Author Topic: Saladin vs Jerusalem  (Read 9239 times)


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4197
  • From the RUSH faction
    • Meditations on Brain Injury
Re: Saladin vs Jerusalem
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2012, 09:54:39 PM »
Played a 2,000 pt Key Objective scenario with Jerusalem last night.  We were using a tweak we like where cavalry units don't get the charge benefits (beyond the normal Pow bonus) for charging in difficult terrain (defined as "MC penalizing" terrain), and the map was 3D, so I knew this one was going to be (yeah I'm really gonna say it), an uphill fight for me.

I saw this when you first posted it, and liked the concept. I saw it now and I really like the concept. Cavalry is kind of limited in the sense that they really only work best in open terrain, at which point they were the awesome sauce on the battlefield. Given that most of the terrain is going to be open, that means cavalry is dispropertionally favored.
"Rules are only as good as the book they're bound in."


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4857
Re: Saladin vs Jerusalem
« Reply #16 on: February 25, 2012, 02:08:58 AM »
Yeah at some point I'll post up a full set of house rules for Kublacon, and this is one of the rules we'll include.  This is a purely thematic rule added at the request of my friend.  I'm of the opinion that cavalry is balanced without this house rule, so I asked that an enemy being charged by cavalry suffer a -1 Cge for that turn (this does not stack, so its a -1 Cge even if you're charged by multiple cavalry units).  This penalty is like impact hits and the other 'cav charge' bonus (so not in difficult terrain).


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4857
Re: Saladin vs Jerusalem
« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2012, 03:50:48 PM »
Quick update: I added a unit to the Saladin faction.  I asked Rushass for to confirm that the faction was a little light on the ground, without really a way to win unless it took cavalry.  Based on what could reasonably say was historically available, we came up with the Ghulam Infantry.  They're dismounted Ghulam cavalry, so they're a hybrid bow-sword unit.  I made their ranged attack LOS even though the Ghulam Cavalry is indirect fire because if these guys were indirect fire they'd cost 50 pts more.  And while you could do something where you slow the enemy down with skirmishers while the Ghulam shoot over them, that'd be dropping like 400 pts on the endeavor and at the end of the day the Ghulam are really just a (5)5/5 unit in melee.  So I went with the LOS to bring the cost down a touch.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4857
Re: Saladin vs Jerusalem
« Reply #18 on: June 22, 2016, 02:54:22 PM »
Man it has been awhile since I posted here.  I've been preoccupied with some other stuff, and for my sanity I pulled one of my history books (on the Crusades) off the shelf to read in my spare time.  This of course got me thinking about this home brew faction.  What can I say, I like coming up with new ideas.

I decided to start over as much as possible.  I went through and scrapped every unit, ability, and card, then decided what could be brought back.  This leaves me with two half done factions, but I thought I could share here.  This'll be heavy on Jerusalem, because that's the topic of the book I'm reading right now.

DISCLAIMER:  just to be clear, this is in no way an official faction.  Maybe at some point in the way distant future it could be discussed, but right now this is just me playing with some house rules.


Fervor:   Spend a Command Action to mark one Fervor box.  If the unit has multiple Fervor boxes, you may mark them by spending a Command Action for each.  While a Fervor box is marked, the unit gets +1 Cge.  You may erase any number of Fervor boxes during an attack, after your opponent rolls to hit.  Get D+0/+1 that attack per box erased.  This counts as playing a Command Card.  (Note:  Assume 1 Fervor box unless stated otherwise.  Some units have 2 boxes)

What do you guys think?  Feels like a weak ability off the top of my head (it's basically when you play Hardened post roll).  Maybe the fact that there's a lot of T3 in the faction and some units can have 2 boxes saves this? 

Another idea I had was a "shrug it off" kind of ability.  Sort of the opposite of Determination:  CA to mark the box.  While marked you get +1 Cge.  You can erase it after you suffer 1 damage to take no damage (doesn't count as a card).  If I went with this ability units would only have 1 Fervor box.

The idea behind the ability is their religious zeal makes them endure more punishment than you'd expect.  These guys spent a lot of time marching or holding formation while being shot at, so I was trying to go for something that made them kind of grindy.

Serjeant Spearmen - Core - 218 pts
O:(6*)5*/5*  D:2/2  Cge 12  Mv 3.5"  4G/4Y/2R
[spearmen bonuses]

Pilgrim Levy - Core - 158pts
O:(5)4/5  D:2/2  Cge 13 Mv 3.5  3G/4Y/3R
Impulsive.  [2 Fervor boxes]

Serjeants are your standard "men-at-arms" that every lord would have (at a ratio of 10:1 of infantry to Knights).  The Pilgrim Levy is supposed to be the Swordsmen unit of the faction, because actual swordsmen isn't something that you saw a lot in this era.  I envision it would be composed of a motly mix of townfolk, free peasants, sailors, impoverished soldiers, priests, and so on.  As such they can fight somewhat okay.  But on the battlefield they'd potentially be a pretty tanky unit, especially with the ability to be T4 for a turn (albeit at a steep price).

Mounted Sergeants - Core - 238pts
O:(6)5/5*  D:2*/2  Cge 12 Mv 6"  3G/1Y/2R
[Cavalry bonuses]

These are a lord's squires, richer men-at-arms, as well as Armenian mercenaries, Italian urban Knights, and so on.  They have a 3/1/2 hit boxes to represent the somewhat brittle (and cautious) nature of Europeans fighting in the middle east.  This hit box configuration will be something of a theme.

Italian Crossbowmen - Core - 187 pts
O:(3*)5*/6*  D:2*/1  Rge: 17.5"  Cge 12  Mv: 3.5"  3G/2Y/3R
[Spear bonuses]. Ranged attack is LOS.  O:(+1) -1/-1 when Engaged. D:+1/+0 vs ranged.

Visually these guys are like Wuxing Crossbowmen or Sparabara:  front rank of spearmen & lots of crossbowmen.  But these guys actually weren't very good at fighting, so in melee these guys are (4)4/5 but with spears.  So halfway decent at holding a flank, and enough to scare the Muslim cavalry.  The ranged bonus is because these guys did have pretty large shields, close to the pavises they'd have later.

Brother Sergeants - Core - 280pts
O:(6*)5*/5*  D:3/2  Cge 13  Mv 3.5"  4G/4Y/2R
[spearmen bonuses]

These are the infantry of the Templars & Hospitallers.  I made them Core because I think at Standard they're too expensive for a tanky unit.  But at Core I think it works.

Maronite Bowmen - Standard - 148pts
O:(4)5*/5*  D:1/0  Rge: 14" Cge 10  Mv 3.5"  2G/3Y/2R
[bowmen penalties]

Pilgrim Slingers - Standard - 86pts
O:(3)5*/5*  D:1*/0  Rge: 7"  Cge 14  Mv 3.5"  2G/3Y/2R
O:(-0)-2/-2 when engaged.  D:+2/+0 vs ranged attacks.  Ranged attack is LOS.  [2 Fervor boxes]

What's interesting about this unit is that it's a mediocre shooter, but pretty good at tying people down because it's Cge 14 means its likely to not be destroyed after Free Strikes.  Also the 2 Fervor boxes means that it could potentially be D:4/2 against a slower enemy (again at the cost of 2 CAs).  I was going to make it Impulsive, but then it'd be absolutely wretched as a shooter and dead points if the enemy has skirmishers.

Outremer Knights - Elite - 309pts
O:(6)5/6*  D:2*/3  Cge 12 Mv 5"  3G/1Y/2R
[Cavalry bonuses]

Crusader Knights - Elite - 270pts
O:(6)5/6*  D:2*/2  Cge 13 Mv 5"  3G/2Y/1R
Impulsive [Cavalry bonuses] [2 Fervor boxes]

Knights Hospitaller - Elite - 408pts
O:(6)5/6*  D:3*/3  Cge 13 Mv 5"  3G/2Y/1R
[Cavalry bonuses]

Knights Templar - Elite - 432pts
O:(6)6/6*  D:3*/2  Cge 14 Mv 5"  3G/2Y/2R
[Cavalry bonuses]

This is where I've struggled, because these four units are where the flavor is at.  I'm fine with the Outremer Knights are, because they capture "average Knights" in terms of offensive & defensive stats and the hit boxes shows the brittleness.  Crusader Knights work pretty well, being Impulsive and 2 Fervor Boxes but also higher Cge.  Their lower Toughness represents the fact that European Knights in this period didn't use horse armor (a protection against arrows), but they stay MC 5" because they still ride in tight formation.

The Templars & Hospitallers are where I'm unsure.  I opted to go for the Hospitallers being defensive, because a D:3/3 cavalry isn't something you see a lot.  I was tempted to make the Templars Impulsive with 2 Fervor Boxes as well, but it's not really that accurate, frankly.  They were no more crazy than anyone else.  These 4 units are still a work in progress.  Any thoughts?

Turcopoles - Elite - 198 pts
O:(4*)5/5  D:2*/1  Rge: 10.5"  Cge 12  Mv 7"  3G/1Y/2R
Cavalry.  Ranged attack is LOS.  O:(+1)+0/+0 when engaged.  D:+1/+0 when charging.  No Fervor Box.

These guys were Arab Christians, sons of Christian settlers (& Arab/Turkish wives), or converts from Islam.  They were the only light cavalry the Crusaders had, but they weren't skirmishers.  They were closer to "light medium cavalry."

Richard's Crossbowmen - Elite - 244pts
O:(3*)5*/6*  D:2/2  Rge: 17.5"  Cge 13  Mv: 3.5"  3G/3Y/2R
[Spear bonuses]. Ranged attack is LOS.  O:(+1) +0/-1 when Engaged.

These guys were dismounted Knights and Sergeants that Richard brigaded with his crossbowmen during a small battle near the end of the Third Crusade.  It's unclear whether he copied it or was at the leading edge of the idea in France.

Dismounted Knights - Elite - 374 pts
O:(6*)6*/5*  D:3/3  Cge: 13  Mv: 3.5"  4G/2Y/3R
[spear bonuses]

Knights in this period usually only dismounted when they lost their horses, but sometimes it'd happen on purpose.  You'd think they'd be a (5)6/6 unit, but the era of them wielding the great swords was still a bit away.  These guys would take their lances with them when they dismounted, making them spearmen.  So I went with the skill boost and the tough as nails defensive stat.

Command Cards: (the actual rules are just ideas; but the card names and themes are pretty solid)

Deus Vult:  Play during an attack, before you roll to hit.  Your unit gets (+1)+1/+0 this attack.  To play a Command Card on this attack, your opponent must discard a Command Card (this has no effect on already played Command Cards).

Deus Vult ("God Wills It!") is the battle cry of the Crusades in general.  This card could be just about anything, although I doubt very much it'd be a Blue card.  I imagine a red card because it was what they screamed when they charged the enemy.

Signo Vinces:  ??? 

Signo Vinces means "in this sign you shall conquer" and supposedly it is what the Roman Emperor Constantine heard when he fell from his horse before battle.  He saw the sign of the cross in the sun and heard these words, and after his victory he converted the whole Empire the Christianity.  It became a phrase that connoted religious fervor and revelation, so I included it here.  It also seems to be fit for a Red card.

Caelum Denique:  Play during an attack, after you take 2 or more damage.  Pass all rout checks this turn.  Your opponent may not play Command Cards this attack.

Meaning "Heaven At Last" this is what Crusaders shouted when they faced long odds and prepared themselves for martyrdom on the field of battle.  It's the religious equivalent of "c'mon ya apes, ya want to live forever!?"  It's a weird card in that it's just a Red card block, but the real effect is to pass rout checks.

Non Nobis Domine: ???

This is part of the Templar's Creed which says "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy Name give glory."  (Non Nobis Domine = Not unto us, O Lord).  I have no idea what the card should be, but it's a saying of humility, effectively saying 'we suffer for your glory.'  That says a defensive, grindy card to me.

Ex Fide Fortis:  Play during the Movement and Command Phase.  Gain 2 Command Actions.  Spend these only on the Fervor ability.

The Latin means "Strength through Faith."  Since Fervor is a toughness boost, this seemed like a natural card.

Okay, that's all I've got for now.  If there's interest, I might post up some ideas on Saladin, but I barely have a draft of the units!


  • Playtester
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
Re: Saladin vs Jerusalem
« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2016, 10:10:51 AM »
Signo Vinces
I realise that it's not popular to re-use card effects, although I know that some have been.  Could this one be like Sudden Strike from Lizardmen?  So zealous and led by vision that they prevent the enemy from responding!

I'm really not sure how you'd do it, but the Knights Hospitaller are famous for protecting others.  Yes, that normally means unarmed pilgrims, but if there was something that hinted at their 'protector' status that would be cool.


  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • The Schenectady Wargamers Association
    • The Schenectady Wargamers Association
Re: Saladin vs Jerusalem
« Reply #20 on: July 01, 2016, 12:02:11 PM »
Looks like this historical set has a lot of potential.
I think this would have a lot more general appeal than Aztecs vs Spanish.

Schenectady Wargamers Association
An Adventure Gaming club serving the Capital District of upstate New York for over 40 years.
Council of Five Nations (Oct 5-7, 2018)