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.

  • Maxuli wrote:

    Here's my two cents on the matter, from a perspective of very little if any play with EoS or KoE:

    The Empire of Sonnestahl (if it is like its equivalent in the previous game) seems to be more advanced, or at the cusp of, perhaps, a revolution to break feudal relations, while the Kingdom of Equitaine is most definitely not. Vast majority peasantry, strong feudal relations, a true commitment to feudal "ideals" (vows, prejudice against peasantry, etc.) and so on. I think this is where a differentiation could be found, if the difference is to be found in the background, or, perhaps rather, if the difference is to be grounded in the background (no matter which way it would causally go, if the gameplay difference is made before background difference or background difference made before gameplay difference). This might be a trivial note, and I am sorry if I wasted page space, but I'm sure some people more historically knowledgeable might be able to build on the idea. What are the advantages (and disadvantages) of a strong, "peak feudal" society over a society at the cusp of a (perhaps bourgeois/liberal) revolution?
    None, really. That's why Western Europe all went over virtually simultaneously. They had to, to survive against the other nations that did.

    Baranovich wrote:

    Flails and maces, morning stars, etc. for example makes PERFECT sense for a KOE knight! The lance is the symbol of KOE, but not the ONLY weapon they would use. They would certainly have some knight in the ranks choosing hand weapons while others chose the lance. A charge of heavy horse isn't only effective with a lance. The sheer weight of the charge and impetus of the speed of the horses crashing into the enemy doesn't REQUIRE the lance to be successful. To me, it's the charging formation in the lance SHAPE that is significant, maybe even more than the actual use of the lance as a weapon. It's that arrow-shaped formation of horses knifing into an enemy's battleline that makes a charge of heavy horse work. It's like an ocean tide force that moves all before it. Using lances as weapons is one way they would deliver a charge, but not the ONLY way.

    And that is precisely the reason that the devs. gave KOE Realm Knights the options of weapons! It is yet another piece of the story that HR simply doesn't grasp. He looks at the lance like it's their symbol so they wouldn't use any other weapon? Ever? Makes no sense.

    I want some grounded realism in my factions, not cliches. Lances are not glued to knight's hands, they WOULD choose alternate weapons at times to charge with!

    Agreed... to a point. If you want to talk about the item of military gear a knight would always have in hand in a battle, it's his SHIELD. The simple fact is, historically, armor was not strong enough to outright stop a killing blow from at least seriously injuring the target until the advent of plate. A shield, on the other hand, COULD stop that blow cold. So a shield was an absolutely NECESSARY piece of kit for any non-plate armored warrior.

    Except... to use a morning star, KoE knights have to surrender their shield. Insanity!

    JDAntoine wrote:

    Fairly simple awnser from me:

    - I do not think the game should be moved much farther away from the foundation it was build upon.
    Instead improve where many agree the game lacks depth, feels too random or generally speaking generates more 'un-fun' situations as fun situations.

    What I love about the ninth age is the depth it offers for creators of armies, meaning the hobby will always be on the first spot and ninth age will be an incredible set of rules to work for ANY model your heart desires to play with.

    I think the game is so far past the foundation it was built upon that clinging to what remains of that foundation for nostalgia's sake risks T9A never becoming the game it SHOULD be. Especially when clinging to that foundation disrupts balance as badly as it has.
  • For the record, there are no internal discussions happening regarding the merging of any armies. Anyone suggesting such a move is either wishlisting, trying to stir up the community, or just talking hypothetically. I for one look forward to the day when the Kingdoms of Equitaine ride nobly forth clad in their new army book** justly routing their enemies and standing proudly in their gleaming armor at the top of the tournament results!

    **no date in mind when that's going to happen but it won't be eleven years from now!

    Advisory Board

  • @nmaier I also started KoE/Bretonnia in 9th age. We don't need non-human additions to separate the identity between KOE and EoS. One is medieval the other Renaissance, that's already a difference. The problem is with EoS having strong cavalry it steps on our toes and also steps outside their theme since the renainssance was known as the decline of heavy cavalry/chivalry. Keep in mind that of the 16 different armies to choose from, most of which are high fantasy races, i'm only passionate and only play and collect the lowest fantasy human army. I'd prefer EoS to get monsters and other odd creatures in their army

    Start with fixing cavalry rules in general if needed, buff ours and weaken theirs. Or don't let hatred and lightning reflexes affect their cavalry but give it to us. Any unit with hatred becomes ridiculously stronger. I really wish that rule was removed from the game.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Marcos24 ().

  • KoE has better cavalry. There are numerous small advantages the KoE units have, while all EoS has is Plate.

    Seriously:

    >The Assumptions I made for comparison were:
    >- AWSR's Cancel as they should be same effect (Which I actually don't agree with but that is for another post)
    >- I know our units are faster, problem is faster only counts if you are better in shooting. If you are not better in the Magic/Shooting Phase, >speed means nothing as your opponent can turtle and blast you apart, making you engage.


    ...yyyeah. Lance Formation and the Blessing (even just the 6+, ma'am) (plus hey, Thunderous Horsies) compare to what now, precisely? EoS special rules tend to only apply to their infantry, whereas KoE have several-cavalry specific special rules.



    Oh, and I love the conclusion of "call it a draw, KoE every time, EoS every time, I hate flying so EoS" => "EoS has better cavalry"...

    ...given the deliberate choice to compare QK's instead of GK's to Knightly Orders.



    So no. EoS and KoE have highly comparable units. Which is a problem. They're not different enough.


    OFC, IMO they're round the wrong way: EoS Knights grind better and don't benefit that much from flank charges (can't really break steadfast), which encourages bold frontal charges into the enemy (no, not into enemy elite infantry), while KoE Knights excel on the charge and break steadfast with flank charges, so the best way to play them is to cagily maneuver around the edges.

    But everyone goes "NO! KoE should be the best on the charge!" without looking at what emergent game play comes from that.


    This is why sometimes, community feedback is a bad thing to listen to.
  • Grimbold Blackhammer wrote:

    For the record, there are no internal discussions happening regarding the merging of any armies. Anyone suggesting such a move is either wishlisting, trying to stir up the community, or just talking hypothetically.
    Little did he know...

    Community:
    Display Spoiler





    Alright... J/K GUUUUISE! JUST KIDDIN'!

    Execution Board

    Head of HR

    Mr. Gobbo's Tricksy Gits :evil:
  • Grimbold Blackhammer wrote:

    For the record, there are no internal discussions happening regarding the merging of any armies. Anyone suggesting such a move is either wishlisting, trying to stir up the community, or just talking hypothetically. I for one look forward to the day when the Kingdoms of Equitaine ride nobly forth clad in their new army book** justly routing their enemies and standing proudly in their gleaming armor at the top of the tournament results!

    **no date in mind when that's going to happen but it won't be eleven years from now!
    I'll hold you to that :thumbsup:
    I am a mostly virtual tabletop player owing to the difficulties of participating in the hobby in the South-East Asia area. I primarily enjoy fluff, and possess armies for KoE, SA, DH, and EoS.
  • well you are going to get water elementals either as a unit or some kind of bound summon spell. And you are going to get supped up 2wound grail knights with paladin spells.
    and you are going to like it!

    a ton of fantasy creatures i agree with not putting in. I even suggested the hippogryph unit but it was just brainstorming. ....i just selfishly wanted to collect 3 old duke on hippogryph models and play them :)


    Marcos24 wrote:

    @nmaier I also started KoE/Bretonnia in 9th age. We don't need non-human additions to separate the identity between KOE and EoS. One is medieval the other Renaissance, that's already a difference. The problem is with EoS having strong cavalry it steps on our toes and also steps outside their theme since the renainssance was known as the decline of heavy cavalry/chivalry. Keep in mind that of the 16 different armies to choose from, most of which are high fantasy races, i'm only passionate and only play and collect the lowest fantasy human army. I'd prefer EoS to get monsters and other odd creatures in their army

    Start with fixing cavalry rules in general if needed, buff ours and weaken theirs. Or don't let hatred and lightning reflexes affect their cavalry but give it to us. Any unit with hatred becomes ridiculously stronger. I really wish that rule was removed from the game.
  • @Marcos24 and I mostly agree with you. :)

    We are not THAT far apart in our view. I just think there is a bit space to fit some cool units in which don't have to be humans in Armour and humans on horses. We have a lot of those already. More variety makes for a more appealing army. At least to me. I know you may have a different view on that. You would prefer more humans with different flavours.

    In my opinion I would like things like have been discussed in other threads. Nothing crazy super monstrous whatever. Pretty down to earth (for t9a setting of course):

    - It could be the troubadour discussed on another thread buffing units.
    - Hounds. For example they could work with a similar mechanic to the Goblin fanatics. Hidden and charge when an enemy unit is close to the unit they are hidden in.
    - Maidens on Unicorns that work as a wizard conclave. Also discussed in other threads.
    - This one is more polemic. Some call it Blazon Beasts, others elementals, other "insert here" Basically a ridden monstrous beast. If we leave this one open enough (aka Blazon Beasts is open enough) anyone can choose the model they like best to represent it and make it fit with their army. The important point is having a strong monstrous unit.
    - Even a swarm could fit in form of pixies for example to serve as flying chaff. Or if you don't want pixies (which could be cool, make it ravens).

    My problem with the AB as it is now, is that it is very limited. There are not many choices. And the carachters entry is also very limited.
  • Vulcan wrote:

    I think the game is so far past the foundation it was built upon that clinging to what remains of that foundation for nostalgia's sake risks T9A never becoming the game it SHOULD be. Especially when clinging to that foundation disrupts balance as badly as it has.
    I completely understand your vision on it, regardless I do think that the game still is true to it´s foundation, which is indeed what drawed me back into the setting again.

    As a player of many card, board and miniature games nostalgia playes a huge part for me, totally abandonding that would in my opinion remove the game from the market in a couple of year for the simple fact that there are others who offer a similar feel but are much more removed from the foundation (such as Kings of War, or even Malifaux versus Mordheim).

    What I believe is the key to remember here is that nostalgia is the key to a Fantasy setting. Combining fairy tales of the old into a game. This is what I totally would like to see and continue to reinforce. Less depth and the game wouldn't offer me something I can simply pick up elsewhere on the market.

    I PM'd @blonde beer a few days ago and said to him I'll give my review from a designers standpoint. I feel the statistical setting used for armies and models works out perfect. Some things I think could improve the joy of the game would be:

    - Less randomly generated things (including spells, miscast effects, terrain effects, basically all of it)
    in favour of
    - Tactical choices made pre-battle (including spells, terrain, commander orders)

    If 9th age will go it's own route I think that route should allow for less randomness and more tactical depth, have larger parts of the game in line with it's strongest points, which are army composition and the predictable outcome of what models do :D

    But as said that PM will come, might even do a video for it.

    Kind regards,

    JD
  • nmaier wrote:

    My problem with the AB as it is now, is that it is very limited. There are not many choices. And the carachters entry is also very limited.
    For those who wish for more characterful depth in armies I for one would most certainly not mind the return of Mercenaries as a faction.

    The cool part of this is that it could include whatever you desire, restricted to a few choices who do not directly fit the standard of an army but can be rectified in being there. Examples could be:

    - Cultists for a particular God, which would allow you to mix practically any race into the 'evil' factions
    or
    - 'Zoo animals' lorewise known to be kept in the cities of man

    In addition to the above (a suggestion of removing randomly generated spells) it also allows you to create well beyond 7 spells for any of the Magical types in question. In fact you could even implement the summoning of an Elemental, bound to the Wizard but one with the Magical type the Wizard chose for his spell lists.

    TLDR; the removal of randomness could lead to a creation of much more faction depth.
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    KoE has better cavalry. There are numerous small advantages the KoE units have, while all EoS has is Plate.

    Seriously:

    >The Assumptions I made for comparison were:
    >- AWSR's Cancel as they should be same effect (Which I actually don't agree with but that is for another post)
    >- I know our units are faster, problem is faster only counts if you are better in shooting. If you are not better in the Magic/Shooting Phase, >speed means nothing as your opponent can turtle and blast you apart, making you engage.


    ...yyyeah. Lance Formation and the Blessing (even just the 6+, ma'am) (plus hey, Thunderous Horsies) compare to what now, precisely? EoS special rules tend to only apply to their infantry, whereas KoE have several-cavalry specific special rules.



    Oh, and I love the conclusion of "call it a draw, KoE every time, EoS every time, I hate flying so EoS" => "EoS has better cavalry"...

    ...given the deliberate choice to compare QK's instead of GK's to Knightly Orders.



    So no. EoS and KoE have highly comparable units. Which is a problem. They're not different enough.


    OFC, IMO they're round the wrong way: EoS Knights grind better and don't benefit that much from flank charges (can't really break steadfast), which encourages bold frontal charges into the enemy (no, not into enemy elite infantry), while KoE Knights excel on the charge and break steadfast with flank charges, so the best way to play them is to cagily maneuver around the edges.

    But everyone goes "NO! KoE should be the best on the charge!" without looking at what emergent game play comes from that.


    This is why sometimes, community feedback is a bad thing to listen to.
    Except you forgot something. EoS can buff their cavalry with no less than three buffwagons and several characters.

    Aside from magic (which EoS has too) KoE can buff their knights with exactly bupkiss.


    Frankly, the way KoE and EoS have developed, I don't see them any more different than UD and their Terraccotta Army variant - it' one HECK of a bigger jump in space, time, and culture from 3500 BCE Egypt to 210 BCE China than it is from 1300 England/France to 1550 Germany. Likewise, HE and DE are nothing more than the other reflected in a twisted mirror. So.... if one works and the other doesn't, then doesn't it make sense to drop the ones that don't work in favor of expanding the ones that do?
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    I like most of those ideas. But limited in what sense? Just because it's more fun to have more options or because we're limited in tools to deal with threats?
    tools wise KoE is ok. You can make a viable army out of it.
    ....if no players want anymore options then the discussion is over. Lock KoE in for another 10years with no changes.

    literally, if people only want more human options then EoS is the choice. Which is the whole point of the thread.lol.