KoE vs. EoS, compare contrast, and new ideas

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

  • While I appreciate and can respect the analysis put forward in this video, this video's creation was inspired by another recent video by HR channel which proposes somewhat similar things but in a much more cynical, anti-GW, and coldly mechanical way. This video at least discusses the topic without going off on personal tangents of cynicism.

    I grasp the substance of the reasoning here. But I don't understand the motivation or the intent.

    One question asked in this video is: "Why do we need two human factions?"

    My very simple response to this is - why NOT have two human factions? Technically, a fantasy game doesn't NEED to have ANY faction! You have them for flavor and variety, despite overlapping functions. NEED is the word that bothers me here. What exactly is the big deal to people they feel the need to make a mental exercise out of trying to figure out how to reduce a game down into it's most efficient, generic components that ultimately lack life and lack idenity? Why do that? Ok, so WH had two human factions. Actually it had MORE than two! It also had Kislev! And the game was all the more awesome for having different types of human cultures!

    What I'm not getting here is, what exactly is the problem with having two human factions in a game with their own unique lore, their own territories on the map, their own space to occupy in the world? What is the hassle about that? If you don't like one human faction or another....well....then don't play them. But if the insistence or suggestion is that players don't want to deal with multiple human factions in a game and wish they were consolidated - well OK, but again, what exactly is the big deal about a game having as many factions as possible to give the player as many choices as possible when making and painting armies? What I'm hearing here is a very peculiar need it seems to want to consolidate and streamline two factions into one, I GUESS maybe for ease of making army lists? But even if that's the motivation, I still don't get it. I am not understanding why there seems to be such fascination with attempting to boil down and filter down and strain out the uniqueness of two factions and simplify them to make them into one. To WHAT end? WHY?

    Personally, I don't see how it would benefit any fantasy game to start consolidating factions and making them, in this case, into "Kingdoms of Men." You instantly lose each of the faction's unique idenity and what you have in its place feels like a "Walmart faction" to me. Generic products that you just plug into your coldly efficient army lists, and so that you don't have to worry about flipping through two different army books.

    To me, a fantasy game thrives from having each faction having its own place in the world. If you begin to create generic factions of "Humans, Undead, Good Guys, Bad Guys", or whatever, you are diminshing the game in my opinion.

    I also have to question what certain gamers' definition of a "unique" faction is. If someone looks at the WH or the 9th Age KOE and EOS army books now and can't see their distinct uniqueness and their distinct identities from one another and can't see why the game is much, much cooler having both factions, then I would suggest that those gamers are viewing the game through a far too cynical and mechanical lens.

    I could be going out on a limb here, and I mean no disrespect saying this: But this recent analysis of 9th Age's factions by HR channel and this channel almost feel to me like a current generation, shorter attention span type approach to a fantasy game in which the goal isn't to be immersed or to have any kind of immersive fun, but rather how to play the game as quickly and efficiently as possible to determine who the higher scorer is. I am not saying that THIS particular video is motivated by this, but just that is feels like it could be, maybe even on a subconscious level.
    There are many magic rings in the world Bilbo Baggins, and none of them should be used lightly!

    The post was edited 5 times, last by Baranovich ().

  • Sir Robert wrote:

    I certainly don't wish to see KoE and EoS consolidated myself, and I think this video actually lays out a number of very good reasons not to do that. I especially appreciate the way it outlines the thematic differences between the two cultures/armies.
    That's what I liked about is as well. That it is actually discussing both cultures and explains what makes both different from the other and the reasons why they are different. I agree that the video actually makes a pretty strong case for not consolidating them. It's a very balanced and well-documented history of both factions, which I appreciated very much.

    That's why I had to mention HR Channel's video about the very same topic. HR simply says that Bretonnia needs to go, and then proceeds to dive once again back into the rehashed and rehashed rant about the Evil Empire of GW, and even makes the assertion that back in the mid-80s that GW should never have even created Bretonnia in the first place! To listen to HR talk about a faction's culture and lore is quite honestly painful, I mean you can tell that there's no patience whatsoever for really understanding a faction's lore, and when there is an attempt to understand it, it's always done only after the lore has been jammed through a competitive funnel. What comes out the other side is a distortion of the lore based on optimal list-building rather than the lore simply standing on its own.

    I swear to the high heavens, Anthony sounds more like he's f'n laying off employees and consolidating redundant and unprofitable departments at some struggling company more than he is talking about fantasy factions!! Hate to say it, but he simply has his economics classes from school absolutely playing on perpetual repeat in his head, he looks at everything in a game through the lens of managing company resources and streamlining businesses. Did you HEAR the moment at 8:51???? He even thinks that the f'n WOOD ELVES weren't unique enough in WH 7th Edition and that THEY should have been folded into some other faction! Seriously WTF.

    It's what he does for a living and I admire and respect that, but it's that same mindset that he brings to fantasy gaming, and it is simply out of place and just feels so painfully shallow and cold.

    I once had a great deal of respect for Anthony's content, but my respect has been greatly diminished over the past year and a half.

    It's rather amazing to listen to:

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

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

  • The problem is, both armies do pretty much the exact same things and play in exactly the same ways. Indeed, while EoS is supposed to be all about professional infantry, their infantry can be overwhelmed by a KoE peasant army. Likewise, the Kingdom of Equitaine is supposed to be all about cavalry... but EoS cavalry is better across the board (once you account for the buffs supplied by buffwagons and characters, something KoE cav is specifically denied).

    (And any time KoE asked for stuff, the RT/BB response was "You can't have that; EoS already has it." Well no kidding! EoS already has EVERYTHING; that doesn't leave much room for anyone else to get anything, especially if they're stuck to a primarily human statline...)

    In short, NEITHER army functions like it should, especially when facing the other one. Which tells you a lot about how poorly they have been written.
  • Vulcan wrote:

    The problem is, both armies do pretty much the exact same things and play in exactly the same ways. Indeed, while EoS is supposed to be all about professional infantry, their infantry can be overwhelmed by a KoE peasant army. Likewise, the Kingdom of Equitaine is supposed to be all about cavalry... but EoS cavalry is better across the board (once you account for the buffs supplied by buffwagons and characters, something KoE cav is specifically denied).

    (And any time KoE asked for stuff, the RT/BB response was "You can't have that; EoS already has it." Well no kidding! EoS already has EVERYTHING; that doesn't leave much room for anyone else to get anything, especially if they're stuck to a primarily human statline...)

    In short, NEITHER army functions like it should, especially when facing the other one. Which tells you a lot about how poorly they have been written.
    I would argue that the buffs and overall army synergies available to EoS infantry are superior to those of KoE infantry, but I do agree that EoS has been designed as a solid, all-comers army with lots of options. I think it works mostly as it should, though there is always room for greater differentiation.

    I do think KoE has issues at the moment, and that the army doesn't seem well suited to the current core rules. Changes are necessary. I have argued elsewhere on these forums that the Knights of Equitaine should get some kind of bonuses related to their superior horsemanship that would allow them a more unique play style - however that's probably a discussion for another thread.
  • Vulcan wrote:

    The problem is, both armies do pretty much the exact same things and play in exactly the same ways. Indeed, while EoS is supposed to be all about professional infantry, their infantry can be overwhelmed by a KoE peasant army. Likewise, the Kingdom of Equitaine is supposed to be all about cavalry... but EoS cavalry is better across the board (once you account for the buffs supplied by buffwagons and characters, something KoE cav is specifically denied).

    (And any time KoE asked for stuff, the RT/BB response was "You can't have that; EoS already has it." Well no kidding! EoS already has EVERYTHING; that doesn't leave much room for anyone else to get anything, especially if they're stuck to a primarily human statline...)

    In short, NEITHER army functions like it should, especially when facing the other one. Which tells you a lot about how poorly they have been written.


    I'd like to start a KoE army, but honestly I don't see a huge difference in game play between them and how I often play HBE. KoE should be similar to SE but cav focused instead of skirmisher focused, but still have some nice fey supplements, though not quite as many. Maybe they could get some sort of like 'bog monster of The Lake'. You could attach some pretty cool attributes to something like that to synergize with cavalry. Maybe it can sling tar or algae and it lowers movement of any units through the area except KoE cav since they train them all to be mudders and foot soldiers could have 1 lower WS do to slipping perhaps.

    Even if KoE is always heavily cav focused, they have quite a lot of wiggle room to squeeze some nice things in there that aren't out of place and I feel that the balancing team will probably do just that by the time Version 2.0 comes around.
  • This and the other discussion made me think something else:

    Medievalesque heroic/magical knights is a culmination of fantasy, immediately recognized and easily accessed by anyone, especially the young.

    KoE could easily be the introductory army to T9A, with striking units and clear, model-centered special rules/synenergies. If the RT & other teams cannot find the identity of KoE in the past lore (Arthurian myth, French chivalry, Crusades, WH 3rd to 7th ed, and now W9T), they should challenge themselves to design the immediately recognized and easy access fantasy army. EoS can remain the more historical/technical army.

    If this game ever intends to enlist new players among the young, it needs KoE.

    The counterpart, immediately recognized in modern fantasy fiction, is the WDG. Like good and evil knights. And maybe some amoral coloured (sic!) beasts, like orcs or beastmen. And a special type of monster for each faction. Take that as the design principle, and stop talking about cutting armies out.

    Just my opinion as a dad, visiting both kid and dad toy stores lately. :D
  • There is a lot of resonance with heroic knights charging forth.

    There is very little overlap with that and the functional KoE cavalry combat style of ramming into the flanks of formations.


    As you say, they're the thematic opposite of WDG - and like WDG, they intuitively feel like they should be an army that hurtles into the fray.


    There's also the design constraints imposed by EoS warrior priests (...so can't really make KoE the 'holy' army), EoS Griffon Knights (...so can't really give KoE horse-based monstrous cavalry) and the (low) human baseline for stats.


    Bretonnia was designed for 5th edition Warhammer as the army of heroic knights.

    It could resist war machines (the bane of other cavalry), get the charge even when charged (another bane of cavalry), had free static combat resolution (also solving a bane of cavalry), yet couldn't be flanked (a bane of the *shape of cavalry bases* esp. in deep formations).

    In short, it was an army that took heavy cavalry and immunised itself from all the main weaknesses of heavy cavalry... so it could play nothing but heavy cavalry without auto-losing to assorted stuff.


    6th edition Bretonnia took that and, using cargo cult design, changed it to make it "more logical" and "fairer".


    The result is an army that deploys in ridiculously narrow-but-deep columns, because it's mechanically advantageous, even though that kind of formation looks weird, gives you crazy-large flanks and I don't think it really matches what a newbie would expect. An army with an across-the-board ward save, stacked over armour, with fairly anemic offensive power.


    If one were to forget KoE ever existed and build an Arthurian/Knightly army *for* T9A, one would never arrive at KoE.
  • Anselmus wrote:

    KoE could easily be the introductory army to T9A, with striking units and clear, model-centered special rules/synenergies.
    What synergies? The only synergies in the KoE army revolve around the Reliquary and peasants!

    The only synergy for knights is "combo-charge the biggest thing you can kill in one go, and then spend the rest of the game running for your life!"
  • Vulcan wrote:

    Anselmus wrote:

    KoE could easily be the introductory army to T9A, with striking units and clear, model-centered special rules/synenergies.
    What synergies? The only synergies in the KoE army revolve around the Reliquary and peasants!
    The only synergy for knights is "combo-charge the biggest thing you can kill in one go, and then spend the rest of the game running for your life!"
    That's a clear synergy! I.e. there's clear that there isn't one :)
    I haz a blog! the-ninth-age.com/blog/index.p…-the-moment-aslo-batreps/.

    Mostly KoE and ID stuff. Now also some Void
  • I like to play with the idea that if we have 7 dark gods who are intent on bringing their ways of existance to this plain for 'Reasons', then the KoE are those who are committed to stopping them for 'Reasons'.

    This could play into an
    - Arthurian mindset: "What we believe is Good and Right and True is so for all people"
    - An Araby Mindset (possibly think Magi From the Mummy Series) "We are to defend this world from an unimaginable Evil"
    - The Moralist (for lack of better descriptor) ethic "There is good and Evil, and Evil must be opposed"
    - The Crusades worldview: "There is a Kingdom that will win in the end, and any evil that opposes that must be dealt with"

    ...or any variant. So instead of building an Empire, those of Equatine are about devotion to the above cause.

    The Suna Part 3, where the forces of Uther are fighting the rearguard certainly lends itself to this - defending their bretheren (EoS) not to build their own kingdom, but simply because they are allied with the forces of 'good'.

    For those who would like to see a mindset with more grey and less black and white, there is the idea of a Equatine Duke who is willing to use the powers of evil to fight evil, along the lines of "My sins are not so many I will not add to them one more in order to oppose this tide..."


    On a Personal Note...
    I know it has been said (of the new 9th age fluff) that we don't want to make this the classic "Christian worldview centric", but please remember many players of T9A around the world will hold that worldview and will want an army with fluff that at least CAN play into the classic Good vs Evil (without grey) mindset. Evil must be opposed (despite the odds) because it is against how things were designed to be, and believe a higher power to be behind the power in our actions.

    I know (IRL and on the Old Round Table website) there are quite a few who chose the armies of Chivalry and Paladins because of this. To believe there is a higher purpose other than building an Empire like those Sonnstahl... This itself would be a raeson to keep them apart.

    KoE Community Support

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    There's also the design constraints imposed by EoS warrior priests (...so can't really make KoE the 'holy' army), EoS Griffon Knights (...so can't really give KoE horse-based monstrous cavalry) and the (low) human baseline for stats.
    KOE was the original holy army. At least to me. Empire was black powder plus generic humans you could build any themed army with.

    Players have collections OK. But not at the expense of an entire faction.

    Btw as an SE player listening to that almost converted me to KoE. Again. God I forgot how cool they were.
    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
    Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.

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

  • First step should be fix (heavy) cavalry.

    I just wonder if KoE shoud just developing its unique image on blessings - not just in form of ward save, but rather in direction similar to WDG marks - affecting more areas e.g. like better statline of knights, so there could be easy divide between KoE and EoS - both have cavalry (KoE > EoS) and infantry (KoE<EoS), one turn to technology (EoS) and other to mystic power (KoE).
    Current armies:
    <soon>

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Armywide Signature Spells - Check! Maybe you could add something more?
  • Altao wrote:

    First step should be fix (heavy) cavalry.

    I just wonder if KoE shoud just developing its unique image on blessings - not just in form of ward save, but rather in direction similar to WDG marks - affecting more areas e.g. like better statline of knights, so there could be easy divide between KoE and EoS - both have cavalry (KoE > EoS) and infantry (KoE<EoS), one turn to technology (EoS) and other to mystic power (KoE).
    We asked. The RT shot that down too.

    Trust me, you're going to be REALLY hard pressed to come up with a solution to KoE that the KoE forums haven't already proposed and been denied. Same with DE.
  • To read these things are so underwhelming. I am almost tempted to cancel my pledge to the KoE KS campaign and postpone the army to when it is fixed.

    I hope we come to an agreement at some point.

    We have the KoE community, protectors of old lore, not wanting to move formward and not wanting to change anything. (Not saying it's all of them but there is are strong voices there)
    We have the RT who have to deal between EoS community and KoE community and balance all.
    We have EoS community who will look closely at KoE as things (apparently) can not be repeated between armies.
    We have the other army's community's who won't allow many things. Aka if they are getting that why can't we get XYZ.

    I am getting my popcorn... :D