Where's my horse?

[Flegler]

Bad news, true believers. Any lingering hopes that mounted combat may be in for the game's launch have been thoroughly dispelled (http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/interviews/warinterviewseries/2785-Warhammer-Online-Exclusive-Interview-12).

Mounts are primarily a form of travel in the game, as well as a visual status symbol of player achievement. There are no other major game play features beyond travel intended for mounts at the launch of WAR.

I'm sure most of you saw this coming but I, for one, am still disappointed. The fact remains that a knight who can't run down the foe from aback his trusty steed is no true knight at all. "Suck it up", you may say, or perhaps "go play Age of Conan you horrible troll" but I wanted to play an honest-to-goodness Imperial Templar Knight like you can't get in Conan and what we have here is just a warrior with questionable taste in headwear.

Of course I'll still play the class, because tanks are always the most fun and the Empire remains the best faction. But I do wonder why they included a class that absolutely requires mounted combat to live up to its name if they knew they wouldn't have it in the game? Reiksguard or Greatswords would have fitted just as well for the Empire tank and looked better to boot. Oh well.

So, my brothers (and sisters) in arms, what do you make of this news? Has it affected your interest in this class?

[RadioNinja]

Welcome to 2007!

[Ralzar]

Welcome to 2007!

2008 actually. Until that interview we did not know that there would be no mounted combat. We could assume, yes, but this was the first official word stating plainly that mounted combat was out.

[NewKid]

the horse does not amke the knight, being skilled in every weapon makes the knight, upholding the code of chivalry makes the knight, the horse is just for transportation-the entire point of the knight is that no matter what situation he is in, he will continue to exceed...this is just from a historical viewpoint...i dont know if its different in War lore or if the horse is a common misconception about what makes a knight a knight.

[Vaeronthar]

the horse does not amke the knight, being skilled in every weapon makes the knight, upholding the code of chivalry makes the knight, the horse is just for transportation-the entire point of the knight is that no matter what situation he is in, he will continue to exceed...this is just from a historical viewpoint...i dont know if its different in War lore or if the horse is a common misconception about what makes a knight a knight.
Uncorrect.

Knights are, in fact, the single most famous historical example of heavy cavalry in the western world, and, while I shudder to say this, knights aren't fielded on foot in the tabletop, except for the reiksguard, and not in this edition.

[Demothios]

Uncorrect.

Knights are, in fact, the single most famous historical example of heavy cavalry in the western world, and, while I shudder to say this, knights aren't fielded on foot in the tabletop, except for the reiksguard, and not in this edition.

While that is correct, NewKid is also right. Knights are knights not due to the horse, but due to training and social status. Their better military training and socio-economic status makes for ideal heavy cavalry, simply because they'd practically be the only ones who could afford the war horses and the expensive armour.

As for the topic.. I was disappointed too, hoping for an innovation in MMO warfare, but maybe we'll see this at some later point in WAR's life.

[Flegler]

the horse does not amke the knight, being skilled in every weapon makes the knight, upholding the code of chivalry makes the knight, the horse is just for transportation-the entire point of the knight is that no matter what situation he is in, he will continue to exceed...this is just from a historical viewpoint...i dont know if its different in War lore or if the horse is a common misconception about what makes a knight a knight.

Well, "Knight" is a pretty broad archetype that refers to all kinds of noble warriors throughout history as well as being a general honorific. But ask an average person what the word means to them and chances are they'll think of a heavily armed and armoured warrior on horseback, probably in late medieval full plate, sworn to a feudal lord and bound to a code of honour. The horse isn't all of it, but it's a major element.

More relevantly, if you want to accurately represent Warhammer's Knights of the Blazing Sun then that means a martial and tactical expert dedicated to the goddess Myrmidia, trained to fight in plate armour, with lance and sword, from horseback. if any of these elements are missing then it can't be a Knight of the Blazing Sun.

Welcome to 2007!
Up until this announcement I thought the official stance was "maybe, but probably not". In any case, I haven't seen much discussion of it.

[AlienOverlord]

I wonder if they were ever really seriously considering mounted combat. If so then there could still be a chance in an update (or more likely an Expansion since it would likely require a significant change in the engine).

[Dagoth]

I wonder if they were ever really seriously considering mounted combat. If so then there could still be a chance in an update (or more likely an Expansion since it would likely require a significant change in the engine).

Yeah, I always assumed mounted combat wouldn´t make it into the game, so this is not a big surprise.

[Ralzar]

I wonder if they were ever really seriously considering mounted combat. If so then there could still be a chance in an update (or more likely an Expansion since it would likely require a significant change in the engine).

I'm pretty sure they did in the concept stages. And then Paul just talked about it a bit before they'd actually figured out if they were going to include it or not.
In the interview they do specify that it won't be in at launch, which is a bit different than saying that it won't be in at all, so I'm thinking they haven't given up on the idea but decided to come back to it later when they have the time to do it right.

[Feralas]

I knew as soon as they released all the Dark Elf classes. No Cold One Knight means no mounted combat.

[Dagoth]

I knew as soon as they released all the Dark Elf classes. No Cold One Knight means no mounted combat.

Cold ones are cool, but their riders are generic suckers.

Black Guards don´t need no mount to be cool.

[ahasueros]

I never found mounted combat interesting so yep dont care

[NewKid]

Uncorrect.

Knights are, in fact, the single most famous historical example of heavy cavalry in the western world, and, while I shudder to say this, knights aren't fielded on foot in the tabletop, except for the reiksguard, and not in this edition.

it became very easy in history to dismount a Knight so he had to be able to might on his feet. and as i dais in my post, i was speaking in RL history not TT

Well, "Knight" is a pretty broad archetype that refers to all kinds of noble warriors throughout history as well as being a general honorific. But ask an average person what the word means to them and chances are they'll think of a heavily armed and armoured warrior on horseback, probably in late medieval full plate, sworn to a feudal lord and bound to a code of honour. The horse isn't all of it, but it's a major element.

More relevantly, if you want to accurately represent Warhammer's Knights of the Blazing Sun then that means a martial and tactical expert dedicated to the goddess Myrmidia, trained to fight in plate armour, with lance and sword, from horseback. if any of these elements are missing then it can't be a Knight of the Blazing Sun

ok first, you need to sympathize with Mythic, Empire needed a tank archtype and the knight looked like a very good charecter to use. I do agree however that with the heavy plate armer and imo that stupid feather helmet-that is made for a mounted combat. As it has been said many times though...Mythic will have to change the lore some to create a great MMO

I wonder if they were ever really seriously considering mounted combat. If so then there could still be a chance in an update (or more likely an Expansion since it would likely require a significant change in the engine).
Yes, Mythic was very much looking into mounted combat, the idea was in circulation for many months but i think Mythic made the right decision to just get the basics up and running for release. To go straight from beta to mounted alpha combat seems too flaky and it would be difficult to fix and balance. I would bet on it coming out in an expansion.

just you wait

[Vaeronthar]

it became very easy in history to dismount a Knight so he had to be able to might on his feet. and as i dais in my post, i was speaking in RL history not TT
Ouch. I knew that. I know I knew that. But I disregarded it.

That's what I get for posting right after I get up in the morning.

[RadioNinja]

2008 actually. Until that interview we did not know that there would be no mounted combat. We could assume, yes, but this was the first official word stating plainly that mounted combat was out.


It was brought up in december and confirmed to not be in.

[shotgunbadger]

the horse does not amke the knight, being skilled in every weapon makes the knight, upholding the code of chivalry makes the knight, the horse is just for transportation-the entire point of the knight is that no matter what situation he is in, he will continue to exceed...this is just from a historical viewpoint...i dont know if its different in War lore or if the horse is a common misconception about what makes a knight a knight.

Seconded,

Yes, Knights ARE the most easily recognizable horse-fighters in the world, that doesn't mean that's ALL they are. If you asked fifty people what they see when they think knight, first thing, it would be split between "Horse" and what this guy said.

[NewKid]

Ouch. I knew that. I know I knew that. But I disregarded it.

That's what I get for posting right after I get up in the morning.

its alright, happens to the best of us.

Seconded,

Yes, Knights ARE the most easily recognizable horse-fighters in the world, that doesn't mean that's ALL they are. If you asked fifty people what they see when they think knight, first thing, it would be split between "Horse" and what this guy said.

thanks for the possitive feedback

[Flegler]

Ouch. I knew that. I know I knew that. But I disregarded it.

That's what I get for posting right after I get up in the morning.

Man, I don't know why you're apologising when you're not wrong. Of course knights were trained in fighting on their feet, it doesn't alter the fact that the kind of knights that appear in Warhammer are the iconic heavy cavalry of medieval battlefields.

[Vaeronthar]

Man, I don't know why you're apologising when you're not wrong. Of course knights were trained in fighting on their feet, it doesn't alter the fact that the kind of knights that appear in Warhammer are the iconic heavy cavalry of medieval battlefields.
And that's what I get for posting while multitasking.

Gah. Focus, Vaer. What is your opinion?

Right, then: Knights were dismounted often, it's true, and they were trained to handle that, because they were the most skilled warriors on the battlefield with little variation. However, it doesn't change the fact that they were on a horse in the begining, that they, indeed, cavalry. Simply because they didn't give up and die when their first plan failed doesn't mean that it wasn't their first plan.

Is better, Flegler?

[Xul]

And that's what I get for posting while multitasking.

Gah. Focus, Vaer. What is your opinion?

Right, then: Knights were dismounted often, it's true, and they were trained to handle that, because they were the most skilled warriors on the battlefield with little variation. However, it doesn't change the fact that they were on a horse in the begining, that they, indeed, cavalry. Simply because they didn't give up and die when their first plan failed doesn't mean that it wasn't their first plan.

Is better, Flegler?

Indeed. A rifleman is trained in melee combat. But his other skills aside, he was by definition a soldier whose primary duty was to operate a rifle in combat. Knights were the same. They were trained to fight dismounted, but they were by definition at the time 'heavy cavalry'. It does seem odd to field knights in WAR without them ever engaging in mounted combat at any stage of the fight.

[NewKid]

the horse does not amke the knight

my first point is that the horse does not make the knight, that was my point, imo i think that yes it was foolish to put a very heavily plate armored tank type of charecter(a knight) and he doesn't have a horse. Don't get me wrong i think its still bad that theres no horse but i dont think that the horse is what makes a knight a knight.

[NewKid]

And that's what I get for posting while multitasking.

Gah. Focus, Vaer. What is your opinion?

Right, then: Knights were dismounted often, it's true, and they were trained to handle that, because they were the most skilled warriors on the battlefield with little variation. However, it doesn't change the fact that they were on a horse in the begining, that they, indeed, cavalry. Simply because they didn't give up and die when their first plan failed doesn't mean that it wasn't their first plan.

Is better, Flegler?

Vaeronthar stop doing what everyone around you says!


i love irony

[Vaeronthar]

Vaeronthar stop doing what everyone around you says!


i love irony

...

I hate you.

[NewKid]

...

I hate you.

cmon lets be constructive here! lol-just messin wit you
so do we think the mounts are going to come with the expansion and if so, will the mounted combat come with it too?

[Flegler]

cmon lets be constructive here! lol-just messin wit you
so do we think the mounts are going to come with the expansion and if so, will the mounted combat come with it too?

Oh the mounts themselves should be in at launch. We've already seen their concept art: http://www.warhammeralliance.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=2811&c=3

Mounted combat in an expansion is a definite possibility. First expansion along with the Bretonnians perhaps? Or maybe in a patch? Soon? :D

[NewKid]

ok, yea so mounts r def in-heres anuother question, as a gobo am i only able to ride my wolves or can a ride other mounts?

[NewKid]

http://www.warhammeralliance.com/for...p?faq=9#faq_9a (http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/faq.php?faq=9#faq_9a)

Nothing is known at this time, but the possibility of mounted combat, for certain careers only, certainly exists.

-Mythic

see, they thought about giving the KotBS the horse-THEY TRIED but they decided against it

i found this just looking through the FAQ

[Flegler]

That's basically why this is so disappointing. They hinted at it back when the Knight and Chosen were announced (at least, Paul Barnett did), and they've only just definitively ruled it out. I was expecting it to be the feature that would make or break the class, and without mounted combat the already-questionable decision to go with the Knight of the Blazing Sun for Empire tank just seems perverse.

ok, yea so mounts r def in-heres anuother question, as a gobo am i only able to ride my wolves or can a ride other mounts?

Probably just wolves. Although it would be very awesome indeed if squig herders rode squigs.

[NewKid]

that was what i was getting at, there were a bunch of screenshots all over the place of gobos riding squigs but i guess not, i'm not gona drop the class because of it and you shouldn't drop the KotBS either, he will get it with the expansion ;)

[kingsword]

I doubt that such a mechanic that affects the fundamental game balance could be added with an expansion.

I guess it may be for the better, mounted combat could be a hindrance. Say, they gave a class without it the ability 'dismount opponent': The knights would end up getting dismounted right away in possibly all instances regarding PvP. And they couldn't give the knight competitive non-mounted abilities on the same level as others. It could end up resembling something like the infamous divine shield from WoW. Easily counterable but still holding the class back regarding balance.

[NewKid]

I doubt that such a mechanic that affects the fundamental game balance could be added with an expansion.

I guess it may be for the better, mounted combat could be a hindrance. Say, they gave a class without it the ability 'dismount opponent': The knights would end up getting dismounted right away in possibly all instances regarding PvP. And they couldn't give the knight competitive non-mounted abilities on the same level as others. It could end up resembling something like the infamous divine shield from WoW. Easily counterable but still holding the class back regarding balance.

Mythic is very revolutionary at their gameplay, they will have plenty of time to work on the mounted combat. comparing anything to WoW, balance wise, is just not a good idea. ANYONE who has played WoW knows that when it comes to balance, Blizz failed over and over and over...

[ToxicFear]

he speaks the truth

[Courache]

It's my opinion that mounted combat could be allowed, but only in an auto-attack sort of way. The base attack that you use when you have no other attacks. The bare minimum.
It's pretty damn tough to do anything intricate with a sword while you're sitting down.

I don't see any imbalance in somebody riding by, giving you a bonk with their weapon, and riding off. It's not the kind of thing that would turn the tide of battle. Now, if they could ride by, use their super-huge evil-smiting strike of holy awesomeness, it'd be stupid.

On that note... Dumb system in WoW where you could just make your mount disappear with a click. "Surprise, I'm here now, and kicking your ." Didn't like that. It would've been better with a dismount animation, which leaves the person vulnerable. As such, it would be a better idea to charge into battle on foot rather than charging in on horseback or .. boarback or whatever. This would keep the ranged DPS classes from getting massacred from a single witch elf on a cold one.

"Surprise, my knives are in your eyes."

[NewKid]

i would imagin a different set of abilities for mounted combat, but closely related to regular fighting. Also i think that once your sidmounted and in combat you cant mount up without leaving combat. It should also be somewhat easy to dismount someone. I think that the mount should have its own health bar. very low so that it can only take 3 or so hits once that runs out you have to dismount. anouther idea is set scenarios for mounted combat. places set aside for the purpose of mounted combat. you thoughts? :-P

[kingsword]

There you are saying what I said, if dismounting is that easy and fast and mounting up isn't possible during combat, it'll end up being meaningless.

I mentioned WoW not due to decent balance, I'm well aware that it's unbalanced. I thought people could be familiar to the example. Summarizing, there are things that cannot be put on a whim. Say in this case, mounted combat. If they made it accurately, a lance charge would have to one-shot your target unless it's a heavily armored tank. Other than this, cavalry isn't that great in close quarters battle after the charge. I guess they weren't sure how to implement it without being over the top while at the same time not very easily counterable. As I said, it could end up being a useless novelty or hindrance in the long run. And if they aren't putting it at the start, it'll be much harder later balance-wise.

[NewKid]

There you are saying what I said, if dismounting is that easy and fast and mounting up isn't possible during combat, it'll end up being meaningless.

I mentioned WoW not due to decent balance, I'm well aware that it's unbalanced. I thought people could be familiar to the example. Summarizing, there are things that cannot be put on a whim. Say in this case, mounted combat. If they made it accurately, a lance charge would have to one-shot your target unless it's a heavily armored tank. Other than this, cavalry isn't that great in close quarters battle after the charge. I guess they weren't sure how to implement it without being over the top while at the same time not very easily counterable. As I said, it could end up being a useless novelty or hindrance in the long run. And if they aren't putting it at the start, it'll be much harder later balance-wise.

never underestimate the power of mobility. the mount alows people to move in for fast attacks than get away, it also makes ranged classes happy(like me:-P). in truth it would end up being somewhat pointless but as i said, Mythic could set aside special places where mounted combat is encouraged, in these places it could be much more difficult to dismount someone and very easy to mount back up.

[Amelung]

Im very very disappointed, no gameplay designed for being able to play as imperial knight, only a superficial show, for a seemstobe knight without knights abilities.

[rilian2007]

I think the only feasable way to add mounted combat, would be to give it a charge effect which hits hard and does some sort of knockdown effect. Once the first hit was done, you would immediately dismount. whether the horse just fades out or if you actually dismount is questionable. The only classes capable of this would be the tank type classes, and of course a spear or lance would have to be equiped. It wouldnt be the backbone of the knights effectiveness, but it would serve as a way for him to be the first into comabt, while getting off some nice burst dmg in the begining of the fight. This would be great for the tanks because unoranized groups tend to focus all dmg on the first one to enter combat, allowing all the dps to ride in behind and nuke off the opposing players. Either way I hope it in some way gets implemented, because charging into from a mount just rocks.

[Knightorder]

I think the only feasable way to add mounted combat, would be to give it a charge effect which hits hard and does some sort of knockdown effect. Once the first hit was done, you would immediately dismount. whether the horse just fades out or if you actually dismount is questionable. The only classes capable of this would be the tank type classes, and of course a spear or lance would have to be equiped. It wouldnt be the backbone of the knights effectiveness, but it would serve as a way for him to be the first into comabt, while getting off some nice burst dmg in the begining of the fight. This would be great for the tanks because unoranized groups tend to focus all dmg on the first one to enter combat, allowing all the dps to ride in behind and nuke off the opposing players. Either way I hope it in some way gets implemented, because charging into from a mount just rocks.


Partially agreed; I feel that mounted characters should be able to charge and have the person be knocked down (instead of outright killed) but Instead of having them dismount- because that just seems odd, don't you think?- have them suffer sort of "stuck in" state, for lack of a better word; a period of time where they can't move very fast on their horse- slower than on foot- and do less damage. This would represent mounted combat fairly well- reflecting after the intital charge the advantage infantry would have, and the switching of weapons knights would have to do after their lances broke- and also, in my mind, be fairly balanced. Tanks can't just charge in, do a large amount of damage and run out; this way they will have to deal the consequences before they can get a chance to run away. Also, I agree that this should be for tanks only; the idea of a cavalry charge just seems at odds with a bright wizard!

Lastly, the charge and stuck-in shouldn't be combined with any other combat abilities (save for static ones that you don't need to activate). In short, mounted combat should be a tactical thing; it doesn't make you invincible, but when used correctly can be devestating.

[rilian2007]

Partially agreed; I feel that mounted characters should be able to charge and have the person be knocked down (instead of outright killed) but Instead of having them dismount- because that just seems odd, don't you think?- have them suffer sort of "stuck in" state, for lack of a better word; a period of time where they can't move very fast on their horse- slower than on foot- and do less damage. This would represent mounted combat fairly well- reflecting after the intital charge the advantage infantry would have, and the switching of weapons knights would have to do after their lances broke- and also, in my mind, be fairly balanced. Tanks can't just charge in, do a large amount of damage and run out; this way they will have to deal the consequences before they can get a chance to run away. Also, I agree that this should be for tanks only; the idea of a cavalry charge just seems at odds with a bright wizard!

Lastly, the charge and stuck-in shouldn't be combined with any other combat abilities (save for static ones that you don't need to activate). In short, mounted combat should be a tactical thing; it doesn't make you invincible, but when used correctly can be devestating.

I know it seems odd for them to dismount immediately, but the good thing about this is you dont have to change game mechanics too much. Just give the tanks a charge ability when ever they are at the proper lvl to use a mount. I know realistically a knight would pull out a sword and start slahing away after he used his lance for the initial charge, but then you would have to rework all animations for mounted comabt. Unless you say that characters would just get white hits from the mount after they initially charge in, but who wants that. Playing a knight, I would much rather just get the charge off(accompanied by a nice knockdown and a bit of dmg) and then get off my horse and start using my abilities. Point is, you will have to dismount eventually, why not just do it right after you charge. This also prevents that charging in and running away exploit you had mentioned. And I agree that this would be a fun tactical thing to add to the game and it is why I really want to see it implemented. The more simple the idea and less infringing on current game mechanics mounted combat is, the more of a chance we have of seeing it ingame.

[porcu12345]

Paul Barnett said about the knights that we will

"Fight, while not on the ground"
in their video podcast reveal at the EA christmas party.

the one thing that attracted me to the knight now appears to have been removed and i think this may hurt the class's popularity even more.

[WastedTrojan]

The Empire table top army includes foot knights, no problems for me with this. A knight on a horse is not more of a knights, hes just a faster knight.

[rabidmuffin]

The Empire table top army includes foot knights, no problems for me with this. A knight on a horse is not more of a knights, hes just a faster knight.
no actually, it doesn't.

But anyhoo i think after a knight charges the force of impact should slow him down sufficiently that combined with the couple seconds it should take to switch to a sword you should either have hit him a couple times or if saw him coming maybe have used some sort of ability to help you dismount the knight or kill his horse etc.
I also think there should be certain monetary risks to bring your beloved mount the the field of battle including having to thier pay for it's medical attention should an enemy kill it (which shouldn't be too hard) or to have to buy a whole new animal (although you should get all the trophies you customized it with back)

[Vertinox]

A knight on a horse is not more of a knights, hes just a faster knight.

From a physics perspective, with a lance there is much more mass and speed in a mounted knight for penetration than a knight running with a lance.

Historically, the main benefit of a mounted knight was the charge which benefited from not only the mass of the knight but the horse as well. If the shield or armor wasn't broke the foot solider trying to hold back the knight charge will be knocked over or out due to the impact.

[Lord_Mortimer_88]

The Empire table top army includes foot knights, no problems for me with this. A knight on a horse is not more of a knights, hes just a faster knight.


the only thing i can think of that you could call foot knights in TT is the leftover reiksguard foot knights. these were for the emperors guard appendix list for 6th ed where you got an extra unit of greatswords which acted as the dismounted reiksguard.

Greatswords are NOT knights. they are elite veterans chosen by their respective elector count to serve in his personal bodyguard.

However all imperial knights are trained in the use of a greatsword or equivilant weapn as it is an honourific

incidently casters charging in TT isnt that uncommon bretonian damsels often are added to units for bretonian knights as they give magic resistance the bret lance formation makes up for this. HE dragon mages (ie crazy brightwizards often charge into combat as they can take the flaming sword of rhuin as their basic ability they also ride a dragon :D