Auxiliary books for KoE?

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!

  • I love the cavalry aspect of Ekitania, but the army is not just The Cavalry army, it is, yes, but it also is the Medieval Chivalry Army, the XIII century army, the Modern Fantasy Celtic army and maybe a few things more.

    There is a place for an army of peasants, crusaders, Scottish-like rebels or Scottish-like Robert De Bruce rough nobles army, a more magic/lady oriented Ekitanian army to mention a few.

    What I don't see is a Roman-like Ekitanian army because Ekitania, seems to me, don't have the social structure for a formal professional army like Rome, Ekitania uses levies and free men, not full time soldiers, even the full time warriors are nobles not soldiers.
  • I dont see an auxiallry book for KoE with focus on cavalry any time soon.

    These make the most sense

    • Crusader
    • Castle fighting
    • Peasant storm
    • Dark KoE (people just love it)
    • Even greek army are missing (imo needs a whole new army race)


    Why would an auxiallry book focus on cavalry if we are already that in a normal book?


    Back to roman and KoE. While i agree that the order and unit profile of EoS make more sense for Romans (S+B on imperial Guard + orders etc) gunpowder is just such a big no no that it flat falls out.
    KoE is the only real answer and somewhat works. Will it be good? Not really. Will it be bad? Dont think so.


    Also you have already some light east influence with brigands and yeomen.

    No harm in playing eastern light roman cavalry with throwing weapons or greek roman cavalry with bows? Same for brigands. You can give them greek bows or spanish bows etc pp

    Imo roman army do fit very well.


    You could also play HBE as Roman army though but it lacks the trebuchet and more heavy WM and monster doesnt make much sense in an Roman army while one or two Hippos can be okayish

                                 

    Translation Team DE

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

  • I would not mind a full roman and/or greek army book.

    When you proxy your models to fit an existing book you lose the representation of golden opportunities of rules such as the roman turtle formation and pilus or the greek city state armies. Look at the unofficial Nippon army book, I have played it a few times with proxy peasants and it is fun. Banzai!

    Taking inspiration from real world history civilizations and their culture and religion is just so much easier to get compiled into a complete book. You have natural boundaries on what it should include and how it should play. Already relatable to new players.
    "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
  • RomanRagnorak wrote:

    The main reason people don't think of Romans as KoE is that they are locked in a vision that KoE has to be cav based, because of that game this was inspired by, but in 9th Age there is no real reason why it has to be that way.
    You're right - there's no real reason why KoE has to be cav based, except T9A's fluff and the ASAW. Oh and the name - Equitaine, which is clearly derived as a cross between equine (meaning relating to or affecting horses or other members of the horse family) and Aquitaine (a French Duchy)

    Also consider that Cavalry is what brought most people to KoE (or Brets) in the first place. Without a clear focus on cavalry, a lot of the people here wouldn't run KoE lists. I have Dwarfs or Empire or Orcs when I fancy a footslog.

    There are 15 other factions that are based around infantry, I don't really see why having a faction based on cavalry is a bad thing.

    RomanRagnorak wrote:

    The developers themselves say things are balanced - If I can't make an all-infantry list with KoE then things really aren't balanced.
    This is just not true. A lot of armies can't do certain things intentionally to keep the game interesting. If every faction was the same and could be played in any manner, the game would be pretty boring. Frankly, this statement is ridiculous and I can extend the same argument to say any of the following:
    • "Only OK can make an all Monstrous Infantry army and therefore the game isn't balanced"
    • "Some armies can't make and entirely mounted list so the game isn't balanced"
    • "Some armies can only cast bound spells so the game isn't balanced"
    • "Some armies can't make a gunline, so the game isn't balanced"
    • "Some armies don't have models that look great in pink so the game isn't balanced"
    • "Some armies don't have Dwarfs / Elves / Humans / Ogres / Orcs / Goblins / Lizards / Rats so they can't be balanced"
    Faction differences make the game harder to balance but a lot more interesting. Personally I don't think our Dukes and Paladins should be allowed to be fielded on foot and I dislike Forlorns as they do too much for an infantry unit so I don't take Forlorns or Feets characters. I accept that other people don't agree with that and enjoy playing feets characters and Forlons though.

    I agree with the others that have said Romans would be better represented in the T9A rules by EoS, as they are more "disciplined" that KoE - Orders, detachments, etc all fit a Roman army much better. KoE's fluff is (or should be) all about individual martial prowess, which actually better fits the barbarians fighting against Rome.

    That shouldn't prevent you from running a KoE roman styled army, just don't expect it to be effective. That isn't how KoE are designed to work
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Opening up playstyles to all armies but giving them incentives to play a certain one is imo preferrable than having to force players into a playstyle.

    Should KoE have efficient infantry? To a lesser extent.

    Should KoE have efficient cavalry? Yes.

    Should cavalry be the only playstyle? No.

    Should it be the best playstyle? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

    Open up most common playstyles to most armies and instead give incentive, minor or major depending on army, towards what you want the army to represent.

    Ogres should be able to play heavier into mountain goblins in my opinion. Not by giving them any particular bonuses for it, no. But by opening up the roster and lift any restrictions to it. Just like our peasant uprisings or british 100 year war infantry army.
    "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
  • Sir_Sully wrote:

    Also consider that Cavalry is what brought most people to KoE (or Brets) in the first place. Without a clear focus on cavalry, a lot of the people here wouldn't run KoE lists. I have Dwarfs or Empire or Orcs when I fancy a footslog.
    I am not so sure on that.

    Remember KoE has to be the gate for historic players like above. There is absolutly NO reason to be aggresive vs "more infantry orientiated KoE players" as they are most likely are historic players and want to play our rank and file system.

    For pure real historic players KoE is the only real answer. Even EoS has to manny weird stuff

                                 

    Translation Team DE

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

  • Duke Niemar wrote:

    Open up most common playstyles to most armies and instead give incentive, minor or major depending on army, towards what you want the army to represent.
    I feel that that's actually what we have now. Can you play an all infantry KoE army - Yes. Are you pushed towards cavalry by the fluff and the cavalry being better - Yes. Does this rule out combined arms or infantry entirely - No. Can you win with KoE infantry - Yes.

    Does that stop infantry players' complains that KoE infantry isn't good enough - no. And that's what frustrates me - I did overreact though so apologies for that @RomanRagnorak

    KoE can be fitted into a roman dynamic but I wouldn't expect them to do well.

    Klexe wrote:

    For pure real historic players KoE is the only real answer. Even EoS has to manny weird stuff
    It's worth pointing out that you can play EoS without the weird stuff - it's probably not optimal but neither is an infantry focused KoE army.

    Most of the armies are based on warfare at some point in history. If HBE played like they did in WFB (spear peeps & archers, supported by elite infantry & some cavalry) they'd represent an English medieval army much better than KoE does (Billmen & Longbows, supported by knights). Unfortunately HBE doesn't play like that in T9A but you could build the army in that way.

    I don't have a problem with people playing KoE with infantry but people should be aware that it isn't how the faction has been designed to be played. ASAW have our main builds as Cavalry Focused (but not necessarily all cav), Combined arms (which includes cavalry doing some work) and flying circus.

    The Romans were focused on infantry and it's arguably comined arms but for me it's more infantry focused. Yes, they had cavalry but not much and their cavalry was used mainly for screening, pursuits, scouting and the desperate flank charge. That fits chaff more accurately in T9A than anything else

    As I said above - I overreacted, but I find it very frustrating when people argue that we "need" more or better infantry because I don't agree that that fits with the dynamic of the army.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Absolutely @Sir_Sully, it does not stop us at the moment. Does that mean that we should quit considering changes or tweaks to our infantry based options to get them in a place where more of us can be happy with them? No, definitely not. Neither does it mean less time for our cavalry or flying options in the same manner.

    But KoE is not the only army and I want the same for many others aswell. Ogres is just one example.

    On the other topic, more armybooks means more depth and complexity. It doesn't matter if they share a few playstyles with other armies, it is through similarities and differences that we find our niché. In AOE2 there are several archer nations, britons, mayans, vietnamese, chinese, etc. They all play to the same unit type but the way they do it makes them unique.

    A roman or greek army book would use the same profilic unit type as empire, dwarves or wdg (infantry) but that does not mean there is no room for them to be unique.

    Ofcourse it means more work for the team, but since we know it is a slow process already, why not start the discussions early?
    "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 roman or greek army book would use the same profilic unit type as empire, dwarves or wdg (infantry) but that does not mean there is no room for them to be unique.

    Ofcourse it means more work for the team, but since we know it is a slow process already, why not start the discussions early?
    I agree that a new Roman and a new Greek army book or Auxiliary book could be put together and I'd be in favour of both if / when the team get around to them.

    I just don't feel that either of these factions fit KoE's dynamic. Both the Romans and the Greeks relied on disciplined infantry formations to win battles so they fit the EoS dynamic much better. If they're going to be Auxiliary books I think they should be EoS auxiliary books.
    Better fits for KoE would be:

    • Peasant revolt (absolutely required)
    • Spirit / Fae type book from Arthurian lore
    • A Giant Knight list - full of different types of fully armoured Giants with a mounted Giant with a 2+ armour save and the blessing- Just for giggles! :)
    • Robin hood style army - this is different to peasant's revolt by having lots skirmishing & scouting archers with ambushing combat units
    • Dead KoE (because of the old fluff)
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • On, no no no. Medieval europe and ancient rome and pallas are entirely different.

    Auxiliary romans for KoE is not something I want either. I was merely discussing that people lose so much character when they proxy models and have to adhere to rules that does not represent your army style.

    Roman legionnaires having discipline 5 in the case of peasant rules from KoE for example. Not very immersive. A full army book for them wouöd be way better. Same for a japanese and/or chinese inspired one. Nippon homebrew for example.
    "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 ().

  • A roman normal man at arms having 5 ld while if you join a centurio (and give him proper training [weapon master]) they gain ld 7 and even get up to ld 9/10 from general makes sense though

                                 

    Translation Team DE

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

  • Kreln wrote:

    I don't really want to repeat myself but auxiliary army for KoE should be in my opinion either:
    - Crusade oriented with Knightly Orders, and perhaps some mercenaries(Can be anything even Ogres or Dwarfs or even Saracen based units
    - Evil/Dead/Vampiric army
    With the first being the obvious favorite
    I think no one disagrees on that

                                 

    Translation Team DE

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby