Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Neferata/Walach Harkon/Zacharias/Ushoran DLC ideas

2

Comments

  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231

    Bretonnia also has Foot Knights. When situations require it, they will fight on foot alongside the peasants.
    Monfort has the largest amount of them due to its mountainous regions.

    This isn't even the definition of a Foot Knight... this is the definition of a Mounted Knight dismounting when situation requires it.
    So they exist. If ordered to, this unit of Knight will fight on foot.
    That's not a Foot Knight... That is not a Knight who's normative means of Combat is on Foot, as prior asserted.

    There's several other VC units from the TT and lore that can be added, particularly of the Necrarch variety. Abyssal Terrors (not to be confused with Dread Abyssals) and Wickermen for instance. Blood Dragons also had access to Skeleton Bowmen and Trebuchets unlike the other bloodlines.

    Give me all of them.



    ~Blood Dragon Bloodline Associated Units~
    Blood Dragon Footknights (Sword and Shield)
    Blood Dragon Footknights (Dual Sword)
    Blood Dragon Footknights (Great Weapons)
    Blood Knights on Hellsteeds?

    Why the hell would I want Foot Knights with the Blood Dragons? The Blood Dragons whole stick is that they are undead Bretonnia.


    Some Bretonnian knights do fight dismounted.



    ~Blood Dragon Bloodline Associated Units~
    Blood Dragon Footknights (Sword and Shield)
    Blood Dragon Footknights (Dual Sword)
    Blood Dragon Footknights (Great Weapons)
    Blood Knights on Hellsteeds?

    Why the hell would I want Foot Knights with the Blood Dragons? The Blood Dragons whole stick is that they are undead Bretonnia.


    Bretonnia also has Foot Knights. When situations require it, they will fight on foot alongside the peasants.
    Monfort has the largest amount of them due to its mountainous regions.
    No they do not have Foot Knights. Foot Knight implies that they fight on foot as a preference as their normative means of engaging in battle. That is not true for Bretonnia. Bretonnia has never had a dismounted Knight Unit. Bretonnian knights broadly speaking never fight dismounted unless its impossible to fight mounted.

    Stop lying about the lore, stop debasing the setting.
    Try again @Heretical_Cactus#7598
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231

    Bretonnia also has Foot Knights. When situations require it, they will fight on foot alongside the peasants.
    Monfort has the largest amount of them due to its mountainous regions.

    This isn't even the definition of a Foot Knight... this is the definition of a Mounted Knight dismounting when situation requires it.
    So they exist. If ordered to, this unit of Knight will fight on foot.
    That's like saying there are Tankers who are Foot Tankers... because sometimes tanks are inoperable and they must dismount and fight on foot.

    No if you fight of foot normally your not a Tanker, your Infantry.
  • RomeoReject#1666RomeoReject#1666 Registered Users Posts: 2,168
    I like your ideas! I'd personally hope to see some newer mechanics, rather than just adopting other races' mechanics, but I'll take anything that will help separate out the Vampire Count Bloodlines.
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,052

    Bretonnia also has Foot Knights. When situations require it, they will fight on foot alongside the peasants.
    Monfort has the largest amount of them due to its mountainous regions.

    This isn't even the definition of a Foot Knight... this is the definition of a Mounted Knight dismounting when situation requires it.

    Bretonnia also has Foot Knights. When situations require it, they will fight on foot alongside the peasants.
    Monfort has the largest amount of them due to its mountainous regions.

    This isn't even the definition of a Foot Knight... this is the definition of a Mounted Knight dismounting when situation requires it.
    So they exist. If ordered to, this unit of Knight will fight on foot.
    That's not a Foot Knight... That is not a Knight who's normative means of Combat is on Foot, as prior asserted.

    There's several other VC units from the TT and lore that can be added, particularly of the Necrarch variety. Abyssal Terrors (not to be confused with Dread Abyssals) and Wickermen for instance. Blood Dragons also had access to Skeleton Bowmen and Trebuchets unlike the other bloodlines.

    Give me all of them.



    ~Blood Dragon Bloodline Associated Units~
    Blood Dragon Footknights (Sword and Shield)
    Blood Dragon Footknights (Dual Sword)
    Blood Dragon Footknights (Great Weapons)
    Blood Knights on Hellsteeds?

    Why the hell would I want Foot Knights with the Blood Dragons? The Blood Dragons whole stick is that they are undead Bretonnia.


    Some Bretonnian knights do fight dismounted.



    ~Blood Dragon Bloodline Associated Units~
    Blood Dragon Footknights (Sword and Shield)
    Blood Dragon Footknights (Dual Sword)
    Blood Dragon Footknights (Great Weapons)
    Blood Knights on Hellsteeds?

    Why the hell would I want Foot Knights with the Blood Dragons? The Blood Dragons whole stick is that they are undead Bretonnia.


    Bretonnia also has Foot Knights. When situations require it, they will fight on foot alongside the peasants.
    Monfort has the largest amount of them due to its mountainous regions.
    No they do not have Foot Knights. Foot Knight implies that they fight on foot as a preference as their normative means of engaging in battle. That is not true for Bretonnia. Bretonnia has never had a dismounted Knight Unit. Bretonnian knights broadly speaking never fight dismounted unless its impossible to fight mounted.

    Stop lying about the lore, stop debasing the setting.
    Try again @Heretical_Cactus#7598
    A knight that dismounted from a horse is still a FOOT KNIGHT.
  • Heretical_Cactus#7598Heretical_Cactus#7598 Registered Users Posts: 3,037

    Bretonnia also has Foot Knights. When situations require it, they will fight on foot alongside the peasants.
    Monfort has the largest amount of them due to its mountainous regions.

    This isn't even the definition of a Foot Knight... this is the definition of a Mounted Knight dismounting when situation requires it.
    So they exist. If ordered to, this unit of Knight will fight on foot.
    That's like saying there are Tankers who are Foot Tankers... because sometimes tanks are inoperable and they must dismount and fight on foot.

    No if you fight of foot normally your not a Tanker, your Infantry.
    No, because Tankers who fight on foots because they can't use tanks are simply called infantry

    A Knight isn't a Knight because he is mounted, he is a Knight due to his skills, arms, armour and standing. So a Knight who isn't on his horse would still be a Knight.

    And I repeat, if the Lord decide that this unit of Knight has to fight on foot, then they will do so, as the Knight will follow the orders of their lords.

    So having Bretonnian and Blood Dragon Knights as elite infantry work. Like the Depth Guard already are.

    Or you can even explain it as the Lord needing heavy infantry and calling upon Knights to band together and fight on foot. And Knights that aren't stuck to their saddles would be able to do so.
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231
    Dude its not like my opinion is controversial its literally in the Lore stating that Bretonnian Knights are MOUNTED WARRIORS and VERY FEW WOULD DEIGHN TO FIGHT ON FOOT.

    You're the ones doing mental gymnastics to try to prove that because sometimes Knight's have to dismount that some how makes "Foot Knights" which Bretonnia clearly does not have.


    written into the lore explicitly
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,052

    Dude its not like my opinion is controversial its literally in the Lore stating that Bretonnian Knights are MOUNTED WARRIORS and VERY FEW WOULD DEIGHN TO FIGHT ON FOOT.

    You're the ones doing mental gymnastics to try to prove that because sometimes Knight's have to dismount that some how makes "Foot Knights" which Bretonnia clearly does not have.


    written into the lore explicitly

    Quoting the same RPG that also says Foot Knights are a thing...
  • Captain_Rex#1635Captain_Rex#1635 Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 38,156
    By my blood yes please! Zacharias and Neferata are 2 of my most wanted LLs out there. Well… Neferata is actually my No.1 most wanted LL but Zach is also up there.
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231

    Dude its not like my opinion is controversial its literally in the Lore stating that Bretonnian Knights are MOUNTED WARRIORS and VERY FEW WOULD DEIGHN TO FIGHT ON FOOT.

    You're the ones doing mental gymnastics to try to prove that because sometimes Knight's have to dismount that some how makes "Foot Knights" which Bretonnia clearly does not have.


    written into the lore explicitly

    Quoting the same RPG that also says Foot Knights are a thing...
    Got the page... bring it out.
  • Beytran70#7597Beytran70#7597 Registered Users Posts: 429
    Told you the conversation is pointless and also unrelated to the discussion at hand, so I will bow out here.
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,052

    Dude its not like my opinion is controversial its literally in the Lore stating that Bretonnian Knights are MOUNTED WARRIORS and VERY FEW WOULD DEIGHN TO FIGHT ON FOOT.

    You're the ones doing mental gymnastics to try to prove that because sometimes Knight's have to dismount that some how makes "Foot Knights" which Bretonnia clearly does not have.


    written into the lore explicitly

    Quoting the same RPG that also says Foot Knights are a thing...
    Got the page... bring it out.
    P.78 of Knights of The Grail. If you can find it.
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,052

    Told you the conversation is pointless and also unrelated to the discussion at hand, so I will bow out here.

    Sorry it devolved so hard because someone doesn't like the idea that a knight must do some things on foot.
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231

    Dude its not like my opinion is controversial its literally in the Lore stating that Bretonnian Knights are MOUNTED WARRIORS and VERY FEW WOULD DEIGHN TO FIGHT ON FOOT.

    You're the ones doing mental gymnastics to try to prove that because sometimes Knight's have to dismount that some how makes "Foot Knights" which Bretonnia clearly does not have.


    written into the lore explicitly

    Quoting the same RPG that also says Foot Knights are a thing...
    Got the page... bring it out.
    P.78 of Knights of The Grail. If you can find it.
    Nope... Not a single sentence about foot knights, although it is early and I've yet to get the coffee on.


  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231

    Told you the conversation is pointless and also unrelated to the discussion at hand, so I will bow out here.

    Sorry it devolved so hard because someone doesn't like the idea that a knight must do some things on foot.
    No I'm perfectly comfortable that sometimes Knights dismount... that doesn't make them "Foot Knights" which implies their normative means of battle is on Foot, when fighting on foot is the exception not the rule.
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,052

    Dude its not like my opinion is controversial its literally in the Lore stating that Bretonnian Knights are MOUNTED WARRIORS and VERY FEW WOULD DEIGHN TO FIGHT ON FOOT.

    You're the ones doing mental gymnastics to try to prove that because sometimes Knight's have to dismount that some how makes "Foot Knights" which Bretonnia clearly does not have.


    written into the lore explicitly

    Quoting the same RPG that also says Foot Knights are a thing...

    Dude its not like my opinion is controversial its literally in the Lore stating that Bretonnian Knights are MOUNTED WARRIORS and VERY FEW WOULD DEIGHN TO FIGHT ON FOOT.

    You're the ones doing mental gymnastics to try to prove that because sometimes Knight's have to dismount that some how makes "Foot Knights" which Bretonnia clearly does not have.


    written into the lore explicitly

    Quoting the same RPG that also says Foot Knights are a thing...
    Got the page... bring it out.
    P.78 of Knights of The Grail. If you can find it.
    Nope... Not a single sentence about foot knights, although it is early and I've yet to get the coffee on.


    Told you the conversation is pointless and also unrelated to the discussion at hand, so I will bow out here.

    Sorry it devolved so hard because someone doesn't like the idea that a knight must do some things on foot.
    No I'm perfectly comfortable that sometimes Knights dismount... that doesn't make them "Foot Knights" which implies their normative means of battle is on Foot, when fighting on foot is the exception not the rule.
    >Not reading the Duke's words
    >Not reading the description of Monfort and realizing the place is not suitable for mounted combat on horse
    >Literally build their castles and villages on SLOPES
    >Not combining 2+2 together and realizing traditional Bret combat has to be thrown out the window because not everyone has a Pegasus or Hippogryph mount

    And no. A dismounted Knight is still considered a Foot Knight. Especially in sieges.
    And no. Gilles and his bros is Gilles and his bros. They are complete exceptions to all of this.
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231

    Dude its not like my opinion is controversial its literally in the Lore stating that Bretonnian Knights are MOUNTED WARRIORS and VERY FEW WOULD DEIGHN TO FIGHT ON FOOT.

    You're the ones doing mental gymnastics to try to prove that because sometimes Knight's have to dismount that some how makes "Foot Knights" which Bretonnia clearly does not have.


    written into the lore explicitly

    Quoting the same RPG that also says Foot Knights are a thing...

    Dude its not like my opinion is controversial its literally in the Lore stating that Bretonnian Knights are MOUNTED WARRIORS and VERY FEW WOULD DEIGHN TO FIGHT ON FOOT.

    You're the ones doing mental gymnastics to try to prove that because sometimes Knight's have to dismount that some how makes "Foot Knights" which Bretonnia clearly does not have.


    written into the lore explicitly

    Quoting the same RPG that also says Foot Knights are a thing...
    Got the page... bring it out.
    P.78 of Knights of The Grail. If you can find it.
    Nope... Not a single sentence about foot knights, although it is early and I've yet to get the coffee on.


    Told you the conversation is pointless and also unrelated to the discussion at hand, so I will bow out here.

    Sorry it devolved so hard because someone doesn't like the idea that a knight must do some things on foot.
    No I'm perfectly comfortable that sometimes Knights dismount... that doesn't make them "Foot Knights" which implies their normative means of battle is on Foot, when fighting on foot is the exception not the rule.
    Not reading the Duke's words
    So in a specific location they cant ride a Horse... so they don't in that specific location. Wow...slow clap.

    >Not reading the description of Monfort and realizing the place is not suitable for mounted combat on horse

    Just suggesting that maybe... When they're not in the Mountains... or perhaps even in the Mountain Valleys where it might be suitable... they still ride horses.

    It never says... "Due to Montforts geography the Nobles of the region rarely learn to competently ride and when they go on crusade they are so uncomfortable in the saddle they chose to fight on foot."

    Also at this point your telling me I'm supposed to take things that you could extrapolate from the lore as opposed to things that are EXPLICITLY STATED in the lore. You do understand how a hierarchy of evidence works.

    >Literally build their castles and villages on SLOPES

    Wow... Slow clap again... In places where you literally cant ride a horse... they don't. That doesn't mean that they don't fight from horseback when its possible and it doesn't at all say that they prefer to fight on Foot.

    Remember that Bretonnia is literally in a culture where walking is borderline sacrilege for the nobility, to the point that young nobles try to refuse learning how to fight on foot.

    "A knight's place is in the saddle! Why must I practise fighting on foot like a peasant? I do not plan on trudging through the mud to war like a commoner."
    "A knight does not always have the luxury of choosing the circumstances he fights in. What happens if your horse is slain beneath you?"
    "I'll get a new horse!"
    "What if the battle takes place upon a muddy mire, and your lord orders you to fight on foot?"
    "Then my lord would be a damned fool for choosing such a ridiculous battlefield!"
    "Gunthar stared at the young man with cold, humourless, grey eyes. His moustache twitched in irritation..."
    —Gunthar, Weapon Master of Garamont, attempting to teach the young Bertelis. - Knights of Bretonnia (Omnibus), by Anthony Reynolds

    >Not combining 2+2 together and realizing traditional Bret combat has to be thrown out the window because not everyone has a Pegasus or Hippogryph mount

    Again trying to assume that because sometimes people have to dismount that means there are not just squads but legions of "knights" who don't know well enough to ride that they chose to dismount and fight on foot regardless of terrain.

    You know your wrong, you know your grasping at straws to justify things that just aren't loreful. Your trying to make the Exception the Rule. Your taking a mile when you've been given an inch.

    And no. A dismounted Knight is still considered a Foot Knight. Especially in sieges. And no. Gilles and his bros is Gilles and his bros. They are complete exceptions to all of this.

    No your trying to defend entire units of 60+ Nobles running around in all sorts of terrain when they could instead be riding. That's the definition of a foot knight your defending. Don't shift your position because language is flexible.
  • Heretical_Cactus#7598Heretical_Cactus#7598 Registered Users Posts: 3,037

    Told you the conversation is pointless and also unrelated to the discussion at hand, so I will bow out here.

    Sorry it devolved so hard because someone doesn't like the idea that a knight must do some things on foot.
    No I'm perfectly comfortable that sometimes Knights dismount... that doesn't make them "Foot Knights" which implies their normative means of battle is on Foot, when fighting on foot is the exception not the rule.
    Foot knight is just easier to say than:

    Dismounted Grail Knight
    Dismounted Questing Knight
    Dismounted Knight Errant

    And for simplicity reason those would work better as separate units rather than a Mechanic where you can unmount your Knight
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231
    edited November 2022

    Told you the conversation is pointless and also unrelated to the discussion at hand, so I will bow out here.

    Sorry it devolved so hard because someone doesn't like the idea that a knight must do some things on foot.
    No I'm perfectly comfortable that sometimes Knights dismount... that doesn't make them "Foot Knights" which implies their normative means of battle is on Foot, when fighting on foot is the exception not the rule.
    Foot knight is just easier to say than:

    Dismounted Grail Knight
    Dismounted Questing Knight
    Dismounted Knight Errant

    And for simplicity reason those would work better as separate units rather than a Mechanic where you can unmount your Knight
    So you still want units of Knights running around on foot in every possible situation, even though that's entirely out of character for Bretonnia.
  • Captain_Rex#1635Captain_Rex#1635 Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 38,156

    Told you the conversation is pointless and also unrelated to the discussion at hand, so I will bow out here.

    Sorry it devolved so hard because someone doesn't like the idea that a knight must do some things on foot.
    No I'm perfectly comfortable that sometimes Knights dismount... that doesn't make them "Foot Knights" which implies their normative means of battle is on Foot, when fighting on foot is the exception not the rule.
    Foot knight is just easier to say than:

    Dismounted Grail Knight
    Dismounted Questing Knight
    Dismounted Knight Errant

    And for simplicity reason those would work better as separate units rather than a Mechanic where you can unmount your Knight
    So you still want units of Knights running around on foot in every possible situation, even though that's entirely out of character for Bretonnia.
    *looks at Markus Paladin Hero*

    You lost mate. Take the L and move on.
  • #153592#153592 Registered Users Posts: 323
    edited November 2022
    In my opinion, what would be good is to have the possibility, during deployment, to choose to dismount its cavalry units (thus we avoid possible abuse or bugs and we limit the trick).

    The interest would be to be able to use knights in siege maps for example in wall defense, or in rare situations to use them as infantry. Besides that 99% of the time, it would not be "profitable" because we would pay for a cavalry unit (therefore more expensive than an infantry unit) and we would keep the same number of models (which is generally much less high than for infantry units), so in no case would it completely "replace" the style of play of a faction or its dedicated infantry, it would just occasionally allow you to have a dismount option in very specific cases.

    Of course it would be necessary to create units and a foot profile for all the cavalry units, but they would not be recruitable in the campaign. It could keep equivalent or almost equivalent stats, but it would at least have to drastically lower their mass (as well as surely their life point), their movement speed and their charge bonus, as well as all the skills or characteristics linked to their mount (such as fear for example if the mount induces fear normally).
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,052
    #153592 said:

    In my opinion, what would be good is to have the possibility, during deployment, to choose to dismount its cavalry units (thus we avoid possible abuse or bugs and we limit the trick).

    The interest would be to be able to use knights in siege maps for example in wall defense, or in rare situations to use them as infantry. Besides that 99% of the time, it would not be "profitable" because we would pay for a cavalry unit (therefore more expensive than an infantry unit) and we would keep the same number of models (which is generally much less high than for infantry units), so in no case would it completely "replace" the style of play of a faction or its dedicated infantry, it would just occasionally allow you to have a dismount option in very specific cases.

    Of course it would be necessary to create units and a foot profile for all the cavalry units, but they would not be recruitable in the campaign. It could keep equivalent or almost equivalent stats, but it would at least have to drastically lower their mass (as well as surely their life point), their movement speed and their charge bonus, as well as all the skills or characteristics linked to their mount (such as fear for example if the mount induces fear normally).

    Then it should be applied to most factions and only to horse-riding units only.
  • Heretical_Cactus#7598Heretical_Cactus#7598 Registered Users Posts: 3,037

    Told you the conversation is pointless and also unrelated to the discussion at hand, so I will bow out here.

    Sorry it devolved so hard because someone doesn't like the idea that a knight must do some things on foot.
    No I'm perfectly comfortable that sometimes Knights dismount... that doesn't make them "Foot Knights" which implies their normative means of battle is on Foot, when fighting on foot is the exception not the rule.
    Foot knight is just easier to say than:

    Dismounted Grail Knight
    Dismounted Questing Knight
    Dismounted Knight Errant

    And for simplicity reason those would work better as separate units rather than a Mechanic where you can unmount your Knight
    So you still want units of Knights running around on foot in every possible situation, even though that's entirely out of character for Bretonnia.
    What I want is irrelevant, I don't care about Bretonnia nor the Blood Dragon enough to be one to decide

    But I'm taking a logical step:

    You yourself has said that on the occasion, Bretonnian Knight will fight on foot if ordered to (Or due to various other circonstances).

    Montfort for example is a example of that.

    Now in lore to mechanic, this can be transcribed multiples different ways:
    - Knight can be dismounted for a fight at the players choosing before the battle.
    - Knight get a dismount ability, where they can switch from mounted to dismounted combat
    - Knight get an infantry versions of their units that is wholly separated from the other (So you have two Grail Knight unit, 1 on horse, and one on foot, + other mounts and such)

    Now the one that would transcribe the lore the most would be 1 or 2, but theses make the game/unit harder to balance, while solution 3, which is the least like the lore is the one that mechanically work the best
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231
    #153592 said:

    The interest would be to be able to use knights in siege maps for example in wall defense, or in rare situations to use them as infantry. Besides that 99% of the time, it would not be "profitable" because we would pay for a cavalry unit (therefore more expensive than an infantry unit) and we would keep the same number of models (which is generally much less high than for infantry units), so in no case would it completely "replace" the style of play of a faction or its dedicated infantry, it would just occasionally allow you to have a dismount option in very specific cases.

    This is almost exactly how it worked in TT.
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231

    Told you the conversation is pointless and also unrelated to the discussion at hand, so I will bow out here.

    Sorry it devolved so hard because someone doesn't like the idea that a knight must do some things on foot.
    No I'm perfectly comfortable that sometimes Knights dismount... that doesn't make them "Foot Knights" which implies their normative means of battle is on Foot, when fighting on foot is the exception not the rule.
    Foot knight is just easier to say than:

    Dismounted Grail Knight
    Dismounted Questing Knight
    Dismounted Knight Errant

    And for simplicity reason those would work better as separate units rather than a Mechanic where you can unmount your Knight
    So you still want units of Knights running around on foot in every possible situation, even though that's entirely out of character for Bretonnia.
    *looks at Markus Paladin Hero*

    You lost mate. Take the L and move on.
    Yes... and how many of those Vermintide maps are.... Suitable for mounted combat? Not to mention that Kruber isn't even Bretonnian.

    Kruber riding around inside Castle Drachenfels? On the Streets of Bogenhalfen? In the mines of a Karak?

    Sorry your delusional... and a big L.
  • 4fourcztery#60764fourcztery#6076 Registered Users Posts: 564
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,052
    edited November 2022
    #153592 said:

    In my opinion, what would be good is to have the possibility, during deployment, to choose to dismount its cavalry units (thus we avoid possible abuse or bugs and we limit the trick).

    The interest would be to be able to use knights in siege maps for example in wall defense, or in rare situations to use them as infantry. Besides that 99% of the time, it would not be "profitable" because we would pay for a cavalry unit (therefore more expensive than an infantry unit) and we would keep the same number of models (which is generally much less high than for infantry units), so in no case would it completely "replace" the style of play of a faction or its dedicated infantry, it would just occasionally allow you to have a dismount option in very specific cases.

    Of course it would be necessary to create units and a foot profile for all the cavalry units, but they would not be recruitable in the campaign. It could keep equivalent or almost equivalent stats, but it would at least have to drastically lower their mass (as well as surely their life point), their movement speed and their charge bonus, as well as all the skills or characteristics linked to their mount (such as fear for example if the mount induces fear normally).

    Then it should be applied to most factions and only to horse-riding units only.

    Dude its not like my opinion is controversial its literally in the Lore stating that Bretonnian Knights are MOUNTED WARRIORS and VERY FEW WOULD DEIGHN TO FIGHT ON FOOT.

    You're the ones doing mental gymnastics to try to prove that because sometimes Knight's have to dismount that some how makes "Foot Knights" which Bretonnia clearly does not have.


    written into the lore explicitly

    Quoting the same RPG that also says Foot Knights are a thing...

    Dude its not like my opinion is controversial its literally in the Lore stating that Bretonnian Knights are MOUNTED WARRIORS and VERY FEW WOULD DEIGHN TO FIGHT ON FOOT.

    You're the ones doing mental gymnastics to try to prove that because sometimes Knight's have to dismount that some how makes "Foot Knights" which Bretonnia clearly does not have.


    written into the lore explicitly

    Quoting the same RPG that also says Foot Knights are a thing...
    Got the page... bring it out.
    P.78 of Knights of The Grail. If you can find it.
    Nope... Not a single sentence about foot knights, although it is early and I've yet to get the coffee on.


    Told you the conversation is pointless and also unrelated to the discussion at hand, so I will bow out here.

    Sorry it devolved so hard because someone doesn't like the idea that a knight must do some things on foot.
    No I'm perfectly comfortable that sometimes Knights dismount... that doesn't make them "Foot Knights" which implies their normative means of battle is on Foot, when fighting on foot is the exception not the rule.
    Not reading the Duke's words
    So in a specific location they cant ride a Horse... so they don't in that specific location. Wow...slow clap.

    >Not reading the description of Monfort and realizing the place is not suitable for mounted combat on horse

    Just suggesting that maybe... When they're not in the Mountains... or perhaps even in the Mountain Valleys where it might be suitable... they still ride horses.

    It never says... "Due to Montforts geography the Nobles of the region rarely learn to competently ride and when they go on crusade they are so uncomfortable in the saddle they chose to fight on foot."

    Also at this point your telling me I'm supposed to take things that you could extrapolate from the lore as opposed to things that are EXPLICITLY STATED in the lore. You do understand how a hierarchy of evidence works.

    >Literally build their castles and villages on SLOPES

    Wow... Slow clap again... In places where you literally cant ride a horse... they don't. That doesn't mean that they don't fight from horseback when its possible and it doesn't at all say that they prefer to fight on Foot.

    Remember that Bretonnia is literally in a culture where walking is borderline sacrilege for the nobility, to the point that young nobles try to refuse learning how to fight on foot.

    "A knight's place is in the saddle! Why must I practise fighting on foot like a peasant? I do not plan on trudging through the mud to war like a commoner."
    "A knight does not always have the luxury of choosing the circumstances he fights in. What happens if your horse is slain beneath you?"
    "I'll get a new horse!"
    "What if the battle takes place upon a muddy mire, and your lord orders you to fight on foot?"
    "Then my lord would be a damned fool for choosing such a ridiculous battlefield!"
    "Gunthar stared at the young man with cold, humourless, grey eyes. His moustache twitched in irritation..."
    —Gunthar, Weapon Master of Garamont, attempting to teach the young Bertelis. - Knights of Bretonnia (Omnibus), by Anthony Reynolds

    >Not combining 2+2 together and realizing traditional Bret combat has to be thrown out the window because not everyone has a Pegasus or Hippogryph mount

    Again trying to assume that because sometimes people have to dismount that means there are not just squads but legions of "knights" who don't know well enough to ride that they chose to dismount and fight on foot regardless of terrain.

    You know your wrong, you know your grasping at straws to justify things that just aren't loreful. Your trying to make the Exception the Rule. Your taking a mile when you've been given an inch.

    And no. A dismounted Knight is still considered a Foot Knight. Especially in sieges. And no. Gilles and his bros is Gilles and his bros. They are complete exceptions to all of this.

    No your trying to defend entire units of 60+ Nobles running around in all sorts of terrain when they could instead be riding. That's the definition of a foot knight your defending. Don't shift your position because language is flexible.
    Still irrelevant due to the fact that Foot Knights exist in lore, exist in art and exist even in books. There are examples of this and if you look into the Total War discord under TWW you will find that one of the devs wants to pretty much implement them in the future.
    Not to mention the fact that Foot Knights were an actual unit in 3rd ED Warhammer. Just like the Colossi o Azram The Mighty were essentially that edition's version of Rune Golems for Dwarfs.
    And since there is a thing for bringing back old stuff like GW did with the Zoats with Storm of Magic...this has a precedent.
    So again. You loose to facts and reality.

  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231

    #153592 said:

    In my opinion, what would be good is to have the possibility, during deployment, to choose to dismount its cavalry units (thus we avoid possible abuse or bugs and we limit the trick).

    The interest would be to be able to use knights in siege maps for example in wall defense, or in rare situations to use them as infantry. Besides that 99% of the time, it would not be "profitable" because we would pay for a cavalry unit (therefore more expensive than an infantry unit) and we would keep the same number of models (which is generally much less high than for infantry units), so in no case would it completely "replace" the style of play of a faction or its dedicated infantry, it would just occasionally allow you to have a dismount option in very specific cases.

    Of course it would be necessary to create units and a foot profile for all the cavalry units, but they would not be recruitable in the campaign. It could keep equivalent or almost equivalent stats, but it would at least have to drastically lower their mass (as well as surely their life point), their movement speed and their charge bonus, as well as all the skills or characteristics linked to their mount (such as fear for example if the mount induces fear normally).

    Then it should be applied to most factions and only to horse-riding units only.

    Dude its not like my opinion is controversial its literally in the Lore stating that Bretonnian Knights are MOUNTED WARRIORS and VERY FEW WOULD DEIGHN TO FIGHT ON FOOT.

    You're the ones doing mental gymnastics to try to prove that because sometimes Knight's have to dismount that some how makes "Foot Knights" which Bretonnia clearly does not have.


    written into the lore explicitly

    Quoting the same RPG that also says Foot Knights are a thing...

    Dude its not like my opinion is controversial its literally in the Lore stating that Bretonnian Knights are MOUNTED WARRIORS and VERY FEW WOULD DEIGHN TO FIGHT ON FOOT.

    You're the ones doing mental gymnastics to try to prove that because sometimes Knight's have to dismount that some how makes "Foot Knights" which Bretonnia clearly does not have.


    written into the lore explicitly

    Quoting the same RPG that also says Foot Knights are a thing...
    Got the page... bring it out.
    P.78 of Knights of The Grail. If you can find it.
    Nope... Not a single sentence about foot knights, although it is early and I've yet to get the coffee on.


    Told you the conversation is pointless and also unrelated to the discussion at hand, so I will bow out here.

    Sorry it devolved so hard because someone doesn't like the idea that a knight must do some things on foot.
    No I'm perfectly comfortable that sometimes Knights dismount... that doesn't make them "Foot Knights" which implies their normative means of battle is on Foot, when fighting on foot is the exception not the rule.
    Not reading the Duke's words
    So in a specific location they cant ride a Horse... so they don't in that specific location. Wow...slow clap.

    >Not reading the description of Monfort and realizing the place is not suitable for mounted combat on horse

    Just suggesting that maybe... When they're not in the Mountains... or perhaps even in the Mountain Valleys where it might be suitable... they still ride horses.

    It never says... "Due to Montforts geography the Nobles of the region rarely learn to competently ride and when they go on crusade they are so uncomfortable in the saddle they chose to fight on foot."

    Also at this point your telling me I'm supposed to take things that you could extrapolate from the lore as opposed to things that are EXPLICITLY STATED in the lore. You do understand how a hierarchy of evidence works.

    >Literally build their castles and villages on SLOPES

    Wow... Slow clap again... In places where you literally cant ride a horse... they don't. That doesn't mean that they don't fight from horseback when its possible and it doesn't at all say that they prefer to fight on Foot.

    Remember that Bretonnia is literally in a culture where walking is borderline sacrilege for the nobility, to the point that young nobles try to refuse learning how to fight on foot.

    "A knight's place is in the saddle! Why must I practise fighting on foot like a peasant? I do not plan on trudging through the mud to war like a commoner."
    "A knight does not always have the luxury of choosing the circumstances he fights in. What happens if your horse is slain beneath you?"
    "I'll get a new horse!"
    "What if the battle takes place upon a muddy mire, and your lord orders you to fight on foot?"
    "Then my lord would be a damned fool for choosing such a ridiculous battlefield!"
    "Gunthar stared at the young man with cold, humourless, grey eyes. His moustache twitched in irritation..."
    —Gunthar, Weapon Master of Garamont, attempting to teach the young Bertelis. - Knights of Bretonnia (Omnibus), by Anthony Reynolds

    >Not combining 2+2 together and realizing traditional Bret combat has to be thrown out the window because not everyone has a Pegasus or Hippogryph mount

    Again trying to assume that because sometimes people have to dismount that means there are not just squads but legions of "knights" who don't know well enough to ride that they chose to dismount and fight on foot regardless of terrain.

    You know your wrong, you know your grasping at straws to justify things that just aren't loreful. Your trying to make the Exception the Rule. Your taking a mile when you've been given an inch.

    And no. A dismounted Knight is still considered a Foot Knight. Especially in sieges. And no. Gilles and his bros is Gilles and his bros. They are complete exceptions to all of this.

    No your trying to defend entire units of 60+ Nobles running around in all sorts of terrain when they could instead be riding. That's the definition of a foot knight your defending. Don't shift your position because language is flexible.
    Still irrelevant due to the fact that Foot Knights exist in lore, exist in art and exist even in books. There are examples of this and if you look into the Total War discord under TWW you will find that one of the devs wants to pretty much implement them in the future.
    Not to mention the fact that Foot Knights were an actual unit in 3rd ED Warhammer. Just like the Colossi o Azram The Mighty were essentially that edition's version of Rune Golems for Dwarfs.
    And since there is a thing for bringing back old stuff like GW did with the Zoats with Storm of Magic...this has a precedent.
    So again. You loose to facts and reality.

    What book are you getting that out of? They don't have a single option for Foot Knights in the 3rd edition Warhammer Armies Book.





    Regardless they also had Cannons and Arquebus in 3rd edition, and no Grail Knights or Lady of the Lake either.

    Sorry mate but 3rd edition is proto Warhammer Fantasy Battles by the time of 8th edition and none of it is remotely canon at this point.

    Foot Knights don't exist by the time of 8th edition Bretonnia, not in the way that your advocating. Not anymore than Half-Orcs and Gnomes.

    Hell I'm not even convinced they existed in 3rd edition, again where did you get that unit card.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 23,797
    Take it easy folks.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • CountSpookula#8662CountSpookula#8662 Registered Users Posts: 67
    It's been really interesting to see the communities perspective on this topic, thanks for all the feedback guys. I'm surprised at how favourably the community views adding in skeleton/zombie variants of each race for the VC to use in the raise dead pool despite the lack of TT models. Would be a lot of work but would really flesh out the experience more, as seen in the Necromancy mod. I'm excited to see if/how CA brings VC up to standard.

    Necromancy mod: http:https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2869979154&searchtext=necromancy//
  • Captain_Rex#1635Captain_Rex#1635 Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 38,156

    Told you the conversation is pointless and also unrelated to the discussion at hand, so I will bow out here.

    Sorry it devolved so hard because someone doesn't like the idea that a knight must do some things on foot.
    No I'm perfectly comfortable that sometimes Knights dismount... that doesn't make them "Foot Knights" which implies their normative means of battle is on Foot, when fighting on foot is the exception not the rule.
    Foot knight is just easier to say than:

    Dismounted Grail Knight
    Dismounted Questing Knight
    Dismounted Knight Errant

    And for simplicity reason those would work better as separate units rather than a Mechanic where you can unmount your Knight
    So you still want units of Knights running around on foot in every possible situation, even though that's entirely out of character for Bretonnia.
    *looks at Markus Paladin Hero*

    You lost mate. Take the L and move on.
    Yes... and how many of those Vermintide maps are.... Suitable for mounted combat? Not to mention that Kruber isn't even Bretonnian.

    Kruber riding around inside Castle Drachenfels? On the Streets of Bogenhalfen? In the mines of a Karak?

    Sorry your delusional... and a big L.
    Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your thing.

    When did I ever mention Vermintide? I’m talking about Markus Wulfharts Paladin Hero.
Sign In or Register to comment.