New units ideas

[Malanthor]

True enough, but then, whats the point in having all 4 chaos factions if they all have the same units(except for chosen of X and knight of X or something like that) might aswell just operate with 1: undivided. But i assume that this is done because the campaign needs it somehow, starting as a faction and becoming undivided when conquering the rest and some things are hardcoded, thus the system? or something like that. I dont mind really, it just takes away some of the flair of playing a chaos faction when everyone other prairie-wanking-chaos-hoodlum have the same units as you.

[Vaz]

They don't all have the same units. Try playing the campaign either as them, or against them (as either of the Elves or Kislev).

Until you either make them appear (as playing, kill of all other chaos factions), or until turn 16 (IIRC, with all 4 as Chaos Factions), they have mark specific units.

[Praetorian Captain]

Wonderful list bu I was wondering if there could be some Bretonnian Knights on foot (to represent kinghts who had the virtue of Empathy) Not have them any any big numbers, most definatly small ones; but it would give them something better than bowmen and men at arms when defending castle walls; and to make sure there are fewer of them make them expensive and higher to upkeep.

[Werebear]

Wonderful list bu I was wondering if there could be some Bretonnian Knights on foot (to represent kinghts who had the virtue of Empathy) Not have them any any big numbers, most definatly small ones; but it would give them something better than bowmen and men at arms when defending castle walls; and to make sure there are fewer of them make them expensive and higher to upkeep.

omg read armybook

[Praetorian Captain]

omg read armybook

For you info I have a Bretonian army, and the army book too. So i do know what I am talking about. I only mentioned it, because without some foot knight unit you will have little chance of holding a keep with Men-at-Arms, and Bowmen (since in the table tob they break without a knight nearby, and you can't have horses on the walls.). And i even read the novel Knight Errant and Knight of the Realm (which i would suggest for some good reading), and in the latter there are Knights on Foot. I happen to enjoy playing my Brets and am awaiting the 8th edition core rules to see if there will be any new changes (and especially Bretonnian Changes).

Granted i started on 7th edition, but I had heard that there used to be a foot knight unit in the earlier edition but they were taken out in a later edition.

[Kaliaeth Chillblade]

Well firstly, on TT a unit of Men at Arms will most certainly not automatically break if a Knight is not nearby.

Secondly, in no way should the novels be considered absolute canon material. GW has said this many many times. After all, they are the masters of self-contradiction.

[Praetorian Captain]

Well firstly, on TT a unit of Men at Arms will most certainly not automatically break if a Knight is not nearby.

Secondly, in no way should the novels be considered absolute canon material. GW has said this many many times. After all, they are the masters of self-contradiction.

Good point but odds are against them holding let alone winning. And in the game a Paladin with the Virtue of Empathy can be fielded on foot, as per the rules in the book. It would also explain the reasoning for the models on foot

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/ca...dId=prod780915

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/ca...dId=prod780914

Both of these representing Paladins on foot. No to mention Anthony Reynolds, who wrote the 2 books in question has worked with Games Workshop.

Besides all i did was ask about a single foot knight unit and not a very big one; and i get my head bit off, for just making the suggestion.

[Kaliaeth Chillblade]

If the odds were actually against them holding a superior position ontop a castle wall, let alone winning, then every Bretonnian caste would have been taken by Orcs, Beastmen, and worse by now. In fact, considering that the bulk of a Bretonnian army is, like every other army, made up of common infantry then Bretonnia should have fallen to its enemies long ago. That is if Bretonnian infantry is as incompetant and useless as you seem to be suggesting. Yes, their knights are powerful, but their numbers are finite.

Paladins are HERO choices in TT, not units thus your logic is flawed. That is what the single pack models you reference are for. To provide specific HERO models for your TT Army. The same goes for the Knight of the Realm Hero model. In no way does their existance suggest units of foot knights. If foot knights were a common occurance in the Bretonnian Army then they would be a Unit choice in the Armybook. Further, Knights take their status as Nobles very seriously (and egotistically), and along with the status comes the right to own and ride a Breton Warhorse. Thus, nearly all Knights would never consider debasing themselves by slogging in the mud like common peasant infantry. This is the entire reason why the Virtue of Empathy is a requirement for a Paladin or Hero to fight on foot to begin with. Get it?

Anthony Reynolds in only one of many writers who has worked for GW to have his work contradicted by Games Workshop. GW contradicts their own work on a monthy basis. Ever read White Dwarf? The WD Staff and the 'Eavy Metal Team work for GW currently and lots of things they publish is contradicted by GW as well. In GW's own words, the only things that are canon are the things GW says are canon. So this point of contention, and Mr. Reynolds' previous status in GW employ, are totally moot. Don't mistake me by thinking I'm taking GW's side on any of that. I'm just telling you the facts. You can complain if you like, but you'll have to take a number behind the thousands who are ahead of you, including myself.

isilendil is the grumpy sort. He bit your head off because that is what he often does when he gets frustrated. And he's easily frustrated by suggestions that come from in-complete research. It wasn't personal, and you should understand that he has had to deal with ALOT of very idiotic "suggestions" that later turned into demands, that later turned in accusations of forced suppression by "the man" when those "suggestions" were not automatically accepted and lauded as genius ideas. I'm not saying your suggestion was idiotic, but alot of them in the recent past have been.. like demands for Chaos Space Marines and Defilers as warmachines. This occurances have, IMO, left him kinda..."hair trigger" grumpy ready to jump down anyone's throat at a moments notice. Personally, I can't blame him, and I think maybe some of the rest of us have been similarly affected.

It's the taint of Chaos I tells ya! Khorne's hand is everywhere!

If you really really want your dismounted knights I suggest talking to Vaz. He might still be planning them for his Sub-Mod.

[Redron]

I'm fairly sure that knights don't just chill in the keep when their castles are attacked. I would think they would either dismount and fight on the walls OR sally out en masse (more honourable ^^).

Oh and fyi Brettonian peasants do break at the slightest hint of danger, they have the leadership of goblins.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

If the odds were actually against them holding a superior position ontop a castle wall, let alone winning, then every Bretonnian caste would have been taken by Orcs, Beastmen, and worse by now. In fact, considering that the bulk of a Bretonnian army is, like every other army, made up of common infantry then Bretonnia should have fallen to its enemies long ago. That is if Bretonnian infantry is as incompetant and useless as you seem to be suggesting. Yes, their knights are powerful, but their numbers are finite.

Paladins are HERO choices in TT, not units thus your logic is flawed. That is what the single pack models you reference are for. To provide specific HERO models for your TT Army. The same goes for the Knight of the Realm Hero model. In no way does their existance suggest units of foot knights. If foot knights were a common occurance in the Bretonnian Army then they would be a Unit choice in the Armybook. Further, Knights take their status as Nobles very seriously (and egotistically), and along with the status comes the right to own and ride a Breton Warhorse. Thus, nearly all Knights would never consider debasing themselves by slogging in the mud like common peasant infantry. This is the entire reason why the Virtue of Empathy is a requirement for a Paladin or Hero to fight on foot to begin with. Get it?

Anthony Reynolds in only one of many writers who has worked for GW to have his work contradicted by Games Workshop. GW contradicts their own work on a monthy basis. Ever read White Dwarf? The WD Staff and the 'Eavy Metal Team work for GW currently and lots of things they publish is contradicted by GW as well. In GW's own words, the only things that are canon are the things GW says are canon. So this point of contention, and Mr. Reynolds' previous status in GW employ, are totally moot. Don't mistake me by thinking I'm taking GW's side on any of that. I'm just telling you the facts. You can complain if you like, but you'll have to take a number behind the thousands who are ahead of you, including myself.

isilendil is the grumpy sort. He bit your head off because that is what he often does when he gets frustrated. And he's easily frustrated by suggestions that come from in-complete research. It wasn't personal, and you should understand that he has had to deal with ALOT of very idiotic "suggestions" that later turned into demands, that later turned in accusations of forced suppression by "the man" when those "suggestions" were not automatically accepted and lauded as genius ideas. I'm not saying your suggestion was idiotic, but alot of them in the recent past have been.. like demands for Chaos Space Marines and Defilers as warmachines. This occurances have, IMO, left him kinda..."hair trigger" grumpy ready to jump down anyone's throat at a moments notice. Personally, I can't blame him, and I think maybe some of the rest of us have been similarly affected.

It's the taint of Chaos I tells ya! Khorne's hand is everywhere!

If you really really want your dismounted knights I suggest talking to Vaz. He might still be planning them for his Sub-Mod.

Honstely CP. got a point, but that just means they have to move the knights out side the walls and well it works fine most of the time (not in table top, just read a old battle report from WD 324 and brit lost against the old Dark elf )

[Praetorian Captain]

isilendil is the grumpy sort. He bit your head off because that is what he often does when he gets frustrated. And he's easily frustrated by suggestions that come from in-complete research. It wasn't personal, and you should understand that he has had to deal with ALOT of very idiotic "suggestions" that later turned into demands, that later turned in accusations of forced suppression by "the man" when those "suggestions" were not automatically accepted and lauded as genius ideas. I'm not saying your suggestion was idiotic, but alot of them in the recent past have been.. like demands for Chaos Space Marines and Defilers as warmachines. This occurances have, IMO, left him kinda..."hair trigger" grumpy ready to jump down anyone's throat at a moments notice. Personally, I can't blame him, and I think maybe some of the rest of us have been similarly affected.

I thank you for the tone and the explaination; all it was was a suggestion nothing more; I'm not going to demand anything.

I did have some holes in my research, some of it i got through history books in which Knights would fight from the walls dismounted to hold the keep or walls; take for example the Knight Templar in their castles in the holy land; so i kind of put some pieces together and thought that if i was a knight of Bretonnia and i thought of peasant men at arms as unreliable at best I would want to be standing right over their shoulder and make sure they would not break and run.

CORE M WS BS S T W I A Ld

Man-at-arms 4 2 2 3 3 1 3 1 5

The Peasant’s Duty

I mean the above numbers do not really inspire much confidence. The same info can also be found on page 53 of the Bretonnian 7th edition rules with a full explaination or on page 67 with price and additonal options for the unit.

It's y'alls mod in the end, and it's up to you what you add and don't; I may like defending from the walls but i can always defend from the streets too (A unit of Men at Arms is very good for setting up a flank charge <.< >.>)

I just have one more question though; why are their no Errant Knights?

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

there is Errant knights in the game ( i got them in as averland, and you can properly get as any empire player)

[Arch-hereticK]

I dislike the new rule of no Bretonian knight on foot, it's not like the good old days, or even the fluff surrounding it. I still have a unit of disgraced-knights from the second edition, they're pretty cool.

I think the best way around the problem in TW is to have disgraced knights only available as generals bodyguards, so they remain special and rare, just to give bretonia a boost in the siege department.

[Kaliaeth Chillblade]

I'm fairly sure that knights don't just chill in the keep when their castles are attacked. I would think they would either dismount and fight on the walls OR sally out en masse (more honourable ^^).

Oh and fyi Brettonian peasants do break at the slightest hint of danger, they have the leadership of goblins.

Read up on your Bretons. Sallying out is exactly what Bretonnian Knights do. They don't wait for you to come over the walls. Afterall, Gilles the Uniter never did.

Breton Peasants don't break at the slightest hint of danger, neither the lore or TT rules support that statement. LD 5 is not a bad score. LD 3 is a bad score. Gobbos actually have a LD of 6, one less than Orcs, in 7th Ed rules. You wanna talk about something that makes no sense, that makes no sense! But of course many issues with lore do not support TT and vice versa. Gobbo rules made more sense in 4th Ed.. LD 5 until they lost half their number then their LD dropped to 4, then 3.

I dislike the issue of Bret Knights not fighting on foot as well, but what are ya gonna do? A sub-mod, that's what yer gonna do. I see no problem personally with a Foot-Knight unit being available every 8 turns or w/e, but that's just me. I've learned that arguing with the CoW team is usually pointless, though. I mean, they added Witch Hunters as a unit of infantry, and that is most certainly not canon or in the Armybook, so you can see the kind of inconsistancy we're dealing with here. My advice: let it go like I did with the Witch Hunters. It's an easier solution for me to just remove the WH unit from my 1.4 install than to debate with them, just as it will be an easier solution for those of you who want Bret Foot-Knights to make your own or wait for Vaz or someone else to do it.

[Zanteris]

Edit: moved the post to general suggestions, I'll just post my "new unit" idea:

Giants. Chaos and otherwise. Could be scaled up normal units with the ability to attack units on walls and the ability to throw stones?

Funnnnnn!

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

LD 5 is not a bad score.

Postive thinking I see

[TheVulture98]

Read up on your Bretons. Sallying out is exactly what Bretonnian Knights do. They don't wait for you to come over the walls. Afterall, Gilles the Uniter never did.

Breton Peasants don't break at the slightest hint of danger, neither the lore or TT rules support that statement. LD 5 is not a bad score. LD 3 is a bad score. Gobbos actually have a LD of 6, one less than Orcs, in 7th Ed rules. You wanna talk about something that makes no sense, that makes no sense! But of course many issues with lore do not support TT and vice versa. Gobbo rules made more sense in 4th Ed.. LD 5 until they lost half their number then their LD dropped to 4, then 3.

I dislike the issue of Bret Knights not fighting on foot as well, but what are ya gonna do? A sub-mod, that's what yer gonna do. I see no problem personally with a Foot-Knight unit being available every 8 turns or w/e, but that's just me. I've learned that arguing with the CoW team is usually pointless, though. I mean, they added Witch Hunters as a unit of infantry, and that is most certainly not canon or in the Armybook, so you can see the kind of inconsistancy we're dealing with here. My advice: let it go like I did with the Witch Hunters. It's an easier solution for me to just remove the WH unit from my 1.4 install than to debate with them, just as it will be an easier solution for those of you who want Bret Foot-Knights to make your own or wait for Vaz or someone else to do it.

Yes it is true that on most cases the favoured Bretonnian response to a siege (by the Knights) is to ride out and meet them Helm's Deep style but Black Library books are considered canon by Games Workshop. Whether we like it or not it is part of the fluff and in the second Bretonnian novel by Anthony Reynolds (Knight of the Realm)the Knights do fight on the walls during a siege. Therefore, there is reason to believe that there might be foot units of knights during sieges. Also in the army book of Bretonnia in the Virtues section the Virtue of Empathy's description makes it quite clear that certain knights do fight on foot albeit in small numbers. I would not say that a unit of dismounted knights in open battle would be plausible because it sure of hell isn't but according to canon it is possible to have some, and in-game thats all the justification you need really because you simply can't make it 100% lore compliant while keeping Bretonnia balanced. If they do happen though it better be really rare.

As a Bretonnian player who has a sizable force (4250pts) and has played many games with them I have to completely dissagree with your statement here. Bretonnian peasants whether they are Men-at-Arms or Bowmen run all the time. Especially when they face Fear or Terror causing armies like Vampire Counts. This is all assuming no Knight is near them to keep them in line, if you have a unit of Knights near them they are quite sturdy.

p.s I also am not very happy with the Witch Hunters decision. It is against lore and not needed for balance. It is an unneccessary unit to appease those people who don't know enough about the lore to know better.

[Praetorian Captain]

Yeah; i'm waiting for Vaz's sub-mod anyway. And i have a torunament coming up soon to run a Bret list; i'll let you know how the peasant do, since I'm running 2 M@A's and a Bowman unit, as well as a large contingenbt of Knights.

[Werebear]

p.s I also am not very happy with the Witch Hunters decision. It is against lore and not needed for balance. It is an unneccessary unit to appease those people who don't know enough about the lore to know better.

it is just your view in 99% of cases will not affect the decision of the team, all who disagree with any decision can easily create "sabmod", that nobody opposes.
We simply ask you not to try to organize discussion what so ever here about what we're wrong, because the topic was made for the proposals. You can write your negative comments in the newly created your topic. It is not forbidden.

But as all modders who didn't earn money for our work we don't like any criticize from nonteam members. It is OUR work that WE made in OUR free time....

We made it for us first of all.

please try to understand and accept that


You only can help (with work) or dont do harm...

[TheVulture98]

it is just your view in 99% of cases will not affect the decision of the team, all who disagree with any decision can easily create "sabmod", that nobody opposes.
We simply ask you not to try to organize discussion what so ever here about what we're wrong, because the topic was made for the proposals. You can write your negative comments in the newly created your topic. It is not forbidden.

But as all modders who didn't earn money for our work we don't like any criticize from nonteam members. It is OUR work that WE made in OUR free time....

We made it for us first of all.

please try to understand and accept that


You only can help (with work) or dont do harm...

Well when you put it like that. So basically the whole mod is for you and if we have anything negative about the mod to say that might help it be more accurate and a better experience for everyone dont say anything because you don't like it. I love your guys work so far, I really do. I think it is amazing. The CoW mod is better than vanilla Med2 but what you just said made me lose a whole lot of respect for you.

You basically just said you don't want to listen to any negative criticism from the community. You made the mod for you and if we don't like the way you put your mod together than we can screw off. Sound accurate?

I have no modding skill and so cannot create my own submod based on what I think. All I can do is share my opinion and what I think will make this mod BETTER. I am not doing any "harm" I am just trying to make this mod better. I understand you will do with the mod what you will but to tell anyone to not say that they think something is a bad idea or inaccurate is ridiculous.


All I did was make a small aside to a person who thinks likewise in a topic which I was also discussing in the addition of certain Bretonnian units a person thinks should be included, This aside was simply about an agreed lore inaccuracy. I really do not see the need for you to basically tell me to shut up so you don't have to listen to my "negative comments". It is called constructive criticism, and whether or not you believe me, it helps the mod grow and become better.


Isilendil keep up the great work, seriously, I love the teams work. If I have anything else to say about the mod that might be negative ill make sure to keep it to myself.