights in 4-6s is the same. Throw those into any list and they take them up more than a few notches from hopelessly outmatched to spot on...

Take any of the Cav shooty outfits from EE, D&F, SS and give them a cadre of HA kniggets and watch out.

IMO one of the biggest gifts is the 2 dice/base in melee separates them from the rest. It is the ONE factor that can NOT be negated thru list design (meaning, Hy weapons or nellies or other counters to their armor) and takes them from tool to sledgehammer.

Cost aside; and really, since they fight at 2dice/base their cost/frontage is in line with most quality troop, who wouldn't want the ability of 4-6 of these buggers???

If I read this correctly it will make those armies dependant on pre-600BC Chariots as being able to stand up to them better than those in between. Funny that....

Thought?

Madcam.

[madcam2us]

Continuing with these thoughts, next to the 2dice/base factor that makes these boys so good has to be the availability of Superior in damn near all lists.

Really, were every swinging armored noble that much better than the rest. And don't tell me that is why some lists have the averages out there. Show me some one who takes 4 average knights when 4 superior ones are available and I'll show you a fool! IMO there are too many player choices of superior knights which should be curtailed.

Before the avalanche starts, I'm not saying knights are the be all end all. If that were the case, Med French and L. Serbs would be the armies dujour. Yes there are counters to them and shooty cav outfits with steppes can wreak havoc. Supporting BGs play so much into the game.

The OP is about the inclusion of knights and not knights are uberalles.

IMO, having limits to the amount of superior choices available (something like a ratio of superior per average taken) should have been considered during playtesting...

Madcam.

[nikgaukroger]

Take any of the Cav shooty outfits from EE, D&F, SS and give them a cadre of HA kniggets and watch out.

Useful, but not essentail to these guys - note the Seljuq without the knights won in Helsinki

IMo the more open the comp the more useful they are (having also used a version of the Seljuqs with a knight BG at Rampage)

[grahambriggs]

Continuing with these thoughts, next to the 2dice/base factor that makes these boys so good has to be the availability of Superior in damn near all lists.

Really, were every swinging armored noble that much better than the rest. And don't tell me that is why some lists have the averages out there. Show me some one who takes 4 average knights when 4 superior ones are available and I'll show you a fool! IMO there are too many player choices of superior knights which should be curtailed.

Re superior vs armoured it depends how many Kn you take. In BGs of 4 the superiors are 20 points more. With one BG I probably want it to be a tough strike unit to make a breakthrough. So the 20 points is worth it and a general probably joins in too.

At the other extreme, with 6 BGs (the most knights I've seen in an army) 120 points is a heck of a lot just to get superior - I'd rather spend that on a couple of decent support units.

[sagji]

Hello,

At one time it was the general consensus that the addition of 10-12 Lh in DBM would take many armies "up" a level (i.e. from a perceived B to an A)

I think after 60+ games and two tournaments, I would say the inclusion of HA knights in 4-6s is the same. Throw those into any list and they take them up more than a few notches from hopelessly outmatched to spot on...

Take any of the Cav shooty outfits from EE, D&F, SS and give them a cadre of HA kniggets and watch out.

IMO one of the biggest gifts is the 2 dice/base in melee separates them from the rest. It is the ONE factor that can NOT be negated thru list design (meaning, Hy weapons or nellies or other counters to their armor) and takes them from tool to sledgehammer.

Cost aside; and really, since they fight at 2dice/base their cost/frontage is in line with most quality troop, who wouldn't want the ability of 4-6 of these buggers???

If I read this correctly it will make those armies dependant on pre-600BC Chariots as being able to stand up to them better than those in between. Funny that....

Thought?

Madcam.

I would have said the numbers of LH were less than this - IIRC the number usually quoted was 6 LH.

One key difference is than in DBM only LH would have this effect, but in FoG there are other troup types that could have a similar effect - Heavy Cariots, Cataphracts, or even Elephants, good Cavalry or Camelry. Indeed many armies would be improved by adding 1 BG of 6 Superior Drilled HF Offensive Spearmen.

There is also a downside to the 2 dice per base in melee - each base you loose costs 2 dice, and as Knights tend to fight in a single rank loosing bases is possible even when they don't loose.

[carlos]

Roman swarm seems to do fine w/out any knights and probably would be worse off if they had them in the list. Same goes for a lot of armies I think. In a "Ghulam" army w/ lots of drilled sup bow swords cavalry, I'd probably rather have 2 BGs of 4 ghulams than 1 bg of 4 knights. They are useful, but cost so many points and have so many bad matchups it's hard to see the point of using them without being in bulk.

[n10cd12]

I think the swiss can have a BG of 8 Kn during the Burgundian Wars (sorry I don't have my book with me though)

[hammy]

I think the swiss can have a BG of 8 Kn during the Burgundian Wars (sorry I don't have my book with me though)

They can as per the printed book but that is an error and has been corrected in the errata http://www.fieldofglory.com/errata.html

[frederic]

I think for Kn, 3x4 are better than 2x6 but I play them 2x4 with my Lithuanians

[ColeF]

I think for Kn, 3x4 are better than 2x6 (cut)

Same here.