Search Results

Search results 1-10 of 10.

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 available! You can read all about it in the news.

  • Assuming that each of those virtues are equally viable, and I'll take you at your word that they are, players do tend towards the Might Duke. So either a) KoE players are simply not good enough to recognize alternative options (this seems difficult to prove) or b) something about the Might Duke is appealing in ways that the others simply aren't. If it isn't power level, what is it?

  • Is that because of the players or because of the list?

  • Quote from Marcos24: “Well I think you know I don’t want monstrous lol, I want better stats however we get them, if those stats need a bigger base as a downside then so be it, as long as we’re not riding monsters ” Agreed. I'd like to see KoE with small lists of knights, outfighting superior numbers and bigger monsters. Honestly, I feel like something simple like this could be a huge change for us. Knights Aspirant: 1 HP KotR and Questing: 2 HP Grails and Pegs: 3 HP Lacking the saves of full pla…

  • Ignoring the specifics, a distinction between Paladin (fighty hero), Combat Damsel (Buffing hero), and Damsel (casting hero) could give interesting design space. (I'd prefer to drop the gendered names and make it something like "Paladin, Blessed, and Cleric," but that's a separate discussion.) They could then have Lord level equivalents. Paladins would need to be the best choice for deathstars / cowboys, Blessed for tarpits, Casters for general use. The key is to sharply distinguish them.

  • Can't those Peg Knights just be modeled as women? I don't see why special rules need to draw male / female distinction?

  • Quote from Grouchy Badger: “Quote from Palomides: “A book that can completely support two different themes (low fantasy Arthurian heroes vs high fantasy faeries) is two separate books. ” No one is implying the book will be two completely different themes. All additions to a book have to fit the main theme of the book. ” You misunderstand. If the additions are able to be completely avoided by uninterested players, the book must have two separate themes. It is easy to say, "Don't worry, low fantas…

  • Quote from StoffenDK: “I still haven’t heard an argument that explains how an option in a book forces you to take it in an army. ” The argument is simple. Army Lists are built around a balance of available units. A book that can completely support two different themes (low fantasy Arthurian heroes vs high fantasy faeries) is two separate books. Each theme would need to be balanced in its own and in relation to the other. This is adding extra burdens to the design team. For instance, if pixies an…

  • It should be clear that there's a difference between "chivalric heroes" and "high fantasy." A rejection of the latter is not necessarily a rejection of the former. If one wants to play an army of knights riding monsters, supported by magical spirits and the like, why not simply play HBE? Or EoS? KoE right now occupies a relatively unique niche as a low fantasy list supported by heroes of legend. It is their virtue and their heroism that allows them to stand up the greater technology and / or mag…

  • As inspired by the heroic knights. I think peasants are great fun as support pieces / supplements to the core heavy hitters.

  • 1) A The whole appeal of KoE is that it's the land of heroes--blessed knights fighting off supernatural monsters etc...through their remarkable prowess. 2) A Aegis is fun, but I'd rather it just be incorporated into specific heroic knights. 3) A The charge is cool, but Faerie Queene shows us plenty of prolonged knightly battles. Variety of mounted knights is key. 4) A More blessings / powers for heroes (lay on hands style) are fine, but monsters and elementals are what knights kill.