Should factions be consolidated to move the game farther away from WH?

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

Wondering how the new magic phase feels like? Try it yourself! The Behind The Scenes blog gives you enough to playtest it, including spells of four paths of magic, all hereditary spells and the Dwarven runes!

  • Should factions be consolidated to move the game farther away from WH?

    As the title asks. This recent video proposes that KOE and EOS are overlapping factions in which KOE is largely useless has no uniqueness of its own, and that it should be folded into the EOS and repackaged to streamline both factions into one. But beyond that, this video also states that in its opinion GW should never have even CREATED BRETONNIA in the first place, another statement which I think it outrageous and ludicrous. I will make no more commentary for this video beyond the fact that I think the entire idea is ludicrous beyond comprehension, and that I think it was an excellent move on the devs. part to retain the classic factions in the essential spirit of what the old WH factions were, but with new names for new units and new elements and new mechanics added. Retaining the essential substance of the old WH factions was vital in my opinion in keeping players immersed and interested in the new game. I will let you watch the video and let you decide what you think of what is being proposed. I am interested in the community's viewpoints on this.

    One thing I WOULD like to point out is that GW consolidated its classic WH factions when it created AOS - which is something that this channel condemned GW repeatedly for doing. The great irony is that now this same channel is proposing doing the VERY same thing to two factions in 9th Age and now wishes to explain why it's so "vital" for the game's future success. I find it rather amazing, even now, how GW did things that the gaming community despised them for doing, yet consider it to be reasonable and worthy of thought when someone else proposes doing the very same thing.

    I am fully aware that the creator of the video is a channel for which I have a well-known philosophical opposition to. However that was not my motivation for posting it, it was more the specific content of this particular topic.

    Do you think 9th Age would benefit in any way by having major factions consolidated? If not only KOE and EOS, what about potentially combining O & G with Ogre Khans into one faction? Or the Vermin Swarm with WOTDG? Or, why not just consolidate everything into TWO massive factions, "Good Guys" and "Bad guys" and really move away from the old WH factions? (yes, that last bit was sarcasm!)

    There are many magic rings in the world Bilbo Baggins, and none of them should be used lightly!

    The post was edited 3 times, last by Baranovich ().

  • I don't think so. I feel that keeping the factions in place is one of the big draws to 9th Age.

    And as I said in the comments to that video, it would be easy enough to differentiate between the armies by steering harder into the fluff. Play up more of Equitaine's mystical connections, and give them more units that draw upon it. (Faeries, unicorns and the like) Doing so will move the feel further away from the more mechanical, higher tech feel of Empire of Sonnstahl.
    Please check out my Youtube channel: Mittierim for The 9th Age Battle Reports!
  • Might as well. There's nothing in KoE that EoS can't already do better, aside from Peg Knights. DE are the fair-haired stepchildren in the elf world, wouldn't be too hard to roll them into the HBE. And the RT has repeatedly demonstrated they have no real idea how to deal with either army, so it would be for the best just to roll them into their closest equivalent. That way the RT doesn't have to worry about them anymore and they can concentrate on the armies they DO know what to do with.

    And when the fluff gets written, just say "The KoE and DE were too weak to survive so they got conquered, as tends to happen to cultures with weak armies." It would even have the benefit of being true, given the way KoE and DE play anymore.

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

  • No.
    Two reasons.

    1. A foundation of T9A is existing collections.
    If KoE and EoS play too similar, or DE and HE, then use brain to change game play for existing factions.
    But don't merge, merge, merge and find yourself playing KoE or ultimately AoS.

    2. Some like fluff!
    Come on, what exists in common between Grail quest and Renaissance Empire?
    Is DE dark humor any compatible with HE better-than-thy attitude?

    Fortunately, T9A already started to use 2. for the sake of 1., for DE.

    Social Media Team

    UN Coordinator, aka UNSG

    - druchii.net contribution: The 9th Age - Dread Elves
  • Why would we? Makes no sense!
    Because we have to find a way of making it work? Then let's start working on it instead of choosing the easy way out.
    And why doesn't it work? Because one AB is weaker than the other? So what? Not everything is tournament play. And again, let's make it work.

    I would like to have even more factions! Barbarians and Amazons for a start. Some water related like Atlantians... We can create here a game of our own, so let's keep it up!
  • We've been trying to find ways to make KoE and DE work in the army forums for what, two years now? And all the same problems remain with both armies.

    What's worse, the players posting in those army forums don't know what they want their armies to be! The KoE players wanted to be cav-heavy... except when they want to have good infantry. They don't want fantastic elements in the army... but they want NEW units in the army. The DE want a cult that was never part of the official army, a strong buffwagon - except to have the strong buffwagon you have to have weak troops, and that makes the buffwagon a must-take and nobody wants that - core units are weak and getting weaker; special units are hit-and-miss, and the players and RT can't even agree what the problems are, much less how to solve them.

    Better to spend the time perfecting the armies that the RT CAN make work, and drop the ones that they can't. Why draw out the agony any longer than we must?

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

  • I quit listening around bla bla gw bla 1:20 something. ish. That minute was definitely a bigger waste then opening a brett book ever was.



    Vulcan wrote:

    What's worse, the players posting in those army forums don't know what they want their armies to be! The KoE players wanted to be cav-heavy... except when they want to have good infantry. They don't want fantastic elements in the army... but they want NEW units in the army. The DE want a cult that was never part of the official army, a strong buffwagon - except to have the strong buffwagon you have to have weak troops, and that makes the buffwagon a must-take and nobody wants that - core units are weak and getting weaker; special units are hit-and-miss, and the players and RT can't even agree what the problems are, much less how to solve them.
    I agree with this. However I don't see how any of it is a book problem. Unrealistic expectations is what most of us suffer from. That and a tendency to lobby for our favorite army.
    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
    Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.
  • Everyone's going to want something different, and everyone brings bias to the table, leading with their heart more than their head. KoE and SE have tended to suffer or be great because they play in one part of the sandbox far more than most. If cav rules are powerful then KoE will be very good, same goes for BS based shooting and SE. When the rules are ok but not great in these categories the armies suffer. This is because the lore never matches the game mechanics. To balance out KoE we need to bring in infantry, but then its really just an EoS clone and it begins to push back on the lore for KoE. So we either need to re-think the lore (but if you re-think it too much KoE die hards will say its not my army anyone) or we need to strip some things that should have really been given to KoE and not EoS (monster cav for 1) to flush them out and differentiate them more. But if your an EoS raise your hand if your willing to see your monster cav disappear...that's what I thought.

    I think giving true monster cav to KoE, but with a twist, lets say Young Hypogryphs (cost them however you want) would be unique. Pegasus knights are not hammers, these would be flying hammers. Make them expensive as heck I don;t care for how powerful they are they shouldn't be cheap. But it would give a bigger hammer to the army to help it compete, and another flying knights unit further separates them from EoS.

    Another option is fey cav. Fast cav thats a spell casting unit riding unicorns. Not really a combat unit at all, but let's say a buff unit with a spell and an aura effect. This unit represents the female children of of the kingdom being chosen by the lady to go into her service. Some come back as Damsels, but those not quite as capable could form this unit.

    A third option would be to expand upon grail knights virtual eternal service to the lady, in the form of ethereal knights. Now its not going to be a god unit, but it can be an ethereal unit of grail knights to represent fallen heroes being recall from the grave to serve the lady. Not undead, just ethereal. Make this unit damage light, but give it things like terror and the ability to lower leadership for units their in contact with. Maybe instead of removing models they remove rank bonus for steadfast if they have a full rank or each unsaved wound they lower the ld of the unit by 1 (again these things could be S and WS 2 with 1 A per for all I care) this would help solve for KoE huge issue of breaking steadfast. But this unit couldn't go in alone as it does no damage on its own and would crumble.

    Let's get creative to solve the problem!
    please excuses typos, misspellings and words that seem out to place as I type mostly on my mobile device and spell check is out of control! :oops:
  • I think that it's important to keep all the armies so each one has to have its own identity. We need to break free from the chains of the old game and the old ways of thinking and be willing to takes risks and radically change armybooks by adding or merging units. Creating unique special rules for knights in KoE or make them better (undercosted or buffed) compared to the knights of EoS. EoS is supposed to be jack of all trades but master of none right?
  • Yes they have to at least have the best cav.I think EoS cav should be like lancer cav was at the end of the medieval period, basically plate chest piece and helmet and a lance on an unbarded steed. They recognized armor was not beneficial all over the knight and horse as combat was getting more ranged. I think giving them full plat with a lance and mounted would be sufficient. They'd be M8 unbarded with a 3+ save. Adjust the points as you see fit for the nerf, but there solid medium cav and unique to EoS and different from the heavy armor KoE.
    please excuses typos, misspellings and words that seem out to place as I type mostly on my mobile device and spell check is out of control! :oops:
  • To me, KoE needs to keep the Camelot feel that I believe the original intent was. If they do that, it automatically sets itself different that EoS. Camelot had no guns or steam technology or anything like that. I believe I heard mention of maybe more of a Fey connection, perhaps a unit of ladies on unicorns or saytrs or such for infantry to compliment the peasants. I think that KoE is already set apart and just needs to embrace what they have and tweak from there. There is endless possibilities with models out there.
    "Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you."
  • Should factions be consolidated to move the game farther away from WH?

    skipperthegaminggeek wrote:

    To me, KoE needs to keep the Camelot feel that I believe the original intent was. If they do that, it automatically sets itself different that EoS. Camelot had no guns or steam technology or anything like that. I believe I heard mention of maybe more of a Fey connection, perhaps a unit of ladies on unicorns or saytrs or such for infantry to compliment the peasants. I think that KoE is already set apart and just needs to embrace what they have and tweak from there. There is endless possibilities with models out there.


    It's not really a problem with KoE so much as it is a problem with EoS wanting everything. A post medieval stem punk and black powder faction should not also have knights in the traditional sense or monster cav. I've gone through why gw did this before, to make money and even ed empire got a book and new stuff and bretonnia was left behind. So I think it needs to be a new vision on EoS. But again those players won't allow that as most EoS armies parade around like KoE armies but with buff wagons and steam tanks and cannons.

    Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
    please excuses typos, misspellings and words that seem out to place as I type mostly on my mobile device and spell check is out of control! :oops:
  • HRBP wrote:

    skipperthegaminggeek wrote:

    To me, KoE needs to keep the Camelot feel that I believe the original intent was. If they do that, it automatically sets itself different that EoS. Camelot had no guns or steam technology or anything like that. I believe I heard mention of maybe more of a Fey connection, perhaps a unit of ladies on unicorns or saytrs or such for infantry to compliment the peasants. I think that KoE is already set apart and just needs to embrace what they have and tweak from there. There is endless possibilities with models out there.
    It's not really a problem with KoE so much as it is a problem with EoS wanting everything. A post medieval stem punk and black powder faction should not also have knights in the traditional sense or monster cav. I've gone through why gw did this before, to make money and even ed empire got a book and new stuff and bretonnia was left behind. So I think it needs to be a new vision on EoS. But again those players won't allow that as most EoS armies parade around like KoE armies but with buff wagons and steam tanks and cannons.

    Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
    As an EoS player, I do want the opportunity to field knights (I only use one unit myself, but the option is nice), but I don't have any issue with them being inferior to KoE. That could be done by either eliminating the Imperial cav upgrade to the core cav, and limit the special knights to 0-1 per army. Or you could just give an across the board stat bump to KoE knights to make them more elite.
    Please check out my Youtube channel: Mittierim for The 9th Age Battle Reports!
  • Having played Empire in WF, they are the bards of the Wargamming world. Little bit of everything but ruling nothing. I think they should have a splash of cavelry but giving them the ability to have better armor save than THE calvery army is a bit ludicrous. If EoS has Demigryphs then boost the hippogriff for KoE or something to the like. There is a workable fix out there for all this.
    "Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you."
  • I don't see why we need to consolidate similar armies, they exist and they have different miniature lines and ultimately the point of T9A is to provide a gaming framework for those miniature lines.

    However....
    Orcs&Goblins and Saurian Ancients are basically the same army so we should definitely combine those two in a single army.
    Same for Beast Herds and Highborn Elves, they're so similar we may as well combine them.