Post ETC, what adjustments do you think would improve the army?

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

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

  • Kratos wrote:

    Has anyone tryed to play the same list just trading the might duke for a renown one?
    I ran this list in 2018 (I think it was before the Oct 2018 points update)
    Duke: General, Pegasus, Questing Oath & Bastard Sword, Shield, Crusader's Salvation, Virtue Of Renown, Blessed Inscriptions 600
    Paladin: Bsb, Barded Warhorse, Questing Oath & Bastard Sword, Shield, Basalt Infusion 300
    Damsel: Wizard Master, Barded Warhorse, Magical Heirloom, Druidism 430
    12 Knights Aspirant: Standard, Musician, Banner Of The Last Charge 636
    5 Knights Aspirant: 230
    6 Knights Of The Realm: 260
    2x Scorpion: 125
    12 Knights Of The Quest: Standard, Musician, Champion 630
    2x5 Yeoman Outriders: 125
    3 Pegasus Knights: Skirmish 349
    5 Pegasus Knights: Champion, Skirmish 565

    I didn't find my matchups particularly bad with this list, and I I didn't lose a game at the event I took it too.
    There is no might lord in my list: my alternative peg build has less raw power but more strategic options and less counterplay.


    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Marcos24 wrote:

    Perfect reason to trade some steadfast breaking power for model killing power!
    This is joke, yes? Lance formation will be prised from cold dead fingers of community.
    My view is thus:
    I think there is room to canvas the community and find out what is important to them about the lance formation.
    E.g.
    (A) The aesthetic
    (B) The specialness of getting their own formation
    (C) The static combat resolution
    (D) The steadfast breaking
    (E) The narrow width
    (F) etc etc

    I personally believe that many of the current complaints about KoE cannot be easily solved with no changes to the current lance formation.
    Which doesn't mean getting rid of it, just tweaking it in some way.

    I have long held that a detailed community consultation about what are the important parts of the lance formation would be a very good idea before the LAB is started.

    Of course, there is no possible change to the lance formation that will satisfy everyone and upset no-one... but as I say, I equally think there are elements of the current community who cannot be easily (if at all) satisfied if the lance formation has no changes.

    Just my view of course :)
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE

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

  • Giladis wrote:

    Without the Mighty Duke my personal observation would be just under 0.5 line, not sure exactly how much beneath it but not even close to the bottom of the army performance spread.


    As far as offensive potentially married with grind goes how often do you guys switch formations when playing big Lances?



    I found that 15 strong 5x3 KOTR units is a great compromise between grind and offensive potential on the charge.
    Thanks for your feedback Giladis and thanks for your hard effort in make this game the great game it is, with at some points must be a sweet sour experience:-)

    I'm just curious on how can it be that we only see 7 KOE list in the ETC and all of them is based on the flying mighty duke. Know that the etc, is not the only tournament that balance is game of, but the player base is among the best in the world and there is a lot of effort put in to list optimisation. And must teams go clearly for the army's with the highest potentials. If you see back in time you will se that KOE was best represented when the peasant army was extremely good at point denial( mostly for taking out bad math up). The point is that, you basically have the best 9th brains to chose from the 16th army's with the main focus to win. There are many different takes on that, but you must as rule team have your eyes fixed on it also.
    There is a lot of argumentation that the KOE do require a lot of skills to play and that is also be true, but can't other whan assume that the best tactical generals are among the ETC players.

    So if the KOE is not among the lower tier army's, that's without the duke. I can not wonder who you consider that to be?
  • I'd say the reason for KOE to be taken in so few numbers in ETC is because ETC promotes extreme lists. It is a team tournament. A giant game of rock,scissor, paper if you want. The very nature of team tournaments, regardless of size and skill of the player base, rewards extreme lists. Especially in the format of open army lists and the teams are choosing which list to play against which.

    I believe that if ETC used lottery for its matchups and/or closed lists, the entire ETC would change. Fundamentally.
  • Martinux wrote:

    So if the KOE is not among the lower tier army's, that's without the duke. I can not wonder who you consider that to be?
    There are a couple of important points.

    How I evaluate armies does not necessarily have to match the performance results that the project gathers because those results depend on all sorts of players who have varying levels of fixation on how an army (or individual units) should fight as opposed to what the army mechanics find as optimal use.

    The second thing is influence of the local meta and various psychological and sociological influences which have an impact which player plays which army, which units they select or how they play them.

    Third is the general understanding of the game and/or the willingness to play the game as opposed to enacting a battle with miniatures.

    Finally is the margin between the bottom and the top of the performance spread. What exactly does it mean for something to be a lower tier army and how exactly is that different from a mid or upper tier army. My personal observation is that the margins are so tight that we might actually only see one to three outliers in the entire game which would not be considered "mid tier" and even then the performance difference is quite close to what many of us have been accustomed to under GW games. In many ways our entire game is tighter balance wise than a single performance tier used to be under say 8th Ed. of WHFB.


    To conclude I do not think T9A currently contains an army that could be considered "bottom tier" in the traditional sense of that word.

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    Art Team Coordinator

    Team Croatia ETC 2019 Captain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEROES AND VILLEINS OF THE 9TH AGE
  • Giladis wrote:

    As far as offensive potentially married with grind goes how often do you guys switch formations when playing big Lances?
    Almost never. I decide that when i build the list.

    Impact 12 guys? 3 wide
    More then 12 models? go 4 or 5 wide.

    I think 15+mage for 4/4/4/4 is also very potent thanks to all hitting if charging. But also 14+mage for 5/5/5 is very strong.

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

    Why are the strongest characters all bad.......
  • Can I just put a quick plug in here for my article in the latest t9a scroll about unit formations... (also in my "tactics for beginners" link in my sig).

    It isn't KoE specific, but a lot of the general concepts are relevant.
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • i normally switch once on average.

    Normally i decide at deploy which formation is best at that moment.

    Then have a chance to adjust after a swift reform or a combat reform if the situatuion changed.

    I do think that having a fixed formation and placement for characters is a mistake. A formation being overall better does not make the best in a particular matchup or situation.
    Visit our blog, Escribas del Viejo Mundo!
  • Giladis wrote:

    Martinux wrote:

    So if the KOE is not among the lower tier army's, that's without the duke. I can not wonder who you consider that to be?
    There are a couple of important points.
    How I evaluate armies does not necessarily have to match the performance results that the project gathers because those results depend on all sorts of players who have varying levels of fixation on how an army (or individual units) should fight as opposed to what the army mechanics find as optimal use.

    The second thing is influence of the local meta and various psychological and sociological influences which have an impact which player plays which army, which units they select or how they play them.

    Third is the general understanding of the game and/or the willingness to play the game as opposed to enacting a battle with miniatures.

    Finally is the margin between the bottom and the top of the performance spread. What exactly does it mean for something to be a lower tier army and how exactly is that different from a mid or upper tier army. My personal observation is that the margins are so tight that we might actually only see one to three outliers in the entire game which would not be considered "mid tier" and even then the performance difference is quite close to what many of us have been accustomed to under GW games. In many ways our entire game is tighter balance wise than a single performance tier used to be under say 8th Ed. of WHFB.


    To conclude I do not think T9A currently contains an army that could be considered "bottom tier" in the traditional sense of that word.
    Thanks for the reply and I fully agree that the balance is so much much better than in the GW days..I understand that you can not go in to any specific details about the coming balance patch.
    I must say that I can't agree fully on your current view on the balance placement of the KOE army. I'll also play wdg, ok and de and if its for competitive play, I'll bring one of the others for sure. But anyway, if we will see a debuff of others it will indirectly buff the KOE. At least I assume that the army's I( and others) see as the top tier, VS and UD will on the " power picks" will get a price increase..
    Looking forward to see what you are going to come up with :)
  • This is good point and bears repeating:

    While the Might Duke is quite strong. He’s not the meanest thing out there right now.

    Almost guaranteed UD will see a cost increase on their worst offenders as will the VS build that everyone brings. Just by virtue of these kinds of changes happening across the board and not just for us in a vacuum, I think we’ll see an overall improvement to our external balance.

    Glad you brought it up.
  • nantuko wrote:

    Honestly, I don’t see KOE as an MSU army at all
    I agree that KoE isn't an MSU army. For me, we've always been an MMU sort of army with 3-4 equal-ish threats supported by some small units to chaff and kill chaff. That's not to say that playing MSU shouldn't be possible with KoE just as using larger units should also be possible.

    MSU isn't my cup of tea either, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be possible to play.

    Marcos24 wrote:

    Perfect reason to trade some steadfast breaking power for model killing power!
    I agree and disagree! :P

    The issue with losing Lance formation entirely is that we would be even worse at breaking infantry if we need 10 models in a flank to disrupt. I'd prefer to make changes within the bounds of the current 3 wide formation because I think the visual side of Lance formation is really important. E.g:
    • Cap lance formation at (say) 3 ranks when calculating steadfast. That way we have to kill infantry down to 15 models or fewer (or just flank them) in order to reliably break them. This allows some extra killing power
    • Knights in Lance formation cannot add rank bonus to combat resolution. -2 or -3 Static combat res (depending on unit size) will allow an average of 2-3 extra kills per unit.
    • Knights in lance formation count as Light troops on the charge & if flank or rear charging (in lance, with 6 models or more) the enemy is disrupted. Therefore there's no breaking steadfast on round 1 if charging in the enemy's front arc. No changes to flank & rear charges, which would allow more killy models.
    I apreciate the need to be flexible because Lance formation was dreamt up before steadfast so there was no consideration of the interaction of these rules. If we can get an interaction that gives us no bonus to frontal charges but still allows 6 knights to break steadfast in a flank / rear we'd be in a good position.

    Something we could do is alter Lance formation to something like the following:

    Lance formation
    Devastating charge (FIER, Fear/Fearless) & FIER (Harnessed only). In addition the unit only requires one full rank instead of 2 fighting in a unit's flank or rear for the enemy ranks to be considered Disrupted.

    This would mean we fight in 2 ranks normally (including horses) and on the charge an extra rank of knights can fight. We also only need 5 models to disrupt (one fewer than now) but get no static bonus over other cavalry when fighting in the front arc.

    I'd prefer Fear on the charge for thematic reasons but if that's too powerful fearless would prevent fear-peeps killing a unit with a bad discipline roll. I think fear would work and be cool (and would compensate the loss of visuals)

    We'd also need some extra stuff to help us with killing, e.g. Jousting: When using a Lance, Devistating Charge (Lightning reflexes). This would massively change how we play as without combo charges and steadfast breaking I'd expect our knights to become significantly cheaper.

    KoE would be less recognisable over EoS, which I've said I really don't like but it might be the best way to make the army work without the feeling of overcosted knights.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Giladis wrote:

    As far as offensive potentially married with grind goes how often do you guys switch formations when playing big Lances?
    Rarely in my movement phase.

    When I'm playing 15 knights (usually BotLC + Druidism Adept) I tend to start wider so all can fight. Either in ranks of 4 which maximizes attacks or in ranks of 6 to maximize impact hits with BotLC. I've never fired off a charge with 3 full ranks for 18 impact hits but the threat usually makes my opponent direct all fire at them rather than something more valuable.

    If in ranks of 4, I'll combat reform to 5 wide for extra attacks in the second round. I'll reform back to 4s or into lance having broken a unit to get closer to an enemy unit for the next charge. I did reform 10 wide once to chaff another enemy unit - it felt dirty....

    Reforming during my movement phase usually means that I've made a mistake with my deployment and I usually can't afford to lose half of my movement with a swift reform. There are exceptions but usually I make do with my current formation until I can get either a free reform or a combat reform.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • dunno if it is an unpopular opinion, but why dont let Might to be used also on bastard sword instead of "lance only"? If we divide might in two virtues with one of them that let more attacks on wounds every turn and not only on the charge we will reduce the power of our current might judgement duke and we would open at least 1 or 2 build on our other dukes. I was thinking a Duke like this: New virtue with second effect of might (so every turn, similar to blood dragon vampire effect),crusader (or what u like more), blessed inscription. It is a 4 attacks s6 ap3 reroll to wound and divine that generate attacks on enemy armour and aegis saves failure every turn, it can grind quite well also infantries blocks.
    It would also "reduce" the power of our current might judgement duke because that combo would loose +1 attack, +1 S and ap (yeah it isnt a great reduction, but it is a start and we can continue fixing the price of his enchantment on the base of "if u wanna lance, might and judge the u will be unable to have a good protection like others dukes") and maybe we can add that +1 attack, Strenght and ap effect to another virtue (audacity?).

    Edit: just to say, with this little modification our current might duke combo will do:
    4 attacks S 6 ap3, the rest isnt changed agaist our current that do 5 attacks S7 ap4, it is quite a noticeable nerf if you think. (no more 2+ on wounding monstrous infantries or 3+ on other big lord on monsters)
  • Julian the apostate wrote:

    dunno if it is an unpopular opinion, but why dont let Might to be used also on bastard sword instead of "lance only"? If we divide might in two virtues with one of them that let more attacks on wounds every turn and not only on the charge
    I would also be in favour of making might an every turn thing. Removing the +1 Attack, +1 Strength and +1 AP would reduce the power of the Duke. The issue is that this doesn't solve the issue - it doesn't prevent us from taking a lance with Divine Judgment to get multiple wounds (D3+1). With Divine Judgement we're still looking at an average of 10 wounds against Res 6, without the +1 Attack, +1 Strength and +1 AP.

    I think that it's fine with a Bastard sword, because you can't take the MW enchantment. Hitting on 2s (rerolling 1s), Strength 6 AP3 (rerolling 1s) with unsaved wounds generating extra attacks is strong and that's without a magic weapon. Blessed inscriptions looks quite powerful with that to reroll all wounds and Divine attacks but there's some overlap there with Fortress of Faith. You're still doing an average of just over 5 wounds vs Res 6 before saves, with AP3 & Reroll successful Aegis saves which is very strong. Without Blessed, its an average of 3.55 wounds which isn't as strong.

    I'm starting to think that the real issue is Might + Magic weapons. Maybe that's the long term solution - make might mundane weapons only.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Grouchy Badger wrote:

    Can we get back the hedge knight rule.
    My dream
    Would give a real difference to the flavourless Questing knights.
    Time to make real difference between Questing and Grail
    Fantastique Bataillon de Joinville (FBJ)
    6 Nations 2014 Winner. French DE player
    ETC 2016 & 2017. Luxembourg coach. 2018 & 2019 Norway coach.True Norses go to Valhalla!
    Chairman ETC2018

    European Masters League, the most exciting event! Check this europeanmastersleague.com/
  • DanT wrote:

    I think there is room to canvas the community and find out what is important to them about the lance formation.
    E.g.
    (A) The aesthetic
    (B) The specialness of getting their own formation
    (C) The static combat resolution
    (D) The steadfast breaking
    (E) The narrow width
    (F) etc etc
    I am not a real KoE player, as its not my main army... But for me answer (A)
    And i even regret the Old WHFB V4-5 formation. This was the best formation ever ! So cool.
    yes it was more complexe to determine contact ... But maybe there could be some intelligent rules that make it playable.
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.

    Post by IntrigueAtCourt ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves ().