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.

  • Jurid wrote:


    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.
    You can have a higher power without it being christian, you know...
    I haz a blog! the-ninth-age.com/blog/index.p…-the-moment-aslo-batreps/.

    Mostly KoE and ID stuff. Now also some Void
  • it seems to me that a heroic army should synergize off of heroic deeds from characters, something like character wins in a challenge unit is inspired and gets some sort of buff, maybe cumulative. If general wins in a challenge or breaks a unit whole army is inspired and gets some sort of buff, again possibly cumulative. Rough idea, please feel free to elaborate. Maybe if a characters unit breaks a unit with an enemy character as well, to avoid people just declining challenges.
  • rickshaw wrote:

    it seems to me that a heroic army should synergize off of heroic deeds from characters, something like character wins in a challenge unit is inspired and gets some sort of buff, maybe cumulative. If general wins in a challenge or breaks a unit whole army is inspired and gets some sort of buff, again possibly cumulative. Rough idea, please feel free to elaborate. Maybe if a characters unit breaks a unit with an enemy character as well, to avoid people just declining challenges.
    Then the book writers will price everything according to the buffs, and not the core capability. That's the big problem with DE right now, EVERYTHING is overpriced because 'it can be buffed with the Altar'...
  • 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!"
    Didn't say there are good synenergies now. Just that it COULD be the introductory army ... with clear, model-centered ... synenergies. ;)

    That's what everyone wants, that's what would give identity to the army, that's what would work for beginners as well as for veterans.

    Hope it will reach there, in the end. :)
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    @Anselmus though it is a very difficult army to play
    Yeah, I certainly wouldn't recommend it to beginners as anything but a peasant army.
    A knightly army is immensely stressful to play and doesn't really allow for mistake, it is very fragile due to the low model number
    I haz a blog! the-ninth-age.com/blog/index.p…-the-moment-aslo-batreps/.

    Mostly KoE and ID stuff. Now also some Void
  • @Anselmus making it the easiest army would quickly make it boring. Easiest means either two things: OP and easy to win with, (I doubt very much that would happen) or become very simple, little strategy required, go forward and fight, don't try to maneuver, etc. as someone who is passionate about KoE, I guarantee you that means that if it becomes that way, my interest in playing would wane simply because the only army I want to play wouldn't keep my interest. Hope that makes sense. It would be fun to stomp everyone at first but then it would just get old
  • @Marcos24, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I'm just thinking something completely different. Also, I'm not that serious here. :P

    My main point is that I don't support the idea of merging KoE with EoS. I don't support these two armies being similar. I support the idea that KoE is a distinctive army, and that the vision of heroic knights in shiny armor finds a definite role on the battlefield. Not automatic/simple, but definite.

    That's all. :)
  • Baranovich wrote:

    While I appreciate and can respect the analysis put forward in this video, I have to wonder if 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? 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.
    I'm going out on a limb here, and I'm going to say you probably only watched portions of the video. I clearly stated at the beginning that HR's video motivated this discussion, you don't have to wonder at all... I also clearly laid out why I think KoE should remain it's own faction in the last slide, even using the phase "well, why not have two different human factions?" to expand on my thoughts as to why they should remain separate. I was just trying my best to lay out the entire argument from opposing view points before I gave you my more personal take.

    On the other hand, I really don't appreciate being psycho-analyze by someone who has no inkling of my "motivations" behind making this video and jumps to the conclusion that I'm a child with a short attention span trying to rip any kind of immersion out of this game (which is probably as far from the opposite of my motivation for making this video as you can get, but heck, it fits your narrative so why not write it!)
  • Anselmus wrote:

    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!"
    Didn't say there are good synenergies now. Just that it COULD be the introductory army ... with clear, model-centered ... synenergies. ;)
    That's what everyone wants, that's what would give identity to the army, that's what would work for beginners as well as for veterans.

    Hope it will reach there, in the end. :)
    Exactly, I'm with you on this. The virtue system is a good concept, but more model-centric ways for characters affect the Lances their in would be awesome and help their identity.
  • MrSwisher wrote:

    Anselmus wrote:

    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!"
    Didn't say there are good synenergies now. Just that it COULD be the introductory army ... with clear, model-centered ... synenergies. ;) That's what everyone wants, that's what would give identity to the army, that's what would work for beginners as well as for veterans.

    Hope it will reach there, in the end. :)
    Exactly, I'm with you on this. The virtue system is a good concept, but more model-centric ways for characters affect the Lances their in would be awesome and help their identity.
    Indeed. We currently have 7 Virtues. 1 buffs a unit with charge distance, Another buffs the unit with icnreased ranged protection. One buffs peasants leadership and is thus heretical. The remaining 4 all turn our characters into various degree of surgical murder-scalpel.

    It would be nice to get a few new ones to expand on our buffing capacities since I doubt we'll ever get afunctional buff wagon
    I haz a blog! the-ninth-age.com/blog/index.p…-the-moment-aslo-batreps/.

    Mostly KoE and ID stuff. Now also some Void
  • Is merging the 2 armies even a thing or is this just a case of it being January and people are bored and need to gripe about something ? I watched both vids and i don't get it . Who cares if the armies are similar , and if you do care , seriously why do you care ? there are 3 elf factions , 2 dwarf factions , why does anyone care ? From what I can see the root of this stems from GW and how it developed the 2 armies over the years . But when you think about it , that does not make any sense KOE and EOS are different armies from Bretonia and empire . Saying you want to merge KOE and EOS largely because GW didn't differentiate the armies well enough 10 years ago , makes about as much sense as saying you want to divorce your wife because she is blonde and you are still mad about a messy break up you had with your high-school girlfriend 10 years ago who was also a blonde .

    My opinion is that as T9A core rules solidify , you are likely to get more factions not fewer . Some of the home brew factions will likely become official factions . particularly as model companies release ranges . For example the hombrew Amazons book is interesting ( not as nice as some other Amazon books released for 8th ) but it has potential . What about a viking/ barbarian faction , there are tons of models out there to support that of an oriental themes faction that would be awesome . samurai and ninjas sign me up .

    The argument to merge them makes no sense to me , I don't know why anyone would care . If you are a hyper competitive person you don't care about what the army is called only if it will crush the other guy , call the army the pink and purple people eaters you would not care . The only people this would affect are the players who are more focused on theme . KOE is a more fantasy / Arthurian themed army which should appeal to the more "fantasy" orientated players , I see EOS as a more historical army , and its style i would think should appeal to the historical players . Whats the problem , play which ever one you like better , in T9A all the armies are basically , or eventually will be, equal in power . So pick which ever army you like or have the models to play and role some dice .

    just my 2 cents worth

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

  • Vulcan wrote:

    If you really think combining KoE and EoS is a bad idea, prove it on the battlefield. Proxy your KoE minis using the equivalent EoS army entries and play a dozen games.

    Once you've seen how much better EoS does cavalry, you'll see the point.
    I don't think the point is about what is under the current ruleset, rather what should be according to the much loved backgound material.