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!

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    What makes Forlorns not suitable as the "elite" infantry unit you're talking about there? (I'm sure there's a problem, but I'm equally sure I don't know what it is).
    They are suitable. They are used. Nothing wrong with them really. I personally dislike the claymore. The spear part is never used really. For an anvil they are a tad too expensive as they are a unit themself and not a support piece to cavalry if you understand the difference :)

    Stygian wrote:

    I'm curious why anyone says forlorns don't work as an anvil? From my experience they are fantastic as an anvil and a hammer actually. My issue is supporting them with peasants.

    I can't see peasants supporting cavalry very well either honestly.
    But infantry supporting better infantry, and cavalry supporting better infantry.. that sorta works. My other issue is getting it all together due to points and having characters to support the lesser cavalry and characters to support the infantry. Thats when it gets more difficult.
    no one really said that

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    So do you want to be the EoS of Cavalry, or the WDG of Cavalry? (or some other slicing mechanism, that's fine too).
    WDG of cavalry

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

    Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/
  • May I ask the root cause of this "Claimor / Bastard Sword" desire? What is the purpose of this thing? I'm pretty sure that there is some kind of underlying purpose thing thing should fulfill. But in my opinion transferring this purpose to special rule attached to a weapon is a bad approach. A weapon that is only available to KoE but not to other armies just feels wrong to me, because KoE should not be a people of extraordinary weapon developers. I think whatever the exact purpose is, it can also be achieved by a special rule that is more attached to some kind of training or physical capability of the wielder.
  • arwaker wrote:

    May I ask the root cause of this "Claimor / Bastard Sword" desire? What is the purpose of this thing? I'm pretty sure that there is some kind of underlying purpose thing thing should fulfill. But in my opinion transferring this purpose to special rule attached to a weapon is a bad approach. A weapon that is only available to KoE but not to other armies just feels wrong to me, because KoE should not be a people of extraordinary weapon developers. I think whatever the exact purpose is, it can also be achieved by a special rule that is more attached to some kind of training or physical capability of the wielder.
    This is just a problem of not having a comprehensive weapons list in the BRB.
    Before Gold, it was suggested to put lots of generic weapons in the BRB, but for ease of design I think they just decided to put new weapons in the army books as needed.
    So we can't look at the army books having a bastard sword, morning star, repeating crossbow, beast axe, feral orc choppas, etc... as some advanced weaponry only available to that faction. It's really just a design issue and shouldn't be factored into the "feel".

    The elf books are a great example. In the fluff there isn't really much genetic differences between them. So their differences are almost entirely cultural. Could a Sylvan Elf or HBE use a repeater crossbow? ....sure, but then they would be a Dread Elf.

    KoE and EoS it can be similar reasons. EoS knights only use lance, great weapon, hammer. Anything else is for the infantry because the army has shifted to more group military tactics rather than each knight being an individual melee warrior. So KoE knights could get access to more specialized melee weapons. Flail, Morning Star, Bastard Sword, etc...

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

  • Stygian wrote:

    I must of had the wrong impression.

    @Klexe how would you change forlorns and serf infantry? I am really hung up on using these lately.
    Forlorns are fine. The problem is more with claymore as weapon.
    1. Grail oath and non oath needs access for it too. Or questing oth uses this as crutch
    2. Spear part is never used (or should never be used only in some rare situations)
    3. It is a band aid for questing knights as 3+ as was just bad
    4. many people dislike the agi 0 part.(myself too) and prefer just plain +1s +1ap


    Personally i think a plain +1s +1ap weapon is fine and what KoE needs and doesnt step on toes of lance as anti armor weapon

    About serf:
    Tarpit core peasants without any equipment
    Heavy armor man at arms in special as anvil
    Bowmen in special as anti chaff, anti archer, anti evasion
    Crossbows in special as anti cavalry (to secure our cavalry on the flanks) and mini anvil vs cavalry

    arwaker wrote:

    May I ask the root cause of this "Claimor / Bastard Sword" desire? What is the purpose of this thing? I'm pretty sure that there is some kind of underlying purpose thing thing should fulfill. But in my opinion transferring this purpose to special rule attached to a weapon is a bad approach. A weapon that is only available to KoE but not to other armies just feels wrong to me, because KoE should not be a people of extraordinary weapon developers. I think whatever the exact purpose is, it can also be achieved by a special rule that is more attached to some kind of training or physical capability of the wielder.
    The root rule was:
    Questing knights were never used with 3+as. They needed 2+ as to make them playable with only 1 attack.

    I think KoE should have a weapon on its own. A mace is the perfect item for that and people wished for it and there are models using maces

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

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

    Personally i think a plain +1s +1ap weapon is fine and what KoE needs and doesnt step on toes of lance as anti armor weapon

    Klexe wrote:

    I think KoE should have a weapon on its own. A mace is the perfect item for that and people wished for it and there are models using maces
    Mace: 1 handed weapon, +1S, +1 Ap,
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    I think all ranged units in special is a bad idea
    Why?
    Current bowmen in core arent taken since the begnning (minus the time where peasants storm was avaiable)

    I would also reduce core to 20% with only
    1. rabble peasants
    2. realms
    3. aspirants
    4. new cheap knights without blessing
    in core



    Peacemaker wrote:

    Klexe wrote:

    Personally i think a plain +1s +1ap weapon is fine and what KoE needs and doesnt step on toes of lance as anti armor weapon

    Klexe wrote:

    I think KoE should have a weapon on its own. A mace is the perfect item for that and people wished for it and there are models using maces
    Mace: 1 handed weapon, +1S, +1 Ap,
    Yes. And perhaps devastating charge ignore parry or something like this.

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

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

    Current bowmen in core arent taken since the begnning
    I use them as the only infantry models in my army.
    Also, I doubt they will get fielded more often when they eat precious budget out of the special section and have many rivals for those points. That would stop me from taking them at least. Leave them as they are, leave them in core. They are fine as is imo.
    Stone: "Nerf Paper, it is overpowered. Scissors are well balanced."
  • I agree on some of your ideas klexe like the weapon change. I also don't like agi 0 and rarely use the spear/lance aspect. However I had asked for a questing sword (basically the same one handed halberd type weapon) of echo and he said it would rival the best weapon in the game and therefore is not possible. Even if it was possible I don't see the cost going down with that weapon change.

    I wouldn't mind seeing a men at arms in specials, and maybe thats what crusader should really be instead. The zealot thing is more EOS anyway. But ranged attacks as bad as ours cannot be special or they won't see any play. Unless criminally cheap.. like crusader level cheap. In which case ya I'd take some crossbows still. The other issue is what fills our core then?
    I feel there is a push to reduce our core chaff options which all together would leave the book pretty slim on core builds.
    "Realistically (unless you're DanT or some other genius) you need characters.." -Sir_Sully

    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE

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

  • What is frustrating is that KOE has been told in the past that we have too much avoidance and too much steadfast breaking so we were encouraged with creating forlorns, perhaps to have a semblance of a battle line. But outside of that unit our infantry is very difficult to make work. If we are to use them more we need some incentive. The perception currently is that peasants means untrained non professional unit so lets assign them tarpit status. And then why does everyone only take cavalry? Tarpits don't work for supporting elite units that are susceptible to breaking. Undead knows this why are we still going that route?

    Or are we perhaps too focused on cavalry? I mean not many armies can actually pull off such skew lists. But in return we have a number of blank entries. I'd like to play combined arms with emphasis on cavalry personally.
    "Realistically (unless you're DanT or some other genius) you need characters.." -Sir_Sully

    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
  • I've been pondering on EOS core vs our core and what makes their combined arms and even cavalry focused lists tick. Since core is mandatory. I'm not even considering the specials and this is ASIDE from the various buffs that can be plugged in wherever..

    Their crossbows are chaff size to start, cheaper at 15 than ours. Their core infantry are cheaper due to chaff size, better discipline, better stats. That mostly makes perfect sense as the infantry humans.
    Again before considering orders or the parent/support rules or hatred or blessings or death warrant or even the lethal strike item and not counting buff wags.
    But the knightly orders? These guys are core in the infantry humans but they aren't running around with discipline freaking 5 hoping an infantry unit is hanging about in 6" to confer its discipline on them like serfs. Stats are a pip lower.. right up to when a KC rolls in making them all into realms with ap3 swords.

    They can keep all that I'm not asking for a nerf or anything. What I'm saying is I feel like our book has limitations imposed which are not reciprocal with the other human faction.
    Our core cavalry is ok I like them. They get lance formation instead of ap3 swords I guess. 1+ vs 2+/B++ is almost a wash.
    Our KC is a castellan.
    Our crossbows are 15 minimum no shoot 3 ranks with their rule being stakes.
    Our other infantry is discipline 5 WS 2s.
    Chaff size cav, both have that.
    Chaff infantry, we lost because were not intended to have chaff size infantry.
    Force multiplying rules no thats EOS territory.
    Human stats for our infantry, no they're peasants not soldiers. They need knights.
    Oh and wizards with more paths and split attribute and armour! Whoops wrong rant.

    I realize much of this is probably a hangover from being squated in that former game but I'm starting to think @Sir_Sullys idea of cavalry orders is better than I thought!
    "Realistically (unless you're DanT or some other genius) you need characters.." -Sir_Sully

    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
  • New

    Peacemaker wrote:

    How come damsel does not have access to Light Armour?
    Let me start by saying that i'm going to design my own damsel wearing a leather jacket.. but, seeing as how light armor doesn't make much of a difference, even with the mounts innate armor.. i think its fine and just further gives flavor, and paints the picture that she isn't there to fight, just cast spells. It is pretty impractical that anyone that can afford even a padded gambeson wouldn't wear it

    I really don't want every army to have everything, which is why i'm reluctant to support the improvement of our infantry... but the reality is that our peasant levy just plain sucks in combat... so i won't argue against. (however i'll gladly fight for the addition of new human infantry units over new fantasy units if people just want something new for the sake of something new, also a motivation i'm particularly against)
  • New

    Peacemaker wrote:

    arwaker wrote:

    May I ask the root cause of this "Claimor / Bastard Sword" desire? What is the purpose of this thing? I'm pretty sure that there is some kind of underlying purpose thing thing should fulfill. But in my opinion transferring this purpose to special rule attached to a weapon is a bad approach. A weapon that is only available to KoE but not to other armies just feels wrong to me, because KoE should not be a people of extraordinary weapon developers. I think whatever the exact purpose is, it can also be achieved by a special rule that is more attached to some kind of training or physical capability of the wielder.
    This is just a problem of not having a comprehensive weapons list in the BRB.Before Gold, it was suggested to put lots of generic weapons in the BRB, but for ease of design I think they just decided to put new weapons in the army books as needed.
    So we can't look at the army books having a bastard sword, morning star, repeating crossbow, beast axe, feral orc choppas, etc... as some advanced weaponry only available to that faction. It's really just a design issue and shouldn't be factored into the "feel".

    The elf books are a great example. In the fluff there isn't really much genetic differences between them. So their differences are almost entirely cultural. Could a Sylvan Elf or HBE use a repeater crossbow? ....sure, but then they would be a Dread Elf.

    KoE and EoS it can be similar reasons. EoS knights only use lance, great weapon, hammer. Anything else is for the infantry because the army has shifted to more group military tactics rather than each knight being an individual melee warrior. So KoE knights could get access to more specialized melee weapons. Flail, Morning Star, Bastard Sword, etc...
    I'm sorry, but I cant find a comprehensive reasoning here, that explains why KoE need a special hand weapon. That Cavalry hammer in EoS is no excuse, because they have imho the same problem of justifying its existance.


    Klexe wrote:

    arwaker wrote:

    May I ask the root cause of this "Claimor / Bastard Sword" desire? What is the purpose of this thing? I'm pretty sure that there is some kind of underlying purpose thing thing should fulfill. But in my opinion transferring this purpose to special rule attached to a weapon is a bad approach. A weapon that is only available to KoE but not to other armies just feels wrong to me, because KoE should not be a people of extraordinary weapon developers. I think whatever the exact purpose is, it can also be achieved by a special rule that is more attached to some kind of training or physical capability of the wielder.
    The root rule was:Questing knights were never used with 3+as. They needed 2+ as to make them playable with only 1 attack.

    I think KoE should have a weapon on its own. A mace is the perfect item for that and people wished for it and there are models using maces
    Issues with Questing Knights in the "past" should not be the reasoning for being forced to implement a unique mundane hand weapon in the future. No one says that the unit represented by current Questing Knight models is even close to the existing one. And heck, those do not even have a shield. I bet that there are myriads of possibilities to make them flavourful and useful without a mace thing.


    Klexe wrote:

    Peacemaker wrote:

    Klexe wrote:

    Personally i think a plain +1s +1ap weapon is fine and what KoE needs and doesnt step on toes of lance as anti armor weapon

    Klexe wrote:

    I think KoE should have a weapon on its own. A mace is the perfect item for that and people wished for it and there are models using maces
    Mace: 1 handed weapon, +1S, +1 Ap,
    Yes. And perhaps devastating charge ignore parry or something like this.
    Hand Weapon +1S and +1AP? Heck why? Sorry, but this sounds just too ridiculous. If such technology sketch would exist for a mundane weapon, why should not everybody (in all armies) just use it instead of an ordinary hand weapon (which is btw containing the mace)? The game makes some simplifications, and one of those is, that hand weapons are common. Without a special background related reason it is not possible justify the existance of such weapon.


    When I try to read between the lines, the reason for your desire for a special weapon in KoE is the design issue with Questing Knight wielding Great Weapons that hit last? I don't really trust the 2+/3+ armor rootcause, because 3+ is a valid armor for many other cavalry, and I see no reason for KoE not to also have at least one knight unit with this "lower" armor value. Could we elaborate maybe a bit deeper? You remember Whamme's "Why-post"? Try to think in such terms. Try not to find immediate specific solutions that might infringe with guidelines or background. Try to explain what is the current issue and explain why there is an issue.
  • New

    Whether there is justification or not is arguable but consider how many other armies have unique weapons. Are you saying these will also be said to be unjustified? Just curious.

    QK didn't work and klexe said why. No 3+ isn't valid on 50 pt models at res 3 striking last. I know we have suggested alternatives in the past like res 4 or that weapon were discussing or more attacks or cheaper or better stats or battle focus or some combo of those. They were all denied and we got the bastard sword.
    "Realistically (unless you're DanT or some other genius) you need characters.." -Sir_Sully

    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE