KoE community suggestions for rewritten army book, first draft

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

    Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

    • Having a mount in the artefacts list would be creative indeed. The problem is how to bloody model that entry. But why not, right?

      As for pegasi and hippos being "non-Canon": You should take into consideration the models that alot of your veteran players already have. It makes it a bit easier for everyone, save perhaps BLT.

      But I am all for adding MORE options, even if they are a challenge to model. What Base size would bayard be? 25x100? Funny.
      "In the end rules are just the groundwork for 2 players to have an agreement on how the game is played. If you friends/gaming group is fine with it you can do what ever you want with the game." - Smart Guy on the T9A forum

      "By the Lady, is that Elderberries I smell?" - Duke Niemar of Snowfall's Eves
    • Windelov wrote:

      on the grind attacks. This was to represent the mass of mounted warriors pushing down enemy infantry as suggested by Klexe. To gain the benefit you would then have to have a wide cavalry formation (so the enemy couldnt just go around you), and mass with at least 2 ranks so to not just avoid and slip pass. By boosting the support attacks, you would gain that. However, it requires a lot abstract thinking to see the intention. Simply giving knights grind or stomp on first rank would be too easy to achieve with small units and result in single lines being the prefered play.


      going back to Klexe's suggestion, this may be better done by creating a specilized knight. He had good ideas for the cataphract knight. My only concern is adding such a super heavy knight will double with the role of the Gryphen knights. Let's give it some more thoughts.
      Ah, ok. Do you not think this would move people away from lance formation? I suppose it becomes a decision for extra damage in line or extra ranks in lance. I'm still not sure on this as I think that lance formation should be the identifier of an Equitaine force...

      Windelov wrote:

      Knight Marshall
      Please god no! This sort of name is great for EoS who have characters who lead by leading. Our characters should lead by killing - they don't Marshall knights - they kill the enemy and the knights follow. I understand the reason for choosing this name (Historic realms would have had a Marshall, etc) - it just makes me think of the pathetic excuse for knights that EoS have.

      Paladin is perfect for the Character, I'd use Gallant, Chevalier, Guardian or Vanquisher for the super champion. I missed this name in the book or I'd have commented earlier.

      Windelov wrote:

      Are you ok with the concept of having a fighter superior to the Duke but who is inferior on Discipline (I would assume that this gives more interesting builds than a linear miniature duke)?
      Yes-ish. I think that what you have is fine but I worry the Duke will become worse at killing and Discipline 10, which we shouldn't have on a general. So long as the Dukes can be killy in their own right, it's fine if they're not as good at killing as a paladin.

      Windelov wrote:

      That said, in this build, you could make an army with Knights Forlornand Peasants only led by a Damsel] and with Balifs and Castallans running the show. Not optimal but possible and would fit the back. Again, if having a way out by a magical item or special ability is a need for some, I am happy creating it.
      I agree that the army should focus on knights. If going this route (I think it would be awesome, :)) we'd need an auxiliary list for a peasant revolt. It wouldn't need to be powerful or even introduce much in the way of options, just so that it's available as a fluffy list.

      Windelov wrote:

      simply to try to align with what happened with WoDG. How about taking away virtues from characters and instead give them Blessing/Favors of the gods.
      I hope you mean favours of the Lady! :P

      I'm not sure about giving units favours. Leave that to WotGD and lets come up with something different. Favours of the lady for characters could work (it's essentially Virtues). The smaller version could be given to the super champions, but again I'd prefer we had something completely unique instead of copying WoTDG.

      What about an option for Damsels to access to 7 bound spells which reflect the virtues? Or if they take a virtue to buff their unit?

      Windelov wrote:

      On the Questing Knights, this was a suggestion in the thread that I thought made for an interesting and fluffy setup. And I think the Griffon Knights will take over on the Grind Role they had previously. Let's think outside the box on this one and see if there are more and better ideas. We should definitely avoid too much overlap.
      True, but I don't understand why I'd take Str6, Agi0 knights when I can have Str5, Agi3 knights. Especially as you've effectively removed Questing oath. That's why I suggested making the Bastard sword a one handed halberd and removing this option from KotR. That gives quests a distinct role as decent anvils (not gryphon-esque but still decent) and keeps KotR charge focused.

      Basic Knights (aspirants and KotR) should use lances because that's what people expect when they think of chivalrous knights, irrespective of history. :)

      Windelov wrote:

      On the Blessing and Blessed Armor.. I see that this does not resonate well. Again, it was hard to get new ideas as it seems to be so integrated to identity of KoE. However, we are really at legacy rules currently. I am all fine with removing the Blessed armor and making it a special item or something like that, and -1 to wound is pretty neat and simple. It has a slight edge to just give +1 Resistance that I kinda of like. Lets work on new ideas.
      I like that you're thinking outside of the box on this one but The Blessing is too well established as a box. Unfortunately the mechanic is too good at representing what it does. If more enemy units had divine attacks I think we'd already have a flat 5++.

      +1 resistance would also work. I thought that -1 to wound would be slightly better against Str6 and above (it's 3+, instead of 2+) but +1 Res is probably less complex and easier to write into profiles. :)

      Windelov wrote:

      On the protecting the damsels. Yes sure, they need a bit of divine protection. Aegis 5+ seems fair, and I had intended for her to get the virtue of chastity (aegis +1 against magical attacks pushing it to Aegis 4+).
      I think this would be perfect! :D
      Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
    • Sir_Sully wrote:

      Windelov wrote:

      on the grind attacks. This was to represent the mass of mounted warriors pushing down enemy infantry as suggested by Klexe. To gain the benefit you would then have to have a wide cavalry formation (so the enemy couldnt just go around you), and mass with at least 2 ranks so to not just avoid and slip pass. By boosting the support attacks, you would gain that. However, it requires a lot abstract thinking to see the intention. Simply giving knights grind or stomp on first rank would be too easy to achieve with small units and result in single lines being the prefered play.


      going back to Klexe's suggestion, this may be better done by creating a specilized knight. He had good ideas for the cataphract knight. My only concern is adding such a super heavy knight will double with the role of the Gryphen knights. Let's give it some more thoughts.
      Ah, ok. Do you not think this would move people away from lance formation? I suppose it becomes a decision for extra damage in line or extra ranks in lance. I'm still not sure on this as I think that lance formation should be the identifier of an Equitaine force...
      A new formation would not overshadow the Lance as long as they both have clear uses.

      Lance is for breaking, line formation is for doing damage.

      If you are up against something that looks like break-worthy you adopt the Lance for a Swift win and pursue.

      If you face something you know will hold then use the line formation, or whatever you decide to call it, since simply doing more damage is usually better in that situation.

      It also gives the KoE player a choice and the opportunity to make a good or bad formation rather than just always use the Lance and complain that they cannot deal with enemies with good charge resilience.

      It is all up to the rainbowsoup to decide the level of Power the formations should be at, since I guess most of us would not mind having a choice. Or do we really want an allmighty formation that trumps any enemy one? Yes, no? I don't... I want my army to require skill to use.
      "In the end rules are just the groundwork for 2 players to have an agreement on how the game is played. If you friends/gaming group is fine with it you can do what ever you want with the game." - Smart Guy on the T9A forum

      "By the Lady, is that Elderberries I smell?" - Duke Niemar of Snowfall's Eves
    • Duke Niemar wrote:

      A new formation would not overshadow the Lance as long as they both have clear uses.

      Lance is for breaking, line formation is for doing damage.

      If you are up against something that looks like break-worthy you adopt the Lance for a Swift win and pursue.

      If you face something you know will hold then use the line formation, or whatever you decide to call it, since simply doing more damage is usually better in that situation.
      That's all well and good but we're also raising the skill barrier to entry for KoE. KoE cavalry is already hard to play, now we have to anticipate which formation is required when? And if we get it wrong, spend a whole turn reforming?

      If we're going down the 2 formations route, we need a way of going from one to the other without spending an entire turn doing nothing. I don't know if that would be a free reform from 5 wide to lance and vice versa, or only allow a free reform from lance to 5 wide.
      Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
    • I would say having more formation and a clear dmg formation reduces the skill entry as you could always choose dmg over ranks and be happy while good players will choose ranks if they know they deal enough dmg and thus break the enemy faster.



      BTW love all the little bugs.
      Best is
      Grail. Knights with 55mm base :) lol

                      

      Product-Search

      KoE Community Support

      Lord of the Hobby

      Why are the strongest characters all bad.......
    • Sir_Sully wrote:

      Duke Niemar wrote:

      A new formation would not overshadow the Lance as long as they both have clear uses.

      Lance is for breaking, line formation is for doing damage.

      If you are up against something that looks like break-worthy you adopt the Lance for a Swift win and pursue.

      If you face something you know will hold then use the line formation, or whatever you decide to call it, since simply doing more damage is usually better in that situation.
      That's all well and good but we're also raising the skill barrier to entry for KoE. KoE cavalry is already hard to play, now we have to anticipate which formation is required when? And if we get it wrong, spend a whole turn reforming?
      If we're going down the 2 formations route, we need a way of going from one to the other without spending an entire turn doing nothing. I don't know if that would be a free reform from 5 wide to lance and vice versa, or only allow a free reform from lance to 5 wide.
      I used to have a way to reform instantly before charges being declared when a troubadour sang a particular chorus. Even if I could not change facing it was riddiculously strong. So to the point that enemies did not go within 17" of my front facing except with super heavy units (buffed sloth warriors, ironbreakers etc).

      Also, if we introduce another formation and tones down the killing power of the Lance then it wont be a noob-trap. I have seen bretonnian and koe beginners using the Lance and thinking that they will win all the time because their formation is having a bonus. They do not consider steadfast, stubborn and unbreakable and then they get frustrated when they cannot deal with such units.
      "In the end rules are just the groundwork for 2 players to have an agreement on how the game is played. If you friends/gaming group is fine with it you can do what ever you want with the game." - Smart Guy on the T9A forum

      "By the Lady, is that Elderberries I smell?" - Duke Niemar of Snowfall's Eves
    • My only concern would be that I now a lot of fantasy players who relish their army, structure, specific models, base sizes and play style. Is this a too drastic change and departure from the traditional Brettonia and Kingdom of E. army? Will it scare away too many people? Will the new units and their usefulness oblige you to buy gryphon and hypogriff knights, which we don't own (depends on pricing)?
      Historian, librarian, wargamer.
    • Duke Niemar wrote:

      Also, if we introduce another formation and tones down the killing power of the Lance then it wont be a noob-trap. I have seen bretonnian and koe beginners using the Lance and thinking that they will win all the time because their formation is having a bonus. They do not consider steadfast, stubborn and unbreakable and then they get frustrated when they cannot deal with such units.

      Klexe wrote:

      having more formation and a clear dmg formation reduces the skill entry as you could always choose dmg over ranks and be happy while good players will choose ranks if they know they deal enough dmg and thus break the enemy faster.
      Both true on the face of it.

      I'd counter with, do you not think that our knights will be priced in the knowledge that they have access to 2 special formations and that a good player can use both to full effect? So if you're a new player you'll still find that the unit in line formation is underpowered because they are still paying for the ability to break steadfast in Lance formation - even though you aren't using it.

      If we have 2 formations, we need to be able to move from one to the other or give them to specific units. Otherwise we'll end up in a position where we pay for both and it's incredibly difficult to use both to full advantage.

      Duke Niemar wrote:

      I used to have a way to reform instantly before charges being declared when a troubadour sang a particular chorus. Even if I could not change facing it was riddiculously strong.
      Being able to reform from lance into line formation would extend your charge range assuming you have at least 2 ranks - would that balance this out?

      If you could go from line to lance, I agree it'd be too powerful as you could gain 2-3 inches just by reforming.
      Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
    • What would happen to the price if we had 1 formation in which we could do everything?

      Same as having two different units for different roles. Together they should be cheaper than a Single unit doing everything. Just because of the powercreep it inspires.
      "In the end rules are just the groundwork for 2 players to have an agreement on how the game is played. If you friends/gaming group is fine with it you can do what ever you want with the game." - Smart Guy on the T9A forum

      "By the Lady, is that Elderberries I smell?" - Duke Niemar of Snowfall's Eves
    • Making new units and the fear that you have to buy them should never be a restraint.


      Having old units and them beeing not represented would be bad though.


      I assume that most people came to 9th age and expected more new units for KoE

                      

      Product-Search

      KoE Community Support

      Lord of the Hobby

      Why are the strongest characters all bad.......
    • As both formations have an intended goal and advantage and disadvantage at the same time they should cost equal.


      Yes you pay an extra as you have the choice of switching formations but that is fine as it gives us and edge in combat doesn't it?


      Will beginners then overpay the unit? Yes they will. But this is true for EVERY unit and army. If you pay something and don't use it you overpay.

      What is your opinion on the blessed armor.

      ?

                      

      Product-Search

      KoE Community Support

      Lord of the Hobby

      Why are the strongest characters all bad.......
    • Klexe wrote:

      What is your opinion on the blessed armor.
      I think that a min armour save of 4+ is too strong, especially given that we have Grails & Characters who have or can easily get Aegis saves, with a Hereditary spell that gives a ward save. I like the concept but it won't be allowed with Aegis saves unless you seriously restrict access and set the minimum to a 5+ AS.

      As per my previous posts I prefer Aegis to Blessed armour.

      I suggested changing it to -1 to wound and I think @Windelov thought we'd be more likely to get this if it was +1 Res. I'm not sure that this will pass RT's muster either.
      Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
    • We shouldn't talk about the values as these will be evaluated and changed anyway.

      It is more about the idea.

      I really like it.

      Suits our army strength in armor
      Works with fluff as our goodness is protecting us
      Makes the game easier (no tokens or disadvantage in deployment)
      Suits also our strength vs high dmg attacks while it also is worse vs mass cheap attacks (again asaw)

                      

      Product-Search

      KoE Community Support

      Lord of the Hobby

      Why are the strongest characters all bad.......
    • Klexe wrote:

      We shouldn't talk about the values as these will be evaluated and changed anyway.

      It is more about the idea.

      I really like it.

      Suits our army strength in armor
      Works with fluff as our goodness is protecting us
      Makes the game easier (no tokens or disadvantage in deployment)
      Suits also our strength vs high dmg attacks while it also is worse vs mass cheap attacks (again asaw)
      I agree with you Klexe, but I also don’t believe they’d ever allow any army to have that, considering what they currently think is too “elite” (Grail oath + divine attacks even with high point costs)
    • @Sir_Sully I actually liked the -1 to wound as better fit vs high Strength than +1 resistance.

      On the 4+ cap, it is inferior to Aegis 5/6+ AP2 but better than aegis 5/6AP3.

      The stackable part with aegis makes it potentially really good on characters vs AP4+.

      @nightwun you had some concerns re the rule and game design. Could you elaborate so that we get a better understanding of what may conflict with 9th age rules philosophy?

      On phone now, will follow up to all later:/)

      Product Owner - ID LAB

      Alone you may go faster but together we go further ;)
    • Marcos24 wrote:

      I also don’t believe they’d ever allow any army to have that, considering what they currently think is too “elite” (Grail oath + divine attacks even with high point costs)
      I completely agree. Capped Armour saves + Aegis or Fortitude isn't going to be viewed favourably by RT

      To be honest, capping armour saves is a bad road to go down (e.g. dwarfs will want it) and it doesn't really make sense that a guy on a horse gets an armour save against a cannon. That's why GW invented Ward Saves.
      Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.