Balance Update 2.1 & 2.2

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!

  • People have proposed having Prayer activate special abilities for individual units. This is a mistake. I tried it out myself and the results were that units payed more for these abilities and it did not change the internal value of units.

    So, units are priced according army tier and number of units used. If you cannot change the internal value of a unit the amount of times that unit is picked for use will not change. In example, if the majority of armies take 12 Grail Knights before a change, and then still take 12 Grail Knights after the change, price won't fluctuate. And in initial pricing, it is still more important to consider the maximum potential of a unit.

    These individual rules for each unit when praying makes praying mandatory because the majority of your unit's best rules are tied to the mechanic. So, you have only succeeded in handicapping your own units.


    The concept of an initial prayer that provides either a jump from 7/14" to 8/18" Or Aegis 5++ in Close Combat. That should even out the play.

    Army Design Team

  • touching force concentration, steadfast breaking or movement should be done with extreme care...because exploit those thimgs is how the army is designed to be played.

    We can make a grind move 6-7 army that its resilent due to armour, but that needs to be an option or we lose identity.

    And i think that is already covered by EoS....what if we try to make us l2p tp our strenghts ( move, steadfast break, cr stack, low retaliation, force concetration) instead of changing all our army?

    We can tweak something, but we aware, we still want our features. I am willing to trade some, but do it with care.

    Change too many and we became wdtg or empire painted different
  • You don't have to change anything with the current book really.

    You only have to add new options and tweak some so beginners have different choices.

    One move 6 heavy bodyguard grindy Cavalry unit would not change the book if the rest is like now.

    About individual rules for praying for each unit.

    I don't see it like you echo.

    For me individual rules are way better because you can balance them more easily.

    Obvious the rules shouldn't be game changing and forcing you to pray all the time.


    For example let's look at aspirants.


    We could give them vanguard 6 but they loose vanguard and gain reroll charge if they pray at the start.


    This gives you the option to play them differently between different enemies. Or even decide. Hey on this flank I want reroll and on that flank I want vanguard.


    This option would not be possible with an overall blessing which is the same for all units.



    Same as divine attacks for grails. If we make them conditional to the blessing it even enables the blessing for the grails because currently they don't use it at all.

    It would also be more fluffy imo and should reduce points as you only have disadvantage. But overall eliteness stays the same and vs 90% of enemies it makes no difference.


    And for example vs demons it is better for demon player too as their hard counter needs to slow down at first to be the perfect counter.



    It all boils down that these extra rules are not auto include perks or enables different playstyle.


    In terms of aspirants vanguard / reroll is good imo and enables a new meta game in each game

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

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

    The FiER is not dependent on how wide your formation is.
    Actually.....

    Copied from the rule book:

    Lance Formation – Close Combat
    [i]The model gains Fight in Extra Rank. If more than half of a unit’s models have Lance Formation, it only needs to be [i][i]3 models wide in order to form Full Ranks. In addition, the model gains Devastating Charge (Fight in Extra Rank) [i]if its unit is exactly 3 models wide.[/i][/i][/i][/i]

    So no, the initial FIER is not dependant on being 3 wide but the additional Devistating charge one is. My understanding is that this is to ensure that a lance of knights is not worse in combat than non-lance formation knights being 5 wide.

    I'm not against losing that, just pointing out the nuance of losing the 4th rank. The reason I like lance formation is partially the rules and partially the asthetics. If you're expecting larger units to be 4 wide, I'd prefer to scrap the whole thing. A square of knights doesn't have the same asthetic as a bus.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Honeym wrote:

    Does anybody know if you can enchant the bastard sword with tristians resolve? Or do a character in the knights forlorn need to use his normal hand weapon to use tristans resolve?
    Bastard sword is not a hand weapon. So if you have Questing Oath you have to enchant your normal handweapon if you want to use tristran

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

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

    So lets talk about KoE not EoS...
    Well said. Lets focus on fixing KoE's issues here. If anyone has issues with EoS, there's an EoS forum for that.

    DanT wrote:

    I was just about to post a solution to the problems that were being discussed, but between this and other posts, if this is the tone and level that the discussion has gone back to I'm out.
    I thought more of you than that Dan. I'm not sure what you hope to acheive by telling us all this.

    I get that there's a lot of hyperbole and moaning and everything else and I suspect that I'm as guilty of this sometimes as anyone else. I can also see how that can be exhausing for someone like you who generally posts reasonably and sensibly just to be taken out of context / misrepresented / whatever.

    A lot of the above is presant in your post, whilst you're complaining about it. Can you see the irony?
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • DanT wrote:

    Klexe wrote:

    For me redesigning an old unit is the same as a new unit because well it is a new unit but with old name..
    So if the lance formation changes then knights of the realm are a new unit? :P
    This is what I am talking about.
    Taking the fundamental components of the book and tweaking them to build something that is holistically and coherently better, whilst still representing the core themes that the faction was historically built on.

    Notably knights on horses, lances, and possibly special formations for said dudes on horses.
    I think "Nobel knights on horses in special formations with lances" sums up the vision of the army for the majority of players. The current army book goes a long way to support that. As a few others mention in this thread a few minor tweaks to add a little character is really all that's needed.

    If what attracts you to KoE are the Knights and Lances then your playstyle is already given. I appreciate this may not be the simplest to pick up for beginners, but I'd caution against adding elements that go against the sprit of the army to lower the skill curve. An analogy - a beginner could really like like the look and feel of MSU, but that doesn't mean it's easy to play or that we as a community should try to make MSU lists easier to play. One of the benefits of having so many different armies and options is that it appeals to many different players - no matter their skill level.
  • echoCTRL wrote:

    Aegis 5++ in Close Combat.
    From memory this was tested for 2.0 and thrown out because in some games there weren't enough knights getting to combat (gunlines, etc) and in others a 5++ in combat is too much (e.g. WotDG have very limited shooting).

    I agree that the blessing should not be limited to Strength 5. Going forwards Stength and AP are not linked, so there might be a Strength 5 attack with no AP, where we'd be saving on a 2+ / 5++.

    echoCTRL wrote:

    a jump from 7/14" to 8/18"
    I think this will cause issues as well. If the rest of the statline stays as it is knights are not good enough to be 7"/14" even with a conditional 5++. Are you proposing buffing knights as well?

    The difference between 7/14 and 8/18 is huge and I'm not sure that a conditional 5++ is comparible - I think that if buffing knights to work as 7/14, 8/18 would make them seriously overpowered in the hands of a good player.

    I'd like to go back to choosing between different options. Example effects (with not consideration for power level, just examples):
    • 5++ vs AP3 or higher (useful against toxic / AP heavy armies) - I'd prefer AP2 or higher as this was the intent behind the original rule but I can't see that being given
    • 5++ in close combat (useful against low shooty armies)
    • Units with standards gain MR+1 & Aegis (+1, max 5+) vs Spell damage. (anti alchemy)
    • Strider
    • All unit champions gain Channel (1)
    • Devistating Charge (Lightning reflexes, using a Lance)
    • etc
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Sir_Sully wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    I was just about to post a solution to the problems that were being discussed, but between this and other posts, if this is the tone and level that the discussion has gone back to I'm out.
    I thought more of you than that Dan. I'm not sure what you hope to acheive by telling us all this.
    I get that there's a lot of hyperbole and moaning and everything else and I suspect that I'm as guilty of this sometimes as anyone else. I can also see how that can be exhausing for someone like you who generally posts reasonably and sensibly just to be taken out of context / misrepresented / whatever.

    A lot of the above is presant in your post, whilst you're complaining about it. Can you see the irony?
    Sure.
    The thing is, I put a lot into this as staff and these reactions exhausted me. Which is part of why I left.
    I don't have the energy anymore, either to continue in the face of this attitude, or be diplomatic.

    If you are interested in the partial, strawman solution I wrote, PM me :)



    Skrummel wrote:

    I think "Nobel knights on horses in special formations with lances" sums up the vision of the army for the majority of players. The current army book goes a long way to support that. As a few others mention in this thread a few minor tweaks to add a little character is really all that's needed.
    If what attracts you to KoE are the Knights and Lances then your playstyle is already given. I appreciate this may not be the simplest to pick up for beginners, but I'd caution against adding elements that go against the sprit of the army to lower the skill curve. An analogy - a beginner could really like like the look and feel of MSU, but that doesn't mean it's easy to play or that we as a community should try to make MSU lists easier to play. One of the benefits of having so many different armies and options is that it appeals to many different players - no matter their skill level.

    I agree and disagree.

    Players who like medieval knights shouldn't be told "this army is above you, go play something else first".
    And personally I don't think the book is really about knights with lances in the way it should be; the core rules don't support it and haven't since 2010.
    Last time I took KoE to an event, the key to using my list was the grinding capability of pegs, questing knights and questing characters.

    *shrug*
    It's a matter of taste.
    Personally, I don't think the book can be something that satisfies a majority of the community and solves a bunch of the current gripes, without a fundamental change.

    I'm not saying what the book should be, just saying that in my opinion, some of the things people want and demand can't be delivered without fundamental changes. So someone is gonna be disappointed about something.

    Maybe I'm wrong....
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE

    The post was edited 2 times, last by DanT ().

  • Hi, I'm late to the party, but I wanted to give my take on it anyway :P

    A short question about Impetious: If frenzy is only active when engaged in combat, the models with the impetious rule are not subject to a frenzy roll if they are within (adv + 7)“ to charge. So, the only effect frenzy has, is that they would always pursue. Is my understanding of this rule correct? If so, was that intentional?

    A quick thing about Grail Oath. Why is there a 0-1 restriction on Grail Oath characters? I wonder if it was a balance or fluff decision.
    But if the intention was to have only 1 character with higher OS/DS and automatic aegis 5+, then why not make it a seperate character choice? Call him a holy knight, or a Champion of the Lady.
    My suggestion would be:
    Make a Champion of the Lady Character (0-1), give him the inherent 5++ and higher OS/DS like before and maybe Dis 10, some fluffy rules for army composition (barely to no ranged units and no war machines to be able to field him) and Grail Oath, but change the Grail oath to just fearless and magical attacks (and lose the 0-1 restriction).
    The higher Off and Def of Grails is already in their points and is easily explained by them being hardened veterans. They would get a bit cheaper, because they lose the 5++ but you could give them the option to buy it back or field them without the 5++. Maybe add a magic item only for grail oath characters that does the same (give 5++). Then there would be no need for a 0-1 restriction on Grail Oath for characters or am I missing something?

    DanT wrote:

    In my view, anyone who thinks that itis primarily the static combat resolution of lances that is theproblem has misunderstood.
    Perhaps that is just the part that youare happy to give up
    Long range, steadfast breaking, possiblycombo charging, small frontage is the issue.
    The static combat resisn't a big contribution to that, and is certainly far less importantthan the steadfast breaking.
    The problem and my worry is, how to fix this without taking everything that makes it unique away? I would hate to make the Lance formation wider, because it is supposed to represent a wedge formation. If I want to keep it that way, and adress your concerns, the inherent rules would have to change (since small front and possible combos would still be there).

    That leaves the movement and steadfast breaking. Reducing movement is okay-ish, since I don't think it is as iconic as the 3 wide lance formation and would reduce point cost. But I would not go down to 6, that's a bit far. But reducing movement is imho also a problem for beginners, because they have a harder time to get the vital charges in.

    I feel the steadfast breaking could be more easily managed. You could always say, that for steadfast breaking you do a model count and every 4 or 5 models would count as a rank when steadfast is determined (maybe for combat resolution too). So, 15 Knights would count as only 3 ranks for steadfast if you count 4:1or even only 3 (if you count 5:1), but could still count as 5 ranks for combat resolution (or not, depending on how much of an issue that seems to be).

    Anyway, I would be interested in your solution. If not here, I gladly take a PM.

    @lance Formation in general:

    I would not change it to 4 or 5 wide. It is not only the rules but also the aestetics. The point was to make it look like a triangle (wedge) formation. The 3 wide formation was a necessary compromise because the 5th Edition triangle was hard to press into a game of squares. But in the spirit of that wedge formation, it is supposed to be narrow, break into the enemy unit and disperse them by breaking the ranks (fluffwise). This picture gets lost if you make it wider. What could be done instead, is to be forced to reform it into a wider formation if it doesn't break through (or even if it does break through). The player would then have to choose to either reform after the combat (and lose time and mobility) or go on in a wider formation with less advantages. On the other hand this could also help with grinding, but the better rank bonus for removing steadfast is gone, so it depends.

    It is my hope that the lance formation stays 3 wide, because this gives it a unique feel and look. It doesn't have to be OP, I take slightly better or comparable rules to normal formation over good rules that look like any other formation. As long as it doesn't become weaker than just fielding them in a normal 4 or 5 wide formation it would be fine by me to keep the style.


    Casp wrote:

    Why change pray, well I think pray will be good when Number of battle with or without pray will be equivalent. Actually maybe I am wrong but I feel like most koe pray.


    I think blessing actually is quite good, simple but efficient.
    Maybe it is what happend when you do not pray wich is the issue ?
    We shoudl brainstorming on this concept, how make not pray more appealing ?

    It is fine as is, and it should stay that way. There is no need to make it less appealing to pray. Going back to the GW roots, the blessing had two instances:
    In 5th the Blessing was a way to protect the knights from un-knightly weaponry (ranged attacks, especially war machines) by not letting them shoot at all. Every war machine and model with a ranged attack had to take a 4+ roll and couldn't shoot this turn if they failed. You traded away your first turn (and thus letting the enemy shoot at your knights) for them to be only able to shoot with about 50% of their ranged weapons throughout the game.
    In 6th the Blessing was changed to the ward save that came over to T9A. The desinger Anthony Reynolds said in a White Dwarf Article when the Army Book was released, that he saw, that Bretonnian players in 5thdidn't want the Blessing when fighting against Chaos or Vampires or the like (because these armies had no ranged attacks and the Blessing would only loose the Bretonnian player the roll for first turn). He said, that the Blessing should be something, that a Bretonnian soldier should want every time (who declines their godess' protection who is devoutly worshipped throughout the land?). So he changed it to the ward save to make it worthwhile against every army and to become something, that every player would want every time. in 6th Edition it was never designed to be a tactical choice (take the Blessing or no?), but so there would be no real choice (of course I take the Blessing! I would be a fool not to).
    It was effectively an army rule which for fluff reasons could be declined, but wasn't really supposed to be – It's as if the High Elves would have the option to not take always strike first. How would you make it more appealing for them not to take it? You wouldn't. You would not even think about it, and the same should go for the blessing.

    If the Blessing had to change (I hope it doesn't) I would still make it not about wether or not to take it (for it was always intended to be taken), but what advantage it would give (better aegis against S5 or aegis 4+ against ranged attacks or movement advantages or whatever). This is hard to balance and price though. The other danger would be to make the advantages to choose from so minor that the player wouldn't bother. And also, there will probably always be a choice that is superior and is taken over all others, making the choice mood.
    Stone: "Nerf Paper, it is overpowered. Scissors are well balanced."

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

  • Sir_Sully wrote:

    Casp wrote:

    So lets talk about KoE not EoS...
    Well said. Lets focus on fixing KoE's issues here. If anyone has issues with EoS, there's an EoS forum for that
    I’m not saying “change EoS”. My point is, if we’re told “you cannot have this and that and that” but there’s a unit out there that can... then why can’t we? If we’re the cavalry army .

    I would understand being told that for our infantry, no problem, that’s not our character. But if it’s possible for a cavalry unit to have that, and it’s not us... then that’s a big problem
  • I really like the unit-depend prayer idea. I actually think its a big issue that the really elite horsies - Grail knights - gets nothing from praying. But if you changed it up like suggested - prayer gives you divine attacks, and then lowers the point costs a bit, then it would be great.

    Also I think that there is elite horsies outthere that does a better job than ours is not such a big problem. You can play an entire horse-army in KoE and even the core knights are great. Thats the knightly-hood of KoE in my line of thought - you can get great 2+/6/5++ knights in the core section. Thats kind of great. Also Im currently designing a list with both knights and infantry - with the help of alot of you - which in my humble opponion shows the range of KoE. The forlorns are proberably better than some other elite infantry, and thats how it is. Isent the whole ordeal of the 9th, that we are looking at internal ballance, and then external? Like - yeah there might be better horsies outthere, but that have been seetled internally, and so have ours?
  • Honeym wrote:

    I really like the unit-depend prayer idea. I actually think its a big issue that the really elite horsies - Grail knights - gets nothing from praying. But if you changed it up like suggested - prayer gives you divine attacks, and then lowers the point costs a bit, then it would be great.

    Would such thing change the price at all?

    I suspect the prices of the units assume you prayed, since it's what most KoE players do, so removing Divine from grail knights and adding it back if the units prays should not change the price in any significant way.
    It may help KoE feel better when they pray with Grail knights thought, which is a big bonus by itself.


    Sir_Sully wrote:

    I'd like to go back to choosing between different options. Example effects (with not consideration for power level, just examples):
    • 5++ vs AP3 or higher (useful against toxic / AP heavy armies) - I'd prefer AP2 or higher as this was the intent behind the original rule but I can't see that being given
    • Units with standards gain MR+1 & Aegis (+1, max 5+) vs Spell damage. (anti alchemy)
    • Strider

    I think instead of adding a ton of tools to neutraliaze anti-armor tools, it would be much better to add cavalry options that don't relay on heavy armour.
  • I get that. I just think there should be some upside for praying with the grails and that can't be done without doing something about the prayer, as you have been talking about (sorry - dident read all the posts. I got real long :) ). And if divine attacks is not inherrent in the unit I think that they should be cheaper. I really think that making who starts random by praying should be greater rewarded than it is. It has alot of effect on the deployment factor.
  • Sir_Sully wrote:

    echoCTRL wrote:

    Aegis 5++ in Close Combat.
    From memory this was tested for 2.0 and thrown out because in some games there weren't enough knights getting to combat (gunlines, etc) and in others a 5++ in combat is too much (e.g. WotDG have very limited shooting).
    No, 5++ in Melee was never tested.



    I agree that the blessing should not be limited to Strength 5. Going forwards Stength and AP are not linked, so there might be a Strength 5 attack with no AP, where we'd be saving on a 2+ / 5++.

    echoCTRL wrote:

    a jump from 7/14" to 8/18"
    I think this will cause issues as well. If the rest of the statline stays as it is knights are not good enough to be 7"/14" even with a conditional 5++. Are you proposing buffing knights as well?
    The difference between 7/14 and 8/18 is huge and I'm not sure that a conditional 5++ is comparible - I think that if buffing knights to work as 7/14, 8/18 would make them seriously overpowered in the hands of a good player.


    You could be right, I was thinking of 8"/14" buffed to 8"/16"


    And, having Aegis Saves come before Armour Saves.


    I'd like to go back to choosing between different options. Example effects (with not consideration for power level, just examples):
    • 5++ vs AP3 or higher (useful against toxic / AP heavy armies) - I'd prefer AP2 or higher as this was the intent behind the original rule but I can't see that being given
    • 5++ in close combat (useful against low shooty armies)
    • Units with standards gain MR+1 & Aegis (+1, max 5+) vs Spell damage. (anti alchemy)
    • Strider
    • All unit champions gain Channel (1)
    • Devistating Charge (Lightning reflexes, using a Lance)
    • etc

    Army Design Team

  • Folomo wrote:

    Honeym wrote:

    I really like the unit-depend prayer idea. I actually think its a big issue that the really elite horsies - Grail knights - gets nothing from praying. But if you changed it up like suggested - prayer gives you divine attacks, and then lowers the point costs a bit, then it would be great.
    Would such thing change the price at all?

    I suspect the prices of the units assume you prayed, since it's what most KoE players do, so removing Divine from grail knights and adding it back if the units prays should not change the price in any significant way.
    It may help KoE feel better when they pray with Grail knights thought, which is a big bonus by itself.


    Sir_Sully wrote:

    I'd like to go back to choosing between different options. Example effects (with not consideration for power level, just examples):
    • 5++ vs AP3 or higher (useful against toxic / AP heavy armies) - I'd prefer AP2 or higher as this was the intent behind the original rule but I can't see that being given
    • Units with standards gain MR+1 & Aegis (+1, max 5+) vs Spell damage. (anti alchemy)
    • Strider

    I think instead of adding a ton of tools to neutraliaze anti-armor tools, it would be much better to add cavalry options that don't relay on heavy armour.
    Removing divine attacks and adding it back conditionally should be cheaper and even if it is only 1ppm

    Agree about the armor part

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

    Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/
  • It wouldn't be cheaper at all. And, if done in the same manor that you have suggested doing Aspirants, it would be even more expensive. Offering a choice between Divine Attacks and something else is flexible and allows you to choose what is best for the unit given who you opponent is. If it were a choice between Holy Might and Divine Attacks, it might make a difference to price.

    That flexibility is going to be costly, now the version you suggested for Aspirants is interesting because it is a meaningful exchange but I expect it would still increase the cost of the unit. I am fearful KoE will not get much access to special deployment as well, but who really knows.

    Army Design Team

    The post was edited 1 time, last by echoCTRL: Typo. ().

  • @echoCTRL why would you be fearful for that? Wouldn’t that be a great thing? If we can’t have a single unit that can smash the crap out of enemies in the front and be 1+ armor tanky.... and potentially movement 9/18 for charging without speed Banner like EoS.... because apparently for KoE its unimaginably too strong, then we need rules that help us get to the flanks and rear of those super units so the LAST strategy we ever have is to avoid it 100%. Ambush, more light troops that can actually hit and kill, vanguard, units that gain reliable charge bonuses for the purpose of out-charging enemy zoning units that are protecting those flanks and rears etc etc

    @Folomo waaayyyy ahead of you ;) medium armored 3+ or even 4+, but hard hitting cavalry with S6 ap3 and lightning reflexes or hatred on the charge so we can finally do some damage. Oh and light troops

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Marcos24 ().