KoE General Discussion thread

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

  • I hope the Hammer Knights are more like a Crusader unit and have something like Hatred rather than Devastating Charge(lightening reflexes).
    It's quite obvious that the army is charge dependent with already having Lances. So having something like Hatred that works in first round of combat regardless of charge or being charged kinda helps to not make the army so RPS when they don't get the charge. The charge is still important because you get the Lance bonus, but it's just not RPS.
  • New

    Ludaman wrote:

    I wanted to jump in and say a bit more about my experience during the LAB, the spoilers revealed so far, and Klexe’s hard work putting the spoilers together every Monday.

    1. I absolutely love the current LAB version, and I hope it doesn’t change too much.

    2. I love the background and fluff revealed so far, and I think we have an absolutely epic team working on it! I honestly can’t wait to see the stories and artwork in the FAB, I will absolutely be getting a hardback copy printed when that day comes.

    3. We’ve revealed the scary stuff already: base size changes, grail knight’s absence, and a Fey single model. TBH I think that’s about it for the things that might prove unpopular (for now at least, everything is still WIP). So if you’re thinking “wait… that’s the bad stuff? The rest of the stuff is the good stuff! OMG!”, then I think that you’re going to love the list as much as I do.

    4. Unlike some of the other LABs so far, I don’t think people will have to go out and buy a whole bunch of new minis. Other than the Heraldic Beasts (which you can always use your Pegasus for) and the Fey Courtier I have all of the models I’ve needed for every list I’ve play tested so far, and as far as Base size changes go, Pegasus are one of the easiest models to swap to a new base because you can literally just paint up a brand new 50mm base with a plastic stick in the middle and just pop him off his old stick and onto the new and place him. Compared to other armies that have had to build entirely new units of 30-50 models, this is a very small task! There are some great conversion base makers out there too with things like magnetic slots for dropping a 50x50 into a special 50x75. All things considered I’m actually looking forward to some of the base changes (I have some creative ideas for how to make my army look even better).

    5. Klexe is a true Equitainian hero. Every weekend he’s organized the spoilers, asked for approval from all the relevant parties, rounded up members of different teams, etc. all to get the KoE community informed about what’s going on in the LAB. I don’t think any other member of the team could have done as great a job!

    6. If you haven’t joined the heraldry contest, jump on it! This is the last week and I’m giving away a pro painted damsel on unicorn (and you’re going to want that unicorn come Alpha release)
    LAB team, Klexe in particular, thanks you for this amazing work. I can't wait!
    KoE gentleman rules:

    Thou shall only use (flying) horses.
    Thou shall only fight hand-to-hand, do not inflict ranged damage
    Thou shall always accept a duel
    Thou shall not retreat from an enemy
  • New

    I don't like to comment on these kind of spoilers without points, special rules explanation and, above all, an overview of the army book. However, playing Bretonnians / Equitans for 20 years, I have some ideas about these rumors, so let's start:

    1. Considerations about models

    Why considerations about models? Because I read that: “if you have a good mix of knights with lances, knights with hand weapons and shields and knights with great weapons, you should be able to field most everything” and I think it's an approach that somewhat demeans the hobbyist aspect, in particular for this army that has its own specificity
    • new unit types -> many KoE players already own a model collection, many of these collections are inherited from the "old game" in which there were only a few types of units but which were "homogeneous" in appearance and scale of the models: for many of these "old" players to introduce new unit types means having to look for suitable models also in terms of appearance and scale, which is not so simple also because the models of the "old game" are out of production, or because, for example, for a particular model like the Heraldic beast the market does not offer big variety of choice...Again, classic EoS/Bretonnian armies were often painted multicolored, and they contain many units of very similar looking knights that on the playmat were distinguished from each other by a few details (helmets, weapons, ...), so adding more cavalry units I think increases the risk of "confusion" on the playmat
    • base size changes -> fortunately the impacted models should be few, but remember that rebasing is always a nuisance
    Obviously these are "minor" problems for those who do not pay too much attention to the hobbyist aspect, or for those who have composed their army using historical scale models or print the models with a 3D printer ... but I believe that most of the (current) KoE players will be in trouble for this, so please take these things into account as well: I know that change is necessary, but be careful not to overdo it


    2. Considerations about army list
    • base size changes -> Ok for Hyppo (but what about HE Gryphon base?), I'm not agree on 50x50 Pegs base that I think is a big nerf
    • grail knight’s absence -> Why not? I can accept it
    • Fey single model -> It means boosted Green Knight on 50x50 I think, maybe a good compromise
    • Crossbows -> is there really a need? Mah...
    • more knights unit types -> It could be a risk because differentiating the units to make them recognizable may not be easy... It depends on how many of these will be "knights on horseback". Also, I know that introducing similar unit variants is used as a tool to improve balance, but it also increases the risk that certain unit type will not be played for long time because other similar unit types performs definetely better in game.
    My 2 cents
    Official IT Subforum
    :thumbsup: BSTRD :thumbsup:

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

  • New

    Regarding the concern: "where will i find miniatures to match the scale of my current collection?", If you need help I can and will absolutely assist. I plan on starting a thread once the list hits alpha to point people in the direction of miniatures which will match the style and scale of GW, Fireforge, and Perry minis just to name a few. I will also be demonstrating some easy ideas for re-basing using some of the supporting companies products found on the website.

    Again these concerns are valid, I've had them myself, but I can assure you, the LAB team has the best interests of the community in mind, and does take these things into serious consideration.

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

  • New

    Ludaman wrote:

    Again these concerns are valid, I've had them myself, but I can assure you, the LAB team has the best interests of the community in mind, and does take these things into serious consideration.

    I'm sure, take what I wrote as a simple recommendation, and remember that I don't have an overview of the entire armybook ;)

    Ludaman wrote:

    Regarding the concern: "where will i find miniatures to match the scale of my current collection?", If you need help I can and will absolutely assist.

    I know it, but beware that my considerations on models are not limited to the "scale".
    I'll talk about my army, just for example.
    In my army all the knights are 5th edition GW Bretonnian knights, note that this means that I have already converted some models with Great Weapons to get some "homogeneous" looking Questing knights (and I have not yet found a solution that satisfies me for the knights on pegasus, but these are details ...).
    You will think I'm crazy, but if a new type of knight unit is introduced, my first choice would be to look for other GW 5th edition Bretonnian knights to convert, and it would be really hard to find any in acceptable condition / number / price.
    Maybe not all KoE players are as crazy as I am, but trust me, this madman would do this by accepting it as a challenge, if it were just one new type of unit, but if there were more than one I think I should give up and I would be very disappointed :/
    Official IT Subforum
    :thumbsup: BSTRD :thumbsup:
  • New

    Well I mean those are very specific constraints, there’s not much anybody can do about that when we’re re-working a 19 year old book. I think when designs are more concrete there will be a more solid basis on which to hobby the new units.
    Mental Health First Aider (MHFA England)

    "Remember what punishments befell us in this world when we did not cherish learning, nor transmit it to others" - Alfred The Great


    Have a goosy gander at my models!
  • New

    You are not alone ^^...
    I am also quite maniacs about my model collection.

    But sadly, i think those consideration are incompatible with LAB work.
    It was decided that now LAB focus on the new background. And if there is some model consideration, like no model invalidation etc...
    Keep consistancy with existing player collection, isent a goal. New unit will be added for the purpose of rules balance book, and fit the new background.

    Perosnnaly i regret it, for exemple in my Empire of Mondsthal homebrew, i have introduced 3 new unit to fit my background vision of the empire. But all of them are actually just existing model and could be directly playable with existing player collection. By splitting option into new unit, you can already do a lot. I think it would have been a good way for T9A too. But it's not possible with background on top of the process. And some other kind of player, really like to get a really "new" army.

    Conservative old maniacs like us will need to live with it. :rolleyes:

    Website Team

     

    Art Team

      :SE_bw: :EoS: :VS: :O&G: :KoE:
    Graphic designer  cas-p.net

    T9A Mission - Join the Team - Donate
  • New

    LordParravon wrote:

    You will think I'm crazy, but if a new type of knight unit is introduced, my first choice would be to look for other GW 5th edition Bretonnian knights to convert, and it would be really hard to find any in acceptable condition / number / price.
    I applaud your method, it is the opposite to me :) , but I believe that is something LAB design can't take into consideration. It would limit the creative design to much.

    There are so many companies making excellent knight miniatures from like, ancient persian era to the late 19th century, that it is not possible to constrain LAB design to 20-25 year old model ranges.
  • New

    Nemeroth wrote:

    Well I mean those are very specific constraints, there’s not much anybody can do about that when we’re re-working a 19 year old book. I think when designs are more concrete there will be a more solid basis on which to hobby the new units.

    Casp wrote:

    You are not alone ^^...
    I am also quite maniacs about my model collection.

    But sadly, i think those consideration are incompatible with LAB work.
    It was decided that now LAB focus on the new background. And if there is some model consideration, like no model invalidation etc...
    Keep consistancy with existing player collection, isent a goal. New unit will be added for the purpose of rules balance book, and fit the new background.

    ...

    Davian wrote:

    LordParravon wrote:

    You will think I'm crazy, but if a new type of knight unit is introduced, my first choice would be to look for other GW 5th edition Bretonnian knights to convert, and it would be really hard to find any in acceptable condition / number / price.
    I applaud your method, it is the opposite to me :) , but I believe that is something LAB design can't take into consideration. It would limit the creative design to much.
    ...

    I regret having brought my army as example, because now the replies are focused only on my situation but I have made some more general considerations...

    I'll be more accurate.

    First, it is incorrect to say that a 19 year old armybook is being worked on, the current KoE AB had already introduced several new unit types (Knights Forlorn, Brigands, Scorpion, ...) and none of that has upset the old collections, this means that you can change if you do well.

    Secondly, if now keep consistancy with existing player collection isn't a goal, explain to me why so far we have worked so hard not to invalidate the old collections? (see 'The Heritage', the-ninth-age.com/ community / blog / index.php? entry / 772-t9a-goals /)

    In conclusion, I think new unit can be added for the purpose of rules balance book and fit a new background, but that other choices can be made than to insert additional units on horseback (we already had 5 different types!), this would already solve a lot ;)
    Official IT Subforum
    :thumbsup: BSTRD :thumbsup:
  • New

    There is a plethora of Knight models to be found in the world, and if we create new units, independent modeling companies have proven ready and able to fill the gap with their new designs. Creating new opportunities for modeling enthusiasts seems more important than ensuring that all units in the book are available from a single manufacturer, especially one that stopped supporting this model range years ago.

    There are many new units on horse back, and we found ways of making them different. The fact that you would not be able to have a Free Knight which perfectly matches the esthetics of your 5th edition GW model range is not an issue that can be solved for at all, except to not make the unit. Which is ridiculous. And, Free Knights are about the only new Mounted Knight units you won't find a GW model for.

    I will tell you that some of the homogenous unit design has been retained mostly as it was, which may or may not be a problem for whomever is reading this post. There is no reason a highly competitive army could not be fielded using nothing but GW 5th/6th edition models. Such an army would even be capable of simulating several new units.
  • New

    echoCTRL wrote:

    Creating new opportunities for modeling enthusiasts seems more important than ensuring that all units in the book are available from a single manufacturer, especially one that stopped supporting this model range years ago.

    In fact not all the models in my collection are from GW, but together they maintain a homogeneous visual coherence that I would not have to give up :thumbsup:

    echoCTRL wrote:

    There are many new units on horse back, and we found ways of making them different. [...] Free Knights are about the only new Mounted Knight units you won't find a GW model for.

    This sound good for me... reading both together reassures me that changes have been made, but the impact should be "sustainable".

    Please, don't forget that I don't have visibility on the entire armybook (I think it's the third time I write it :saint: ), if you give us rumors/ partial information, expect "inaccurate" feedback as well... :D

    I let you keep working, thanks for the replies :)
    Official IT Subforum
    :thumbsup: BSTRD :thumbsup:
  • New

    LordParravon wrote:

    I'll be more accurate.

    First, it is incorrect to say that a 19 year old armybook is being worked on, the current KoE AB had already introduced several new unit types (Knights Forlorn, Brigands, Scorpion, ...) and none of that has upset the old collections, this means that you can change if you do well.

    Secondly, if now keep consistancy with existing player collection isn't a goal, explain to me why so far we have worked so hard not to invalidate the old collections? (see 'The Heritage', the-ninth-age.com/ community / blog / index.php? entry / 772-t9a-goals /)

    In conclusion, I think new unit can be added for the purpose of rules balance book and fit a new background, but that other choices can be made than to insert additional units on horseback (we already had 5 different types!), this would already solve a lot
    First of all, I didn't do any references to the old Bretonnia AB. :) I was talking about models, the 5th ed you mentioned inparticular. :)

    The game aims to keep consistency with existing model collections. But not to the extent that LAB teams should refrain from adding new units to the game. And adding new units do not demean the hobbyist aspect of the game. In fact I think it is the opposite, it makes the hobby aspect stronger since there are more units and companies and ways to use minis. :)

    If special care should be given to existing GW model range from the late 1990's it would demean the hobby so to speak. Because that would make it harder to play a persian themed cavalry army. Since their horse armies were not as much about the lance and charge as the european knights. :)

    That was what I meant. :)
  • New

    Oh no, I have to quote myself :D :

    LordParravon wrote:

    I regret having brought my army as example

    Next, 'Davian' my friend:

    Davian wrote:

    First of all, I didn't do any references to the old Bretonnia AB. :) I was talking about models, the 5th ed you mentioned inparticular. :)
    The game aims to keep consistency with existing model collections. But not to the extent that LAB teams should refrain from adding new units to the game. And adding new units do not demean the hobbyist aspect of the game. In fact I think it is the opposite, it makes the hobby aspect stronger since there are more units and companies and ways to use minis. :)

    If special care should be given to existing GW model range from the late 1990's it would demean the hobby so to speak. Because that would make it harder to play a persian themed cavalry army. Since their horse armies were not as much about the lance and charge as the european knights. :)

    That was what I meant. :)

    Ok you did not refer to the armybook but to the models, it not changes in my opinion, there was correspondence between the models and the units of the armybook they represented... so, I was talking about models too :)

    Unfortunately, reading the comments like yours, it seems that there is not much attention on this, but what I said cannot be minimized because my knights are models of 20 years ago, because the question does not necessarily concern only "old" armies and mine is a typical situation that can arise for a KoE player who already owns an army: now we all have models in house to represent 4 different types of knights on horseback, and regardless of the model company we chosen I expect you to have "homogeneous" models because they are always knights wearing heavy armor on a harnessed horse (which 3 out of 4 carry heavy lance and shield), so ... if a new unit of knights wearing heavy armor on harnessed horse is introduced, is it so weird to wish them to have a common look to the others?

    I think you may find yourself in my situation, many will be because they will have old 5th / 6th edition Bretonnians (all out of production), or because the models of the alternative company with which you have composed your army does not offer the new different weapon options you need (for example, my alternative peasants models don't have crossbows options in the sprue, but when I chose them I didn't need them! X/ ).

    I realize that these objections may limit the work of designers, but here is my feedback, do with it what you want, peace
    Official IT Subforum
    :thumbsup: BSTRD :thumbsup:
  • New

    echoCTRL wrote:

    Free Knights are about the only new Mounted Knight units you won't find a GW model for
    Why that ?
    To me they're just buffed up Aspirant Knights


    Davian wrote:

    ancient persian era to the late 19th century
    yes, and this gives me idea that you could add models from other ranges by creating a new unit based on them and writing a fluff about them being some « Moorish freelancers » or whatever mercenary type your Lord recruited :)

    Russian Translation Coordinator

    Translation-Team FR

    Public Relations

    Linguistic Team

    GHAÂAÂAÂARN ! — The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young
    First T9A player in West Africa
  • New

    Ghiznuk wrote:

    echoCTRL wrote:

    Free Knights are about the only new Mounted Knight units you won't find a GW model for
    Why that ?To me they're just buffed up Aspirant Knights


    Davian wrote:

    ancient persian era to the late 19th century
    yes, and this gives me idea that you could add models from other ranges by creating a new unit based on them and writing a fluff about them being some « Moorish freelancers » or whatever mercenary type your Lord recruited :)
    No! Don't give me ideas! I'll buy more models! I don't need more! ;(

    As for this week's spoilers - as others have said it's hard to say too much about army lists without points values or access to the rules. But! Very exciting to see lots of variation in the units taken, the character load outs, the magic set up, etc. It's also very encouraging to see bowmen being taken in multiple lists.

    Forebearance looks very exciting as well - another ingredient to build a tanky character (a thing we're not bad at as it is) is useful.

    Looking forward to seeing more!
    Thanks for the work so far, guys, especially @Klexe for putting the spoilers together. It's nice to look forward to something on a Monday.
    Check out my YouTube channel for Battle Reports >> The Cavalier's Tale (And the thread on the forum)

    [Insert Cool Blog Name Here]
  • New

    Ghiznuk wrote:

    echoCTRL wrote:

    Free Knights are about the only new Mounted Knight units you won't find a GW model for
    Why that ?To me they're just buffed up Aspirant Knights


    Davian wrote:

    ancient persian era to the late 19th century
    yes, and this gives me idea that you could add models from other ranges by creating a new unit based on them and writing a fluff about them being some « Moorish freelancers » or whatever mercenary type your Lord recruited :)
    You cant use aspirants if you want WYSIWYG

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

    Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/
  • New

    Just Wes wrote:

    Ghiznuk wrote:

    echoCTRL wrote:

    Free Knights are about the only new Mounted Knight units you won't find a GW model for
    Why that ?To me they're just buffed up Aspirant Knights

    Davian wrote:

    ancient persian era to the late 19th century
    yes, and this gives me idea that you could add models from other ranges by creating a new unit based on them and writing a fluff about them being some « Moorish freelancers » or whatever mercenary type your Lord recruited :)
    No! Don't give me ideas! I'll buy more models! I don't need more! ;(
    As for this week's spoilers - as others have said it's hard to say too much about army lists without points values or access to the rules. But! Very exciting to see lots of variation in the units taken, the character load outs, the magic set up, etc. It's also very encouraging to see bowmen being taken in multiple lists.

    Forebearance looks very exciting as well - another ingredient to build a tanky character (a thing we're not bad at as it is) is useful.

    Looking forward to seeing more!
    Thanks for the work so far, guys, especially @Klexe for putting the spoilers together. It's nice to look forward to something on a Monday.
    Just compare a normal tournament list with current rules and place a new list next to it and you can see the point cost of the units +/- some points.

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

    Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/