KoE General Discussion thread

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!

  • The problems for the french at Agincourt was mostly derived from the terrain and the weather. But note that the most vulnerable part of the mounted warrior was his mount. Many knights did not die from arrowfire directly but died as a result of it when their horses got hit and bolted or collapsed. Also, if you would dismount a cavalry regiment their mass on foot would often be far less than even that of an archer regiment. Meaning that if the knights cannot organize themselves when even a seemingly small part of them having been dismounted, such as the case at Agincourt, even longbowmen could defeat them in melee.
    "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
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    Well that last arrow had an arrowhead case hardened with modern capabilities, and still nothing, i thought that was impressive. Besides i think many people still think that longbow arrows are what killed the majority of knights at agincourt
    Yes and no. A modern composite hunting / competition bow isn't a fair comparison to a longbow. Obviously the vast majority of people couldn't draw a longbow nowadays as the draw weight was about 150 pounds and even if you could, it took decades of practice to aim it effectively. What a lot of people don't realise is that a fully drawn longbow would have been extended beyond the cheek of the archer firing it, so you can't sight down the arrow to aim - it has to be done intuitively.

    A Bodkin arrow fired from a longbow was very capable of piercing mail armour and this was what Bodkin's were designed to do. Mail armour would have deflected a glancing blow that would otherwise have wounded, but a plumb hit from a Bodkin arrow would have pierced mail (or heavy armour in game) quite easily.

    An arrow shot from a longbow would not routinely pierce plate armour by enough to wound the person wearing it, at least according to the University of Warsaw - conclusions on page 84. Essentially, English longbowmen fired so many arrows that eventually they hit a weak point in the armour. Most of the arrows wouldn't pierce the plate but because armour wouldn't have been uniformly strong in those times, you were only looking for a lucky shot and a few thousand archers firing 5-6 shots a minute increases those odds dramatically. That doesn't change the fact that against a plate armoured opponent, it would have been far more effective to try to hit the horse.


    At Agincourt, it's very likely that the archers used (mainly) broadhead arrows which would have been ineffective against the French armour, but would have been very effective against the horses. The archers would have "aimed" for the horses which are larger (and therefore easier to hit) and whose armour offered much less protection than that of the Men riding them. As @Grouchy Badger points out, most of the French casualties were not caused directly by the longbowmen's arrows, but indirectly after their arrows hit the horses.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • The rules simulate arrowfire quite effectively, albeit with a very slow firing archer, 6 shots during the course of an engagement would get you hanged for deliberately slacking in your martial duty.

    The best defense cavalry had against arrows, heavy cav or light alike, was their speed, which in all honesty the game poorly represents. Even a sprinting light infantryman could not match a heavy cavalry knight in canter. In game it would be more realistic, disregarding balance ofcourse, if horses had 3x or even 4x the movement of human infantry. 32" gallop across the board in a single turn (!) or infantry marching at 4", if we go the other way around.
    "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
  • Also when I use the term "die" I talk from a simplified perspective, all soldiers that are put out of combat are for the current engagement's purposes "dead". It includes captured and not mortally wounded troops aswell. It was comparatively rare for a knight, wealthy warrior, to die in combat as coupled with their superior armor the other side rather tried to capture and ransom them to sustain the war effort, with a few exceptions ofcourse.

    You are very irresponsible to engage in historical discussion where I can find it. I am currently fighting a work related historical-discussion-addiction and this forum is enabling it. Shame on you!

    "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:

    The rules simulate arrowfire quite effectively, albeit with a very slow firing archer,
    Generally I think you're right but I don't think it's got volley fire right at the moment. I can understand why crossbows and gunpowder weapons are fired in just 2 ranks because they were (generally) used as "flat" fire weapons. Bows were not and their main asset was that, particularly at longer ranges, everyone could shoot, creating a volley of arrows that the enemy couldn't hope to avoid.

    Archers should be able to shoot in 3 or even 4 ranks or if we don't want more shots (understandably) make it gradually easier for the shots to hit with each additional Full rank beyond the second.

    Given that longbows only have a 6" range advantage over muskets, I don't think this would be unfair given the historical usage of these weapons.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • @Sir_Sully

    You are partially right. However, since most proficient archer regiments knew the limitation of range they often, not always, arranged themselves wider than they were deep as to minimize the difference in range. All archers could fire at a reasonably similar angle and thus concentrate fire a bit better and have a bit more control. Which could become very important if the battlefield had a very uneven frontline, a too great spread could hit your own troops.

    In game we currently deploy around 2-3 ranks deep with archers which is quite accurate to history. Bow armed missile troops could however, as you said, fire from all ranks as at long range and in field battles they fired in high arching volleys.
    "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

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Duke Niemar ().

  • I sold an KoE army for a friend and of mine and as it looks like I reached the requested price and keep a few units. Actually I kind of like them and Knights have often no faces so its easier to paint.

    Are there allready coat of arms of KoE of different cities?
    Also I have a green knight that I dont want to paint green. Sadly I only find green knights as inspiration. I would be happy to see some ideas of different colour.

    Thx in advance.
  • KrogGar wrote:

    So i am making a list for 3k pointS, and I am wondering if I can combine piety and roland banner for 4+ aegis against range attacks?
    No. Rulebook says you have to use the "worst" combination possible.

    So it is wasted points to take both.
    Vs s5 attacks you have 4++ already

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

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

    KrogGar wrote:

    So i am making a list for 3k pointS, and I am wondering if I can combine piety and roland banner for 4+ aegis against range attacks?
    No. Rulebook says you have to use the "worst" combination possible.
    So it is wasted points to take both.
    Vs s5 attacks you have 4++ already
    But with piety I don‘t get the 4++ against s5 right, since piety is max 5++?

    So if Piet doesn‘t get better with praying, I might go for the first turn in this small game, I don‘t think there is a lot of s5 on 3k points...
  • KrogGar wrote:

    Klexe wrote:

    KrogGar wrote:

    So i am making a list for 3k pointS, and I am wondering if I can combine piety and roland banner for 4+ aegis against range attacks?
    No. Rulebook says you have to use the "worst" combination possible.So it is wasted points to take both.
    Vs s5 attacks you have 4++ already
    But with piety I don‘t get the 4++ against s5 right, since piety is max 5++?
    So if Piet doesn‘t get better with praying, I might go for the first turn in this small game, I don‘t think there is a lot of s5 on 3k points...
    Exactly. Piety max at 5+ so if you piety you cant have 4++ ever.

    Piety is for non pray armies.

    Double grails
    Realm bus with piety
    ist a good build for that

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

    Why are the strongest characters all bad.......
  • 00TnT00 wrote:

    One thing that's been on my mind lately is that if in the FAB we are going to get the three main lores of magic that we have now, or is it possible that we get something new. I find that we can have very interesting options if we get something like pyromancy, evocation or more aggresive lores that we can combine with occultism. Would it be possible?
    not very chivalrous magic paths
    I am going to offend you. You are not going to like it. You will survive.

    Chaotic Neutral
    youtube.com/channel/UCJ9e5C1f26iuvhOA33rsFJQ

    Model Reviews with Twice the Brain Injuries!
  • 00TnT00 wrote:

    One thing that's been on my mind lately is that if in the FAB we are going to get the three main lores of magic that we have now, or is it possible that we get something new. I find that we can have very interesting options if we get something like pyromancy, evocation or more aggresive lores that we can combine with occultism. Would it be possible?

    Lore changes are possible in the LAB, but Lore selection is very closely tied to the background of the magical traditions of the faction.


    To answer those ones, specifically:

    - Occultism is the left-handed path, a magic forbidden in Equitaine and Sohnstahl. It might be okay for an auxiliary ("The Knights of the Black Grail"?) but probably not for the KoE LAB.

    - Pyromancy is less of an ethical issue and I could see the background potentially bending far enough to allow it. It would require either adding a new magical tradition that was less "JRPG White Mage" than Damsels, or adding a far more militant and fiery flavour to some Damsels. I suspect it would get vetoed, however.

    - Evocation has a potential shot. It's the magic of the dead and departed. In a vision for Equitaine that was heavy on "the honoured dead", I could potentially see the tradition embracing it. I know some people have advocated for "spirit knights", etc.

    These would be uphill battles, and would likely need to have a broader impact on the faction as a whole to add; adding Evocation would probably need to accompany adding multiple "noble ghost" units, while adding Pyromancy would probably need a new wizard design and probably more than just that (I could see Damsels re-envisioned as "Elementalists", with Divination as Air, Pyromancy as Fire, Druidism as Earth and... something for water? And then add some Elementals as a new unit type), and an auxiliary with Occultism would probably not have the Blessing.


    All up, I wouldn't consider these likely. It would probably take pretty radical additions to KoE to justify (Elementals! Ghosts!) and I've noticed people tend to be extremely resistant to that kind of change being made to KoE.

    Background Team

  • Couldn't the warrior damsel not be perfect for that? He/she could be a wizzard conclave with 4 spells and you take two?

    Heritage
    Cascading fire
    Sorching salvo would be awesome but I think pyrchoastic flow
    And flaming sword

    Is a good fit.

    You have a Typ of "holy inquisition" the sword of the church of the lady you can say and only he can use these aggressive spells and no one else.

    Together with a Damsel we finally could get some range dmg out but only vs low armored units which is a perfect fit as high armored enemies are the target for our knights

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

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

    @WhammeWhamme In my opinion I feel like we miss Cosmology and that Divination or Druidism is not really the path we should have. (Btw are divination and cosmology not related in a certain way?)

    Cosmology is about balance between Cosmos and Chaos (which should be obvious to anyone who's ever read the spells ;) ).

    Equitaine could plausibly have it, although I'd say for the same reasons it fits Druidism also fits; namely, that Damsels are in tune with nature and the balance of the world, kinda D&D Druidy-y.

    Divination and Cosmology... "related"... ehn. There are common philosophical precepts underpinning them. Kinda maybe?

    Klexe wrote:

    Couldn't the warrior damsel not be perfect for that? He/she could be a wizzard conclave with 4 spells and you take two?

    Heritage
    Cascading fire
    Sorching salvo would be awesome but I think pyrchoastic flow
    And flaming sword

    Is a good fit.

    You have a Typ of "holy inquisition" the sword of the church of the lady you can say and only he can use these aggressive spells and no one else.

    Together with a Damsel we finally could get some range dmg out but only vs low armored units which is a perfect fit as high armored enemies are the target for our knights

    Sure I guess?

    Note that the RT would probably extract a price for this, either removing a pre-existing Lore or trading access to something else. (Assuming they don't decide that KoE deserves a freebie, which they might, it's up to them)

    00TnT00 wrote:

    What about thaumaturgy? It already have some flavourful spells that really seem to help with our lore (trial of faith, hand of heavens, wrath of god) seems oddly familiar with divine judgement

    Thaumaturgy is... interesting. I'm not sure it suits the Lady and her Damsels; she seems more loving and benevolent and protective, not all about laying down the smitings on some fools.

    I mean that's still a maybe? Again though, Lore access isn't a freebie.


    Although if KoE *were* to trade away Divination - which lore would people want in exchange?

    Background Team