The Faith: Kingdoms of Equitaine

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

    The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

    • Oh, I don't know how it would go over now, but when this weapon was designed, the reason it isn't exactly what you want is because the Infernal Weapon already exists and is considered to be the best weapon in the game. We were specifically told we couldn't have an Infernal weapon equivalent.

      I even tried to frame it as a Magical Sword gifted to knights by the Lady as evidence that they should depart on their Quests. I wrote a whole story about finding it in a body of water.

      I also suggested heavily that the Quest for Grail was only fully fulfilled upon "Falling on the Sword". The Lady would then retrieve the Sword and give the knight the Grail to drink from.
    • echoCTRL wrote:

      Klexe wrote:

      Heck making questing knight s3 base with +2 claymore would even more sense then... then we could add a rule which allows them to hit always at own agi.. but that is sooo uragh

      I still think.
      Bastardsword/claymore should be +1s +1ap one handed.

      Yeah a straight copy from ID but KoE needs it as we mere humans have no s5 access beasts like tauruks
      Questing Knights already have this option and never use it. Or, at least I believe you have told me that no one uses the Light Lance option. So what would the point be? Is it Str 5 at own agility? Is it Strength 5 without paying for Strength 6? I don't think the unit would get much cheaper than I have them.
      Because it is charge only and S6 ap3 at agi0 is most of the time better choice.

      So giving them max s5 would
      1. Clearly indiciate they do NOT hund the biggest enemies
      2. Enables for buffs into more grinding theority


      Difference between s5 and 6 should pointwise be huge. Vs R4 and 4+as or better it is a
      33% reduciton in dmg
      always on 4+ hitting
      So for example vs r4 dwarfs:
      2av s5 ap2 = 0.55 kills
      1av s6 ap3 = 0.41

      Vs r5 monster 3+as
      2av s5 ap2 = 0.33
      1av s6 ap3 = 0.27


      Vs r6 3+as

      1av s6 =0.2
      2av s5 = 0.22


      so yeah 2av s5 is as strong as 1av s6 mmh. I thought it would be worse.
      BUT 2av s5 are as strong as 1av s6 most of the time.

      So if we make them 1av s5 with condtional rules vs intended target with grind i would prefer that over s6 .

                      

      Product-Search

      KoE Community Support

      Lord of the Hobby

      Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/
    • We aren't getting 2 Attacks, and you know that. So remove that possibility from your equation. And the effect of lowering Strength only to increase Attacks will be a Much more expensive unit. 2 Attacks Wounding Res 5 on 5+ is net better than 1 Attack Wounding on 4+ so it won't be worse against monsters. It would be better.

      Klexe wrote:

      so yeah 2av s5 is as strong as 1av s6 mmh. I thought it would be worse.
      BUT 2av s5 are as strong as 1av s6 most of the time.

      So if we make them 1av s5 with condtional rules vs intended target with grind i would prefer that over s6 .
      Is this with them attacking at their own Agility? Right now, I see it as the conditional rule being the Oath Bound rule I wrote up which is a choice between being an Bunker for damsels or being better at grinding by getting Battle Focus.
    • echoCTRL wrote:

      Oh, I don't know how it would go over now, but when this weapon was designed, the reason it isn't exactly what you want is because the Infernal Weapon already exists and is considered to be the best weapon in the game. We were specifically told we couldn't have an Infernal weapon equivalent.

      I even tried to frame it as a Magical Sword gifted to knights by the Lady as evidence that they should depart on their Quests. I wrote a whole story about finding it in a body of water.

      I also suggested heavily that the Quest for Grail was only fully fulfilled upon "Falling on the Sword". The Lady would then retrieve the Sword and give the knight the Grail to drink from.
      This was old RT. I do hope new teams have different view. It is clear for me that the main problem for KoE is lack of grind. We have s6 or s4 nothing in between this is just bad imo.

      If a greatsword with shield ist acceptable then a halberd + shield should too? But 1handed halberd is for ID. So we should have a longsword.

      There is a reason why all movies and history have the sword as knight weapon even if it was not really suited most of the time.
      People like the sword. But what do i know.

      I would still prefer questing knights as MSU spec ops scout vanguard typ of unit and add a new Royal Knight (aspirants-> realms->royal) as a mix of old grail and old questors. They should not have s6.

      So how would you give an army, which has the focus on the rider and not the mount, who can never be s5 base for normal humans, s5 in the profile? Halberd. Thats it.

      This could be possible
      1.png

      So in melee they have only 3+ as but have R4. The problem is... again human...

      Give them only R3 and they need 2+ AS
      If they have 2+ AS they need a special rule for weapon and shield.
      .....

      Heck perhaps give them a heavy warhorse, same for characters with r4 in the profile. No difference for characters but this would make sense fluffwise.

                      

      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:

      We aren't getting 2 Attacks, and you know that. So remove that possibility from your equation. And the effect of lowering Strength oly to increase Attacks will be a Much more expensive unit. 2 Attacks Wounding Res 5 on 5+ is net better than 1 Attack Wounding on 4+ so it won't be worse against monsters. It would be better.
      And i agreed with that. We could make the second attack condtional like +1av vs scoring
      Last time i checked we have grail knights with 2av.
      And imo KoE needs a unit which is a mix between grails and questors. There is such a huge gap.

      Pegasus have 2av, aspirants have 2av. I see zero reasons why we cant have 2av knights? Isnt the reason EoS lost 2av knights that KoE has this and not EoS?

                      

      Product-Search

      KoE Community Support

      Lord of the Hobby

      Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/
    • @Klexe that unit idea is pretty close to one I had proposed awhile back. The basics of it were these:
      dws 5, res 4, armour 3+ questing knights (and battle focus).

      The res and dws 5 would come from/be explained by their mount.
      If we cannot have 2 att questing knights thats ok, this basic statline would be very unique for the army and when combined with @echoCTRLs blessing and oathbound would be an excellent unit.

      I would consider going with a slightly smaller unit size of 8-12 and 8"/14" move values to further represent the mount.
      The current bastard sword I personally really like. I think it is the best unique weapon this project ever came up with.

      As for the technology argument look at the miraculous staircase for a real life example.. some techniques from the old world ARE superior, but become lost with time. KOE has been making miraculous staircases while EOS moved on to guns.
      "When a man lies he murders some part of the world.. These are the pale deaths which men miscall their lives. All this I cannot bear to witness any longer. Cannot the kingdoms of Equitaine take me home" -Merlin/James Hetfield/KOE "To Live is To Die"
    • Forgot to say the book is looking really good echo. I dig the new castellan he totally revived my interest in the infantry. And the horned knight and hounds are both really interesting and solid additions.

      On banner of the last charge what are your thoughts on it also setting agility to 5? This would be a sort of concession to the old version but not stack onto grail knights agility, thus making the banner more attractive to other non grail units.
      "When a man lies he murders some part of the world.. These are the pale deaths which men miscall their lives. All this I cannot bear to witness any longer. Cannot the kingdoms of Equitaine take me home" -Merlin/James Hetfield/KOE "To Live is To Die"
    • It is possible for KoE to get Resistance 4 or Armor 3 base thanks to some kind of special horse. As far as the LAB goes, introducing Res 4 mounts would be an early discussion item about Knight Mounts, their Speed, amount of Armour, and Resilience Levels. Then comes the background conversation about how would you justify which unit has a certain mount. A unit of Knights of the Quest is going to continue to exist because they are directly mentioned in other Background works, and we need to maintain model collections of knights with Great Swords. So, if they exist, we need to balance them with Knights of the Realm.

      1: On mount access - Giving Knights of the Quest a superior mount to Knights of the Realm needs to be explained. Why would a Knight on the Quest have a better mount than a knight which is still supported by a fiefdom and has both wealth to purchase as well as the access to any mount a Knight of the Quest should have access to? Meaning that if a Knight of the Quest can get a certain horse, than a Knight of the Realm should be able to get the same mount too. And, if that mount provided Arm 3, or Res 4 it would be over powered for the Knight of the Realm which would have access to shields. Mounts do not serve as a good top down solution, because it is not sensible to restrict them from Knights of the Realms, and it makes Knights of the Realm far too good.


      2: Increases Eliteness and moves towards MSU: The trade off for making mounts Res 4 would have to be significant. Like move 7/14. It would still result in an increase of pricing for most knights. And, in order for Knights of the Quest to be superior knights to the Knights of the Realm, we would need to add in things like Weapon Skill 5. That means having Knights almost as expensive as current Grail Knights. They would be in the 60 point per model range. At 60 points per model the unit could not be more than 12 models in size. This is against the themes of my Homebrew book, where knights are very human, with human stats and human limitations. Knights win via using their numbers to the most advantage. A version of Knights with Res 4, leads to an army where the majority of knight units need to be MSU-MMU.

      I know some of you want KoE Knights to be more akin to warriors of Dark Gods. Well, mounts Res 4 or Armour C+3 mounts would be all that is needed to achieve that goal. I am whole heatedly against this move.

      To me the solution for Knights of the Quest needs to be Special Rules based focusing of the unit in combination with the Bastard Sword. No stat line adjustments, no extra Attacks. Knights without res 4 or Armor 6 is what lets this army have the weaknesses that allow for an interesting Blessing mechanic.
    • Stygian wrote:

      Forgot to say the book is looking really good echo. I dig the new castellan he totally revived my interest in the infantry. And the horned knight and hounds are both really interesting and solid additions.

      On banner of the last charge what are your thoughts on it also setting agility to 5? This would be a sort of concession to the old version but not stack onto grail knights agility, thus making the banner more attractive to other non grail units.
      Are you saying that you see this as a banner which would only be valuable to Grail Knights?

      I could go back to the last Version that was Devastating Charge (+X Offensive Skill, and +X Agility) Where X is the current player turn divided by 2 and rounded down.
    • On res 4 it just seems the most logical alternative to armour 2+. And would make the unit more unique. How it fits into the fluff is another story but I was not suggesting realms would get the same treatment.

      On BotLC I don't see it that way although I believe grails could possibly benefit more due to agi 6 OTC. On the flip side they don't have breaking power so maybe its close but I haven't spent time with any builds. I like the current banner and I think other players would likely prefer this version to the former you mention above.
      "When a man lies he murders some part of the world.. These are the pale deaths which men miscall their lives. All this I cannot bear to witness any longer. Cannot the kingdoms of Equitaine take me home" -Merlin/James Hetfield/KOE "To Live is To Die"
    • echoCTRL wrote:

      And, if that mount provided Arm 3, or Res 4 it would be over powered for the Knight of the Realm which would have access to shields.
      How about R4 mount which has only armor+1 instead of +2.
      Realms can BUY these so it is your choice. Balance through points


      So you can have armywide r4 but no 2+armorsave.
      In combination with your blessing it is an interessting idea

      1 hit s3 ap0 vs
      r4 3+= 011
      r3 2+= 0.083

      So r4 3+ is worse vs s3

      always 1 hit
      s4 ap1s4ap2s4 ap3s5 ap2´s6 ap3
      r30.220.330.440.410.55
      r40.250.330.410.440.694

      Blue marked shows which is better
      r4 3+ is only better vs spears if we charge them by 7% lol and 13% vs s4 ap1

      But vs s3 ap0 it is 13,2% worse
      at s6 it is 26% worse

      Imo r4 3+ armor is worse then r3 2+ So the points should almost be the same
      AND at the same time we are better vs toxic.

      Imo that is a win win
      We would be worse vs trash attacks, worse vs monster (we still counter them)



      i see really no reason why a r4 3+ mount should be anymore expensive then a r3+ 2+ moun

                      

      Product-Search

      KoE Community Support

      Lord of the Hobby

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

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

    • things are not so binary.

      Higher res but lower armor means this option would be better in games where the opponent has AP 4-6 attacks but worse against attacks with good STR and AP.

      For example, Res 4 & armor 4 is better against toxic attacks than Res 3 & armor 5, so a KoE player who plays commonly with his VS friend may prefer such an option, while someone who plays against ogres will favor the higher armor option.

      So different metas make each option more or less interesting.
    • Marcos24 wrote:

      I’m pretty confident we won’t have r4 knights across the board with or without 3+.

      I don’t see non super human knights with r4 ever happening (outside of characters) even if it is The horse with the r4
      i dont really get why?
      see my math above. It is not better.
      It is better for game balance even as trash attacks become better => good // monster become better vs our cavalry => good // high S attacks become better vs us => good
      it makes the toxic problem less problematic => good

      It flatens the curve and it makes sense playwise. With lance formation we are somewhat an ogre kingdom army


      It could be a great mount choice

                      

      Product-Search

      KoE Community Support

      Lord of the Hobby

      Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/
    • Aspirants-> remove 1 armor, remove Lance formation, remove scoring, add light troops and +1 ap. (Anti-cavalry, and great flankers to assist another unit charging from the front)

      KotR-> option to replace lance with a +1 S/Ap weapon. (Now we have a unit that can be used to break steadfast, or grind, and you can take two to have both options in a list)

      Questors-> give them ambush, 2 attacks, the same +1 S/ap weapon as KotR

      Grails -> add 1 wound.

      Yeomen -> add the old “battle hardened” upgrade but with +1 S instead of off/def (+1 S/Ap and +1 dis)

      peasant Levy -> give them “chivalric units gain hatred in the first round of the same combat they share with this unit”

      Reliquary -> add option to join cavalry units (or make a separate reliquary): increase base to 50x100, M8/Adv16, make it 2 model parts (2 retainers and 1 reliquary) retainers have Questor profile (no ambush), reliquary is r4, 4 hp
      - has Fear, gives unit it joins battle focus

      Peasant bowmen - same
      Peasant crusaders - same
      Brigands - same
      Pegasus - same
      Trebuchets abs scorpion - same, maybe slightly cheaper

      with these changes I’d be happy with the units and wouldn’t ask for any other changes other than to characters
    • Klexe wrote:

      Marcos24 wrote:

      I’m pretty confident we won’t have r4 knights across the board with or without 3+.

      I don’t see non super human knights with r4 ever happening (outside of characters) even if it is The horse with the r4
      i dont really get why?see my math above. It is not better.
      It is better for game balance even as trash attacks become better => good // monster become better vs our cavalry => good // high S attacks become better vs us => good
      it makes the toxic problem less problematic => good

      It flatens the curve and it makes sense playwise. With lance formation we are somewhat an ogre kingdom army


      It could be a great mount choice
      it’s not about better or worse, if we have that then we’re basically completely ignoring the human stat line. At which point, mechanically, we could be playing dwarves on regular horses, or orcs one regular horses. I feel like those stat lines tie all the humans together, and giving them something that fully ignores that completely defeats the purpose of giving races specific stats. Why even bother?