[LAB] Gathering Ideas for Lance formation

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!

  • Klexe wrote:

    Grouchy Badger wrote:

    Lance formation should have impact attacks base. I mean lets be fair here, you went into a lance formation to break through lines at a concentrated points. There should also be a rule that if you peel away enough wounds, you pop out the other side of the unit.
    That would be the advantage of "each unit get their own lance formation".

    For example:
    aspirants get zero = cheaper
    Realms = as now
    Questing could get impact hits but dont have fight in extra rank



    Having it as army wide rule looks good as people will read it first but the advantage of having it as special rule for each unit is also great.



    Other way is:

    Lance formation = 3 wide and nothing else

    + add special rules to unit entry
    this would maybe take too much of complexity budget and this i´m sure we need in other places.

    Head of Playtesting

    Lord of Chaos , Duke of Equitaine , Cuatl of the Golden City , Herold of the Empire , Summoner of Pestilence , Lord of the Sea WotdG,KoE,SA,EoS, and DL and new HE but with Dragon Empire Ordo Sanctae Mariae Teutonicorum
  • Cobra 3000 wrote:

    It might be a stupid question, but what if the first rank was 3 wide and the other ranks were 5 wide? It would look like a real lance much more
    that´s lkike in the game which name we don´t call out. :D

    There was lance formation like this


    x
    xxx
    xxxxx



    ( not a good picture , cause it was first rank 1 then 2 then 3 and so on)
    and every model on the sides + second rank was allowed to attack and could get attacked if a virtual line to opponent could be made. but cause out of legal? reasons(i think is a legal think but don´t know realy) it is not allowed anymore for me personal it is and was still the best rule and best formation. It looked so well on the Table.

    Head of Playtesting

    Lord of Chaos , Duke of Equitaine , Cuatl of the Golden City , Herold of the Empire , Summoner of Pestilence , Lord of the Sea WotdG,KoE,SA,EoS, and DL and new HE but with Dragon Empire Ordo Sanctae Mariae Teutonicorum
  • Sir_Sully wrote:

    Grouchy Badger wrote:

    There should also be a rule that if you peel away enough wounds, you pop out the other side of the unit.
    I don't actually like this idea. I appreciate that it's a cool and (potentially) fluffy idea but I think that it's very complex for what it brings to the table. Once you've popped through a unit you're now facing away from the main battle line and so you use a turn lining up your next charge. I see it being very difficult to use effectively and I don't think we need to increase the difficulty level required for KoE.
    There's also a lot of interactions to solve with this as well. Just for starters:
    What if I don't want to pop through the unit?
    What if there's no space on the other side?
    What if the other side is off the battlefield? And what if there's no space to bring the unit back on?

    There are also problems with slower armies (i.e. infantry armies) as they'd actually be unable to catch us while we just pop through units and then line up the next charge. I appreciate that they can strike back but it would be difficult for them to beat us if all our attacks are high strength due to charging.

    Marcos24 wrote:

    Make it an optional upgrade per unit, among other formations. That would take care of it becoming too expensive
    Which will mean it will be priced to be taken as often as it isn't taken making it exactly like praying now for the extra blessing is now. That makes me feel that Lance formation (or any other formation) would be an optional extra rather than a key part of the Army. If we're going to have a unique formation it should be a key component for the army.
    I'm not happy that Praying for the Blessing is no longer a key part of the Army as although it gives us a choice its a poor choice. Essentually we have to choose between overcosted knights or letting the opponent go first. That's not a fair choice.

    Lance formation would be the same. I can choose between being able to break an infantry blob, or not being able to break an infantry blob.... If you don't meet any infantry blobs, that's great, but when you do - you're screwed. It would just become a victory tax and because we'd all be taking it (because it's mandatory to break infantry) it will slowly increase in price. And because it's a unit upgrade, we wouldn't even get more killy knights as compensation because we can take Lance formation.

    I wouldn't be against different units using different formations (built in - not as an upgrade), but I think the complexity we'd need to make those formations worthwhile would be better used elsewhere.
    Its not complex at all:

    If the unit does 25% of the enemy units HP pool in damage, it cleaves through the unit, popping out behind and doing a. Wheel in any direction it chooses, but not past 90o.

    If the unit cleaves off the table, it follows standard off the board movement in addition to its wheel.

    If you dont want to cleave through the unit, dont put them in the formation?...
    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!
  • Grouchy Badger wrote:

    Its not complex at all:
    It is significantly more complex when compared with the current rule.

    T9A rules look to cover every possible eventuality and I'd expect at least 3 paragraphs (and more likely more) to describe this rule. 1 to describe the conditions that must be met (charging, number of wounds, etc), 1 to describe how to position the unit on the other side and the wheel allowed and at least 1 to detail the exceptions and interactions with Terrain, etc. I'd be surprised if the rule was less than around half a page.

    In contrast Lance formation currently is just one single paragraph of 2 and a half lines. Approximately equal to one of the paragraphs that would be required for this idea.

    Grouchy Badger wrote:

    If the unit does 25% of the enemy units HP pool in damage, it cleaves through the unit, popping out behind and doing a. Wheel in any direction it chooses, but not past 90o.
    To be clear, I'm not expecting answers to these questions. I'm asking them to illustrate the complexity of the idea and the situations that are possible. It's also worth pointing out that these are the ones that I thought of in a relatively short space of time. Other issues that may require additional rules to be written in might become apparent when testing the rule

    Which is not always a simple due to characters and other units with more than one health pool. Which HP pool do you use in those scenarios? I know the answer, but you still need to stipulate this in the rules.

    Wheel in any direction means you can at least be facing in the right direction. It also makes the rule a lot stronger and harder to effectively counterplay - we can easily prevent a responding unit from flanking us using this wheel. You also need to stipulate exactly where the unit starts it's wheel (move the unit directly forward until it obeys the 1" spacing rule with the unit it was engaged with) and that it follows all the normal rules for wheeling in the movement phase.

    You also need to say what to do if the unit doesn't fit the other side due to terrain or due to another unit. You also need to say that you can't wheel into another combat (unless you want to be able to do that).

    There's also potential interaction with the Banner of the Green Knight, where terrain that is normally impassible isn't but the unit must end it's move outside the Impassible terrain. What happens if you move the unit and then cannot wheel out of impassible terrain? Do you move the unit past the impassible terrain or do they stay in combat? Even if you put this in the Banner of the Green Knight you're still increasing complexity.

    Does the unit in combat get a pursuit move? Can they do anything else (e.g. Reform / overrun)?

    What happens if the space the unit would occupy is currently occupied by an enemy fleeing unit? Or a friendly fleeing unit?

    What happens if the lance has been flanked? This can happen while the lance counts as charging in overruns or due to a countercharge from an EoS support unit.

    Grouchy Badger wrote:

    If you dont want to cleave through the unit, dont put them in the formation?...
    Meaning I have to pay for the 3 wide formation and forfeit all the advantages of it. And not wanting to cleve through may not be obvious in deployment meaning I have to waste a turn reforming.

    I really don't think this brings much to us other than making us more of an avoidance army. It's unique and a cool idea, but I don't think that this is the best way to develop KoE. I'd prefer
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Sir_Sully wrote:

    To be clear, I'm not expecting answers to these questions. I'm asking them to illustrate the complexity of the idea and the situations that are possible. It's also worth pointing out that these are the ones that I thought of in a relatively short space of time. Other issues that may require additional rules to be written in might become apparent when testing the rule

    Which is not always a simple due to characters and other units with more than one health pool. Which HP pool do you use in those scenarios? I know the answer, but you still need to stipulate this in the rules.

    Wheel in any direction means you can at least be facing in the right direction. It also makes the rule a lot stronger and harder to effectively counterplay - we can easily prevent a responding unit from flanking us using this wheel. You also need to stipulate exactly where the unit starts it's wheel (move the unit directly forward until it obeys the 1" spacing rule with the unit it was engaged with) and that it follows all the normal rules for wheeling in the movement phase.

    You also need to say what to do if the unit doesn't fit the other side due to terrain or due to another unit. You also need to say that you can't wheel into another combat (unless you want to be able to do that).

    There's also potential interaction with the Banner of the Green Knight, where terrain that is normally impassible isn't but the unit must end it's move outside the Impassible terrain. What happens if you move the unit and then cannot wheel out of impassible terrain? Do you move the unit past the impassible terrain or do they stay in combat? Even if you put this in the Banner of the Green Knight you're still increasing complexity.

    Does the unit in combat get a pursuit move? Can they do anything else (e.g. Reform / overrun)?

    What happens if the space the unit would occupy is currently occupied by an enemy fleeing unit? Or a friendly fleeing unit?

    What happens if the lance has been flanked? This can happen while the lance counts as charging in overruns or due to a countercharge from an EoS support unit.
    When a lance formation under the rules of Cleave Through makes a charge, follow normal Lance Formation rules while applying the following:
    If the unit does 40% of the enemy units total HP pool in damage, it cleaves through the unit, popping out behind the unit with the rear of the unit an inch away from the rear of the enemy unit. The unit can perform a wheel after it successfully cleaves, wheeling forward its advance rate left or right, but not past 90 degrees. If the unit cleaves off the table and follows the normal rules for units moving off the board except it is allowed its advance rate in one direction to simulate the post cleave wheel. If the unit comes into contact with impassable, it takes DTs. If the unit is under the effects of the Green Knight Banner, and cannot complete its charge in a legal position, it is allowed to finish its charge outside of the terrain. If a unit cleaves through, it cannot pursuit or reform. If the cleaving unit comes into contact with a friendly unit, both units take DTs. If it comes into contact with an enemy unit, it counts as a charge.
    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!
  • I think we’re holding onto the “old” faction just a bit too much... like, slightly... but still too much. Surely we can come up with plenty of rules/formations that are unique to us but allow for something different to help somewhat separate us a bit more from that previous faction.

    I’m actually annoyed the green knight is named “green” knight to be honest. Revenant would sound sweet and allow for a much more mysterious and open background
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    I think we’re holding onto the “old” faction just a bit too much... like, slightly... but still too much. Surely we can come up with plenty of rules/formations that are unique to us but allow for something different to help somewhat separate us a bit more from that previous faction.

    I’m actually annoyed the green knight is named “green” knight to be honest. Revenant would sound sweet and allow for a much more mysterious and open background
    just say bretonnians.
    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!
  • I have a twelve inch banner saying "Clan Skryre" on my doomwheel and I'm not getting rid of that.

    And the green knight is mythology just as much as dragons, vampires or minotaurs are. GW has no claim on that.
    A summary of all proposed ideas from the VS LAB brainstorm thread

    MAKE THE SWARM COWARDLY AGAIN!
    WE DEMAND TERRIBLE LEADERSHIP!
    DOWN WITH COMPETENT GENERALS!
  • I have a twelve inch banner saying "Clan Skryre" on my doomwheel and I'm not getting rid of that.

    And the green knight is mythology just as much as dragons, vampires or minotaurs are. GW has no claim on that.
    A summary of all proposed ideas from the VS LAB brainstorm thread

    MAKE THE SWARM COWARDLY AGAIN!
    WE DEMAND TERRIBLE LEADERSHIP!
    DOWN WITH COMPETENT GENERALS!
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    I feel like it would be in the best interest of the game in the long run if there were less similarities in the lore between the two games
    its mythology not another game. Many names are bound to legends not games. Especially for KOE or you think the lady and grail knights are gw names? That´s the big difference.

    If you hear Grail , Green Knight , The Lady , Pegasus or Unicorn for example you know excatly whats they are cause of legends , Saga and Mythology reasons.

    Head of Playtesting

    Lord of Chaos , Duke of Equitaine , Cuatl of the Golden City , Herold of the Empire , Summoner of Pestilence , Lord of the Sea WotdG,KoE,SA,EoS, and DL and new HE but with Dragon Empire Ordo Sanctae Mariae Teutonicorum
  • That’s true @Marcos24, but it’s a fine line between original fluff and...

    Doomstrike Fyre-beard-Soul-Syrpentis Metyl-Realm Slayaer-Bersyrkaers!

    I’m happy to play an army that pays homage to a Romantic vision of Chivalry, King Arthur, and the struggle between the old pagan ways and the modern world (that new-fangled church of Sunna, and those black-powder weapons).

    We could definitely change the name of the Green Knight to something a bit more broad: “Avatar of the Lady”, “Spectral Guardian”, “Immortal Chevalier”, and then make mention of some of the common legends of the land in the fluff. (Green Knight, Black Knight, Headless Horseman, etc.)

    But back on Topic, The Lance Formation:

    Here’s a question for all of you, pick 2 of the 4 choices and decide which 2 are most important to you:

    1. Reliable charge damage
    2. Steadfast breaking potential
    3. 3 wide formation (for looks alone)
    4. Stronger grind for surviving after the charge

    I think it will really help in the future to know where the KoE community’s preferences lie.

    Are aesthetics the most important to you, and if so, do you love how 3 wide looks?

    Is charge reliability most important to you? Would you rather be pretty sure you’re going to do a certain number of wounds every time you charge, or is a static combat bonus more important?

    Let us know. Right now the lance formation sort of tries to have its cake and eat it to, and ends up doing neither a good percentage of the time (without help from auto-include items like the banner of the last charge)
  • Ludaman wrote:

    1. Reliable charge damage
    2. Steadfast breaking potential
    3. 3 wide formation (for looks alone)
    4. Stronger grind for surviving after the charge
    1+3
    Lok alone. 3 wide is no must

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

    Why are the strongest characters all bad.......

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