Pinned KoE General Discussion thread

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

  • echoCTRL wrote:

    Background is almost entirely fixed when the LAB starts and it is not subject to Agile design processes. @Sir_Sully. Background doesn't often get changed due to design needs, the intention is for RT Guidelines and Army Book Designs to be changed according to background. Kinda like legal requirements and customer contracts during Agile. I am not defending process, but explaining process. I am in no way part of the decision making process for changing/designing the Background to LAB process.
    Actually a great explanation that invalidates some of my former criticism. I’d misunderstood how this part of the process works. I’ll try to keep this in mind when making further comments.
  • EBD wrote:

    echoCTRL wrote:

    Background is almost entirely fixed when the LAB starts and it is not subject to Agile design processes. @Sir_Sully. Background doesn't often get changed due to design needs, the intention is for RT Guidelines and Army Book Designs to be changed according to background. Kinda like legal requirements and customer contracts during Agile. I am not defending process, but explaining process. I am in no way part of the decision making process for changing/designing the Background to LAB process.
    Actually a great explanation that invalidates some of my former criticism. I’d misunderstood how this part of the process works. I’ll try to keep this in mind when making further comments.
    I think you have been pretty fair. I have enjoyed your criticism.

    Game Design Team

    KoE LAB Team

  • EBD wrote:

    echoCTRL wrote:

    Background is almost entirely fixed when the LAB starts and it is not subject to Agile design processes. @Sir_Sully. Background doesn't often get changed due to design needs, the intention is for RT Guidelines and Army Book Designs to be changed according to background. Kinda like legal requirements and customer contracts during Agile. I am not defending process, but explaining process. I am in no way part of the decision making process for changing/designing the Background to LAB process.
    Actually a great explanation that invalidates some of my former criticism. I’d misunderstood how this part of the process works. I’ll try to keep this in mind when making further comments.
    Nail on the head. Perhaps we as a project could promote these facts a bit better. Background driven design is the key principle.
    Mental Health First Aider

    "Remember what punishments befell us in this world when we did not cherish learning, nor transmit it to others" - Alfred the Great C890's AD/CE
  • echoCTRL wrote:



    So, one issue to remember is ideally there should be a visual identifier to differentiate Forlorn and Order Wardens. Usually what marks one unit as different from another is weapon, shield, base size, Armor, Skirmish formation.

    I agree that that is important. I think that the difference between hand weapon and bastard sword is significant, but—although as you say—we often use different weapons, shields, bases armour, formations etc to differentiate models, in this case (knights v ordos) it should be very easy to find substantially different sword & board models and use different paint schemes to differentiate the models.

    I’d go as far as to say that using different weapons, shields, bases armour, formations etc to differentiate models, is only a fallback option, when the “general appearance” of models are similar. I’ve had more opponents confuse my slim book Grails with Quests than Grails with Realms despite the Grails having the same load out at Realms and Quests using bastard sword!

    So—if the unit fluff or special rules etc are sufficiently different—I don’t think you need to do things like take a shield away just so that people might find it easier to tell one from the other.

    You’ve made them both the same unit anyway!

    (that last sentence is a joke)
  • Ludaman wrote:

    Show me a flying unit in another army list (not a single large monster) better than Pegasus knights. The comparison is that Pegs > Heraldic Steeds, as far as being better at animal rearing goes, that won’t effect a hippogryph being a smaller and less violent creature than a manticore or dragon.
    Kestrel as good/better and cheaper.
    Ramphodon completly different purpose but I feel like pegasus are a bit better here.
    Veil serpentn non comparable since more mage than close combat unit.

    How can you comapre the hyppo with a Dragon, not even the same kind of model. Indeed I totally agree that the hyppo is not as strong as the dragon since large vs gigantic.

    But hyppo can be compared with the DE manticore , ID medium Bull, HBE Griffon, EoS Great Griffon , WDG Chimera, OnG Vouivre etc...

    I'm not saying that the hyppo is overpriced, but stats wise HBE griffon and DE manticore should be more expensive for what they bring to the bearer and the base that still is 50*50.

    Just my opinion here, I know that not every one can be happy, just that 210 points for T5 (instead of 4), fly 8-16 and 4 attacks str5 ap 3, bigger base, off 4.

    I super expensive vs HBE griffon 215 points (200 on commander), giving T5 instead of T3 (quite an upgrade for the elves), fly 8-16, 4 attacks str 5 ap 3 WITH LIGNTHNING REFLEXE (that's maybe the biggest issue here), off 5 and devastating charge bonus.
    ETC 2017 Salamanca Belgium KoE
    ETC 2018 Zagreb Belgium KoE
  • And one mroe question again, I read in the post higher that you can't chagne things because BG.

    So let's say the BG is not good at all (I don't know I didn't read it so I don't have opinion here before having some spikes thrown at me), therefore you will not change anything because BG said so ?

    I think it's quite a wrong way to work... But again just my opinion here.

    I feel like teams must/should listen to the public and accept that sometimes things aren't as good as they think.

    And Naiads aren't goodn tested them and not approuved at all (or at elast doesn't suit my playstyle)

    But thank for the imlication / work you are doing, I don't forget that you do that for free, that it takes time and energy to handle a project of this size. Just don't forget that you can incerase the people working with you and that more brainstorming bring to more ideas or better idea.
    ETC 2017 Salamanca Belgium KoE
    ETC 2018 Zagreb Belgium KoE
  • Archeron wrote:

    They have many more heraldics , there armours are better build with more symbols etc this only get Knights which already reached something. That´s my feelings if i look on models. Knights which don´t care about survive a battle ( Resplendant) feels more for me as young Knights. Wild and strong but dump enough to don´t care about surving.

    Where did you get that Knight's Resplendant do not care about surviving a battle?

    RobertRabbit wrote:

    I understand the argument made by people saying resplendent are not the same as grails. Most grails I’ve seen modelled, are modelled and painted to look like some super knight (that would certainly be tougher than 1HP per model. However, I’m using my slim-grails as resplendents.

    I don't get the "super knight" thing. They have more bling on their armor, but that's it. I don't think they look particularly tougher (which would be deceptive anyway, because no grail knight unit, neither in WFB nor T9A had ever had more than 1 HP).
    It depends on what company your models are from, but, if I look at my old 5th edition plastic KotR and then at the 6th edition ones, the 6th edition one are bulkier and bigger and look a lot more advanced. But that doesn't mean they are tougher or stronger game wise. In a model agnostic game you can buy the most badass looking knights - and field them as Ordo cavalry with light lances and STR 4 on the charge.

    I think for many people the rules have "seeped" into the models and color their perceotion of them - which I can understand, it would feel wrong to field my Grail Knights as Ordo Cavalry - but this is because me and my friends are used to expect something from those models. But that was because of their rules, not their models.
    Stone: "Nerf Paper, it is overpowered. Scissors are well balanced."

    :KoE: :VC: :WDG_bw:
  • (AVB hat on)

    To be clear, there is not 0% chance of making adjustments to background.
    That isn't to say it is changed regularly or lightly, the threshold is relatively high, but it is not impossible.

    We are currently planning for this to be clarified by management to ACSs, who handle community feedback on LABs.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
    Adjustments to 2.0 HERE
  • McBaine wrote:

    Archeron wrote:

    They have many more heraldics , there armours are better build with more symbols etc this only get Knights which already reached something. That´s my feelings if i look on models. Knights which don´t care about survive a battle ( Resplendant) feels more for me as young Knights. Wild and strong but dump enough to don´t care about surving.
    Where did you get that Knight's Resplendant do not care about surviving a battle?
    The trow everything onto one moment , the charge (ruleswise) (+1″ Adv,+1 Att). This gives me a gut feeling of young Knights which only want to get honor out of all costs. Break or die. Only a ruleswise personal gut feeling.
    Same gut feeling as on Penitent , here rules tell me they have done somthing and now they fight to get there life before the mistake back or get into a better life. The fight until they die to survive with maybe forgivness or die (Unstable , Fearless, Great Weapons).

    Idon´t know the bg but rules give me this feeling.

    Lord of Chaos , Duke of Equitaine , Cuatl of the Golden City , Herold of the Empire , Summoner of Pestilence , Lord of the Sea WotdG ,KoE ,SA ,EoS , DL and HE Ordo Sanctae Mariae Teutonicorum Battle reports and more : Tales of Lords and Ladys
  • Archeron wrote:

    The trow everything onto one moment , the charge (ruleswise) (+1″ Adv,+1 Att). This gives me a gut feeling of young Knights which only want to get honor out of all costs. Break or die. Only a ruleswise personal gut feeling.
    Great post! I think that gut feelings are real and they should always be appriciated as genuine feelings, so not right or wrong but a feeling.

    For me the rule inspires the image of an extremely tuned skill in the one thing and average performance in others. They are still as good (or a bit better) in defence than Feudal Knights.

    For me "Break or Die!" could be a unit with off 4, def 1 and DC +1att. I think that EoS Flagellants represent that kind of attitude well.
  • To me it says “These are the pinnacle of Knightly Lance training; the winners of jousting contests, the veterans of many campaigns”. The name basically means dressed to the 10’s for battle. They’re not fearless, they’re not impetuous, they’re just really good at pushing their steeds into a charge and smashing their foes apart with their Lance (and maybe a follow up stroke of their sword).

    you know what’s nice about T9A though? You can say: “in my dukedome the young, hot-headed knights gather together in large units and go crazy, charging headlong into trouble” and use your aspirant knights as knights resplendent. Totally viable option!
  • RobertRabbit wrote:

    Ludaman wrote:

    Great feedback!

    I’ve been using my Knight Aspirants as Ordo Sergeants with light lances (since historically the difference is a cup that sits over your hand, but in battle there’s not much difference when a man on a 1400 pound horse drives a spear into you full tilt.
    Just want to respond to this quickly.

    I won’t use my Knights Aspirants as Ordo sergeants for two main reasons
    1. aesthetics and
    2. Avoiding similar-looking models causing confusion for our opponents
    So aesthetics is a subjective thing… won’t spent much time on that. I love that you can play this game with paper cutouts if you want. That anti-snobbery is very important. However people who play miniature games tend to like miniature hobbying too. So the aesthetic values of players—as idiosyncratic as they may be—should be taken into account.

    I think you are taking these into account.

    On point 2, I’ve always prioritised using my modelling and painting to make it really clear to my opponent / anyone else at the table that this model represents that unit/character. You highlighted the importance of that to both yourself and the rules time later in your quote

    Ludaman wrote:

    The main reason they were rolled into feudal knights was because of concern from the RT that too many units of heavy armored knights with lances would be confusing for our opponents. I’ve never been much of a fan of this rationalization, but I get it. If someone doesn’t care about the faction they won’t understand that the glorious fashion model hair without a helmet signifies the aspirant knights.
    That is precisely why I will not use my peasant crusaders as lowborn levy or my knights aspirants as ordo sergeants.

    My knights aspirants are on the same horse-models as all my other knights (which is a different horse from my yeoman outriders, which are on smaller 28mm horses without caparisons). My opponents found that difference very useful.

    My KAs are very similar to my KOTRs (both have unique family heraldry, both have lances & shields…), but different in important ways. KAs don’t have crests on top of their helms, they don’t have paldrons, they don’t have prayer decorations on their shields. My KOTRs have all these things. My KAs have lances pointing down at their enemy (symbolising their youthful eagerness) and my KOTRs have their lances raised skywards (mature and measured).

    This has meant that no one has EVER been confused about which knights are which. I am very pleased that the RT is concerned about representational clarity. However, LAB team advice (to use invalidated models as substitutes for others) is in direct contradiction to that concern.

    If model A looks A-like, and model B looks B-like, but models A & B are very similar such that they may be mistaken for each other, it makes no sense to say use model A to represent unit C. If you can’t tell the difference between models A & B when models A actually represent units A and models B actually represent units B, then how do you think your going to tell the difference between models A & B when one of them now represents unit C?

    In other words, where your opponent might have previously asked “which are your KAs and which are your KOTRs?” You could have said,
    “The more decorated, measured, mature-looking models are the KOTRs. See their paldrons and the crests on their helms? They symbolise success and achievement. The KAs are youthful & brave, verging on reckless & foolhardy (and the rule impetuous captures this very well). See how their lances are the same (both have a lance) but the youthful keen KAs are already prepared to charge.”

    In contrast, try answering that question with KAs as ordo sergeants. They have the same models representing different horses; as he same lances representing both light-lance and lance; the same heraldic paint scheme representing both the professional knight class/nobles (courage) and the holy order (honesty)… yet all the differences (bar perhaps the lances pointing down, which you could say now represents hatred…?) are now irrelevant to the distinctions between the units your models are meant to represent.

    I have decided to use

    • 5th edition WHFB knights’ horses as Rouncies & coursers
    • 5th edition WHFB knights (with those thinner lances) as ordo light lancers
    • I had distinct paint schemes for holy/noble/peasant in my last army and will continue that distinction in this army. Holy (honesty) have a uniform of red and yellow, their horses will have plain yellow caparisons. Nobles (courage) will all have unique heraldry with emblazoned caparisons and painted lances etc. Lowborn (ordeal) have no strict uniform, they are dressed in Muted natural earthy colours, but wear coifs and surcoats in the colours of their Lord.
    Before writing off my KAs I went through the books specifically looking for units with:
    • destrier
    • Lance (not light Lance)
    • Courage (ie heraldry paint scheme)
    • (And shield and heavy armour but those aren’t that important from an “opposition trying to understand what that unit is” perspective)
    These units (Feudal knights; knights Res Padang and Knights of the Court) would have to be the new homes for my 3 similar units of my pre-lab army: KA, KOTR, and knights of the grail. You’ve already pointed out how knights of the grail (and I’m talking about knights of the grail from the KOE slim, published by T9A; not any other knights associated with grails) are hardly perfect as knights resplendent:

    Ludaman wrote:

    those of you who have been reading the ACS members posts since the spoilers will have heard our easy solutions:

    1. 40 to 50mm conversion bases are available for Pegasus knights.

    2. Pilgrims can be used as one of three different units that may not match your personal fluff but will match your minis.

    3. Knights Resplendent or Knights of the court are a great way to use your grail knight minis. I actually tracked down more GW 5th and 6th edition Grail Knight minis and sent them off for commission painting specifically so I could field a larger unit if knights resplendent, and I’m excited about it :).
    But, like you, I have a “not perfect but it’ll do” approach. So I’m satisfied with using my grails as either knights of the Court or knights resplendent.
    Of course I’m using my knights of the realm as “feudal knights” (and I pray to the lady every day that the LAB goes back to calling them KOTR), the name change serving no purpose and only adding to confusion.

    Best hope for my KAs? Knights of the Court… but a similar circumstance to the above (using As to symbolise Cs) will arise, as what distinguishes the models (KAs from KOTRs) have nothing to do with what distinguishes the units (Feudals & KOTCs).

    (FYI. I intend to distinguish KOTCs from KOTRs by painting the KOTCs caparisons in the colours of the Lord they are bodyguarding, although their shields and the shields on their caparisons will still be each knight’s own unique heraldry).

    I don’t object to models being invalidated. Over time it is inevitable. (And I think it’s kinda rude to suggest that anyone upset about their models being invalidated simply cannot want to see this game become and independent and successful IP that evolves and grows). But I’d prefer it if the lab team just said “yer… sorry about this but… we don’t see any place for your knights aspirants or peasant crusaders in the future of KoE

    Honestly though, I’m surprised that an army that’s USP is knights on horseback only has one unit of knights on horseback in core (indeed only one unit of knights in core). Also—as a new player in 2019—I found knights aspirant were my favourite unit precisely because, in an ocean of complexity, they were simple and easy to run, but significantly different from KOTRs in fun and meaningful ways. The rule of impetuous was easy to understand and fun to play. I’d be very happy to see knights aspirants return, and even happier if ordo wardens had light armour, hatred, and sword and board.

    I have a suggestion for how the men at arms entry could work.

    but I should also work. So back to that now then.

    Thanks for all your hard work everyone. This is a fantastic project!
    You excellently describe my sentiment and I would love to see your current knights.
  • Archeron wrote:

    The trow everything onto one moment , the charge (ruleswise) (+1″ Adv,+1 Att). This gives me a gut feeling of young Knights which only want to get honor out of all costs. Break or die. Only a ruleswise personal gut feeling.
    Same gut feeling as on Penitent , here rules tell me they have done somthing and now they fight to get there life before the mistake back or get into a better life. The fight until they die to survive with maybe forgivness or die (Unstable , Fearless, Great Weapons).
    I see them more along the lines of veterans, like Ivar K and Ludaman said. They specialized with years of training and are excellent at what they are doing: charging on horseback with their lances - a fine and deadly art.
    Stone: "Nerf Paper, it is overpowered. Scissors are well balanced."

    :KoE: :VC: :WDG_bw:
  • Caledoriv wrote:

    EBD wrote:

    Fey Knight: I’m going to pay points for the special deployment, since the potential upside is huge. This means that the value I get out of the unit is entirely dependent on the specific map I play. I have no idea how you can price this entry correctly, since it will definitely be overpriced if I do as you suggest and ignore the special deployment, but it will be underpriced when playing some maps if the potential upside isn’t considered. The idea is cool and all, but I think this entry will find itself in a funny place where it’s too good under perfect circumstances and hence will end up priced in a range where it cannot be good consistently. That’s too polarising afaiac.
    I fully agree! Without a more flexible deployment I cannot see the current design working properly.

    I strongly agree with this also.

    echoCTRL wrote:

    With Fey Knight though we are already working on the deployment portion.

    Happy to hear! I think part of the problem is water elements and fields aren't some of the most common terrain types to begin with. A couple of options off the top of my head:

    -Give each knight 2 terrain options, with one of them being fairly common on most tabletops (eg. woods+water, wood+field, hill+water, woods+hill, etc).

    -Just change it to all "natural" terrains such as woods/water/hill, but not artificial ones like wall/ruin/impassible.
    I think this might actually be the easiest, cleanest fix.
  • echoCTRL wrote:

    berti wrote:

    3 lowborn units is a lot in addition to the feys who all have special deployment I think. In DE book it is limited to 1 unit even when it would perfectly fit on corsairs too.

    Can´t find the guidelines of KoE any more in the forum.
    DE was suppose to be average or below average in terms of Special Deployment. They have 3, one of which is a character which can now pop up in almost any ongoing combat they like. They also had the Mist Leviathan handing out a +4" Vanguard aura until now. (I know it was March 14", but it was almost the same thing.)
    KoE has elements which specifically are employed to use these tactics, and some which cannot ever. KoE has a total of 6 units.

    DE was not going to get Corsairs to have Vanguard unless you wanted them moved out of Core.


    The Fey special Deployment is mostly weak and specialized.
    It is worth noting that the leviathan idea was all from background. Much of it's design goes directly against the guidelines.

    I'm not sure why the project sometimes has such an extreme reaction and classifications to special deployments.
    There are so many units in every army book that thematically feel like they should have special deployment but do not. Just another addition to things that break immersion. Game designers gotta watch the amount of immersion breaking mechanics(or lack of mechanics) that are added(or not added) to the game.

    The Fey special deployment being mostly weak and specialized is good that way because it's not overpowered, but at least it's in the game for immersion purposes.
  • Ludaman wrote:

    To me it says “These are the pinnacle of Knightly Lance training; the winners of jousting contests, the veterans of many campaigns”. The name basically means dressed to the 10’s for battle. They’re not fearless, they’re not impetuous, they’re just really good at pushing their steeds into a charge and smashing their foes apart with their Lance (and maybe a follow up stroke of their sword).

    you know what’s nice about T9A though? You can say: “in my dukedome the young, hot-headed knights gather together in large units and go crazy, charging headlong into trouble” and use your aspirant knights as knights resplendent. Totally viable option!
    No AspirantsModels ( Models i own for Aspirants) are speaking wrong body language. For Resplendent it needs something more offensiv , aggressiv .

    McBaine wrote:

    Archeron wrote:

    The trow everything onto one moment , the charge (ruleswise) (+1″ Adv,+1 Att). This gives me a gut feeling of young Knights which only want to get honor out of all costs. Break or die. Only a ruleswise personal gut feeling.
    Same gut feeling as on Penitent , here rules tell me they have done somthing and now they fight to get there life before the mistake back or get into a better life. The fight until they die to survive with maybe forgivness or die (Unstable , Fearless, Great Weapons).
    I see them more along the lines of veterans, like Ivar K and Ludaman said. They specialized with years of training and are excellent at what they are doing: charging on horseback with their lances - a fine and deadly art.
    I see it a different way as explained. Veteran Knights are trainied well and they know after many of battles , that jousting wins means nothing. Breaking in one charge can brink victorys but mostly with costs. You have to survive to reach your target. Means they are not totally defens nor totaly offensiv. They know whats to do to survive and follow tatiks.

    Resplendant ( translated shinning) are maybe winners of jousting but they seam impetous (rules wise). Shinning also can mean an winner or also it can stay for aroganz. That´s why all the rules and the name screams at me they are no Battle Vetereans. Maybe jousting expert but no Battle Vetereans which know excatly how to win and survive.

    Lord of Chaos , Duke of Equitaine , Cuatl of the Golden City , Herold of the Empire , Summoner of Pestilence , Lord of the Sea WotdG ,KoE ,SA ,EoS , DL and HE Ordo Sanctae Mariae Teutonicorum Battle reports and more : Tales of Lords and Ladys

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

  • Archeron wrote:

    Resplendant ( translated shinning) are maybe winners of jousting but they seam impetous (rules wise). Shinning also can mean an winner or also it can stay for aroganz. That´s why all the rules and the name screams at me they are no Battle Vetereans. Maybe jousting expert but no Battle Vetereans which knoe excatly how to win and survive.
    Agree. Thinking about new models I plan to to use jousting tricks for them like throwing things in the air, a wreath on a spear, posing w/o helmet waiting for applause, and so on.
  • As for models go we are model agnostic. This means we covered all the 25x50mm cavalry models heaving a representation, be it human on horse with Lance and Shield, Hand Weapon and Shield, anything big in two hands (Great Weapon), Paired Weapons ... this is where design stops. The only thing we do not have in KoE is a cataphract, a cavalry model with a Lance in two hands, no Shield.

    How you use your existing models then is completely up to you. T9A only gives you the framework and then you can come up with fluff yourself what model is representing what. You can have Questing Knights with Axe and Shield if you want and make a wonderful story about that unit how it came to be. This is what T9A is about, giving you free choice about what models you are using.
    AFAIK currently we don't have much official heraldics and this is where community can help a lot with giving ideas how to incorporate old models. But since we are model agnostic this means no unit is designed with a single model manufacturer in mind.