3rd Ed Historical?

Anyone heard any rumblings about an update to 3rd Ed for Historicals? I’m kind of intrigued by making a Winged Hussar force.

I believe Mantic mentioned that HKoW is on their wish list, but it is on the bottom of that list so, sadly, no update of Historicals to 3rd Edition any time soon.


With Covid-19 still causing disruption it will be even further away before it gets anymore development. At this point I think using the lists from the 2nd edition book with the core rules from 3rd edition might be doable in the meantime. There will be a very small changes needed here and there as some of the special rules have been altered slightly.

1 Like

You could do KOM:
Hussars = Knights, Pancerni = sergeants, and cossacks = Scouts. To make them more Elite you could do the Hussars as Abyssal Horsemen or allow multiple copies of some items.

But if the person is homebrewing the list, like using stats form different units or have multiple copies of items, would be more sensible to just use list from HKoW for 3rd edition?

I think if lists form HKoW and rules from 3rd Edition are used, then there should not be problem. Using HKoW list vs fantasy list from 3rd Edition is…well, who knows. Everybody says that shooting is nerfed, so that is step back for historicals, but they have CS on most melee units which is nasty.

1 Like

I haven’t read through the Historicals book in a while to see if they still work with 3rd Ed or if there’s any rules conflicts.

A Polish demon army sounds like a unique hobby challenge!

I’m not a huge fan of home brew rules. I don’t have a problem with others doing it but it isn’t for me.

1 Like

Continuing the discussion from 3rd Ed Historical?:

I’ve used HKOW with 3rd edition rules. It works quite well. Just check with your opponent first![quote=“VigoTheButch, post:1, topic:1509, full:true”]
Anyone heard any rumblings about an update to 3rd Ed for Historicals? I’m kind of intrigued by making a Winged Hussar force.

1 Like

Cool, so no weird rules conflicts?

Continuing the discussion from 3rd Ed Historical?:


not really. You just need to use 3rd edition magic rules and artefacts

Other than the addition of Unit Strength to stats lines.
How it’s determined seems straight forward enough though:
1 for troops, monsters, titans, and heroes without induvidual.
2 for regiments that shoot, cost less than 100 points or are large infantry/cavalry
3 for other regiments, hordes that cost less than 150 points and hordes of large infantry/cavalry.
4 for legions and more expensive hordes.

Honestly though, Kingdoms of Men covers pretty much all the troop types you need to field a historical list.
For the remainder artefacts should do, Winged Hussars can be knights with Blessing of the Gods.

It’s only unique units like Janissaries and mixed bow formations (diadem maybe) that pose a challenge.

Sure, but then all those colorful historical units lose their flavor which is ok if person does not care for historical context and just want to paint pretty historical minis and move them on table.

But if you have iconic unit like Winged Hussars, you would like they have some extra oomph in game. Sure, artefacts can help, but if you have two units, each will have different special rule.

I find it strange that in HKoW and in KoM list there is not a single entry for a unit which has mix of offensive and shooting, like elf seaguard (or whatever they are called).

There are some in KOWH - for example both Huns and Polish have Cav that are a bit shooty and a bit fighty. On the infantry front there are the Persian Immortals amongst others .

1 Like

Thanks for info, it seems that I was wrong.

I’m used to historical systems that classify troops based on formation, weapon and quality (in general).

I think that especially in the context of Kings of War, where entirely different species are around, I don’t think that historical armies are as different as you give them credit for.
KoM knights represent most human cavalry very well.
You need magic or to be an orc or demon to have CS too (nevermind rules like regeneration).

I also think you’re undervaluing theming one’s army.
If my unit is modelled, painted and given an appropriate artefact then they’re whatever I imagined to me.

I disagree. There are differences, some are prominent, some are not. Some rules try to add period flavor with bunch of rules, other have less rules. It just depends on player and his knowledge of period, I guess. I like when there is some difference between various units, but YMMW.

No, no, you are way wrong here. If some one decided to use Orc list for Scots Highlander army because he believes it better represents them, more power to him. Just as anyone can take KoW list and make whatever historical army they like. If OP takes Soul Reaver cavalry to represent Winged Hussars because they are nasty unit, great for him. His models, his list, his fun. It is up to everyone to decide for himself how much granularity they want for their historical units, especially when they are used in fantasy game.

There are differences between KOM and some historical armies. Examples are: Mongols, Huns , French and Polish. They have unique rules that can’t be replicated entirely by KOM. Personally I like to use historical armies because of those slight differences.

If they do redo the KOMH rules I hope they do them into eras as some of the lists are pretty odd right now, or maybe flexible! The glaring one is Egyptian which tries to cover New Kingdom right through to Mamaluk era medieval. Fixable ofc with a bit of knowledge but it does look strange to a historical player