Why I think KoE aren't great

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

  • Folomo wrote:

    Davian wrote:

    the KoE community can not agree on what it wants since it is not a unified community. Your very post about precision play/hammer play shows this. I believe all efforts to gather a unified, or largely unified, community based "want lint" is doomed to fail. Mainly because there are so many people playing the same army for different reasons.
    This is the most important problem to solve. How many different camps there are, and what do each want.

    For example, if there are two camps, one loves the scapel style of KoE that excels at mobility, objectives and quirugical striker and the second group wants to play KoE as a hammer, right in your face without movement shenanigans', then the designers will have a much clearer goal.

    But if the answer is "every KoE player wants something completely different" and "KoE units needs to be better and cheaper" there is no realistic way to satisfy the majority of the players and the new book will be just be a mess.

    If the answer is "every player wants something different", it only makes sense to maintain and expand upon the current strengths, weaknesses and playstyle. How could it fairly be anything else?
  • DanT wrote:

    (In case of any doubt I am not on KoE team and have had zero input on that team as a staff member)


    My view:
    The army is a precise scalpel/surgical tool, that is not lacking at all when wielded by a top player.
    But most of the community want a hammer and a good fight (and a better story).
    Precisely this. I keep repeating this statement to my padawans.

    "We are the scalpel that guards the realm of men."

    Be fast, be precise. Find the weak spot. Cut soo deep that the wound will never heal.
    ETC Novi Sad 2021
  • @Sir_Sully
    Display Spoiler


    Sir_Sully wrote:

    While we have Adv 8 & March 16 that playstyle is still open to them so if you increase the damage of our knights those players will become unbeatable. That's not acceptable and so in order to have knights damage going up, you have to lose something elsewhere.

    While the No rank bonus to CR in lance formation is a decent start, don't kid yourself that -2 CR (in most cases) is going to make the team give us an extra 4 wounds of damage on the charge. That's not a equivilent trade. -2 CR will translate to +2 wounds on average and that's not enough to make knights into the forces that you guys want. The combat result will be identical (on average), you just killed an extra model or 2, which will make very little difference in the grand scheme of things.
    Much wisdom in this :thumbup:
    As with SirMC2015, I am not sure about two formations as the solution, but certainly these bits of analysis are very sensible in my view :)






    @Marcos24
    Display Spoiler


    I think it would be useful to dig into this rubber lance stuff a bit more precisely.

    • How often does this affect your games? (I must admit I never noticed this when playing KoE, certainly no more so than with other armies).
    • For attacks hitting on 4s, wounding on 2s, follows a binomial distribution with p(success)=5/12. So for e.g. 12 such attacks, the probability of getting 4 or more is more than 80% (the average is only 5).
      So what is the rubber lance problem here? What do you actually want to change about this probability distribution? Would you be happy with getting exactly average every time? Why should KoE be immune to having to consider the probability distribution of outcomes when it applies to every army and phase in the game?
    • About the prelate, he increases the average output as well as reducing the likelihood of a worst case scenario. This ties to my questions above: do you actually want MOAR damage (move the centre of the distribution to higher vales), increased reliability (squash the distribution inwards to more of it is around the average)... or something else...
    This might sound like semantics, but it is really important to understanding what you actually want.


    Marcos24 wrote:

    Your goal as a designer should be to make people continuously excited to play. Not leave it so that the only option for players is to invest a couple hours or more with careful planning and movement just to fail on the one round it matters for their "hard hitting" units...

    Yes... but there are limitations to what LABs can do. E.g. They can't remove objectives. Or change the core rule book.


    Or to see your opponent's list after deployment and think "great... for the next couple hours i have to fight his chaff and little units and run away from his main ones, then try and grab objectives in the end. Then followed by tedious cleanup, what a wonderfully designed book..."

    Out of interest, where have you got this picture from? Is it actually accurate?

    This doesn't describe my games with KoE. I destroyed big enemy units, including spearmen blocks.
    Not every game, sure... but not in a negligible amount of them either.

    Just to be clear, when I talk about the army being used as a scalpel, I don't mean boring 13-7 wins... I mean I take lots of opposing models off :) ... I just do it with clever play and leveraging the KoE movement and power at a point advantages, not pushing forward raw unit power.





    @Davian @IntrigueAtCourt
    Display Spoiler

    Davian wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    This is why I think the KoE community need to be clear about what they want.
    the KoE community can not agree on what it wants since it is not a unified community. Your very post about precision play/hammer play shows this. I believe all efforts to gather a unified, or largely unified, community based "want lint" is doomed to fail. Mainly because there are so many people playing the same army for different reasons.
    some play for narrative and fluffy reasons, some play for chess-like behavior (like me), some play for the high fantasy arthurian theme, some play for the low fantasy medieval gritty knights and peasants theme, some play because they want to play a historical wargame but t9a is the only one played in their area, so they play the least fantasyesque army in the game.

    (Also relevant to @IntrigueAtCourt )

    I don't think "not everyone will agree" is the same as "a vision can't be constructed that would satisfy a majority".
    I've advocated for years trying to poll the KoE community enough to build a coherent vision that a majority would sign up to.


    The current book demonstrably doesn't satisfy a lot of the community... and I'm unsure that tweaking around the edges can change that...

    So I think it is quite sensible to understand what different things people want and whether there is a vision that might satisfy a majority of the community.
    Because at the moment I think KoE community is largely impossible to act upon, whereas a vision would give a framework to act upon community feedback.


    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • SirMC2015 wrote:

    Marcos24 wrote:

    You know the main reason I'm still here is because i draw for the game and i like designing models right? Anyone picked up on that yet? I play as a courtesy to my friends and hoping the LAB and it's background and rules makes me take pride in this faction again...
    I do, and I truly LOVE the painting you did of Breslin. It is by far one of the best and nicest things anyone has done for me. It brought my character to life.
    Marcos does requests??
  • Davian wrote:

    The step up rule really did damage the game. One of the single biggest design mistakes in the transition from 7th to 8th. Kind of sad it lingers on in T9A as well
    I disagree with this one. Deleting first rank when charging usually meant auto break for the unit receiving the charge. Also elves with their always strike first usually meant that opposing unit couldn't strike back ever.
  • DanT wrote:

    I don't think "not everyone will agree" is the same as "a vision can't be constructed that would satisfy a majority".
    True. That vision is better presented to players to let them react on it than trying to do the other way round.

    DanT wrote:

    I've advocated for years trying to poll the KoE community enough to build a coherent vision that a majority would sign up to
    herding cats eh? :p Your quest reminds me of this clip!





    DanT wrote:

    he current book demonstrably doesn't satisfy a lot of the community... and I'm unsure that tweaking around the edges can change that...
    I believe more people are happy with the book than are unhappy with it. but people being unhappy tend to be more vocal about it. And since people are unhappy about different things we are having this rather unfocused discussion. And I see this discussion in all forums btw :p A mix of biased opinions and dissonance between staff/unhappy forum posters how the game should be designed. I like the vision T9A has that it should be a game for everyone, the pro gamers and the casual, with everything inbetween. I personally think it is impossible to design such game and I think in the long run T9A needs to be focused on one or the another part of the game. Only then can a unified vision of an army, or the vision that would satisfy a majority atleast, happen. :)


    DanT wrote:

    So I think it is quite sensible to understand what different things people want and whether there is a vision that might satisfy a majority of the community.
    I've seen KoE in its present state totally absolute dominate tournaments by clever use of positioning and manouvering. So in terms of absolute potential KoE is very highly ranked. However, that kind of play I've seen is nothing a like the vision of valilant knights, doing knightly and heroic stuff. It was more similar to chess. And I think this is the hardest problem to solve. And the vision to try to solve this has to come from the designers and not the players.

    DanT wrote:

    Because at the moment I think KoE community is largely impossible to act upon, whereas a vision would give a framework to act upon community feedback.
    I think community feedback in the form of this forum is rather poor feedback. Mainly because of the nature of social media and internet. miscommunications, entitlement, hard feelings, lack of understanding of the design process, unbalanced ratio between happy/unhappy people and so on. Maybe a more qualitative approach would give better feedback. Like ask tournament players to write short notes on
    the armies they play/play and their opinions about them, asking casual players doing the same etc. Not in open social media at least. :)

    jirga wrote:

    Also elves with their always strike first usually meant that opposing unit couldn't strike back ever.
    yeah, that is an even worse rule which came with 7th ed. (that rule is rumoured to be the reason for step up btw). And my memories of the ASF elves is why I really dislike lightning reflexes and stuff like that as AWSR. it really starts a power creep. Remove those PC rules and then remove step up, it would improve the game immensly! (it would become more similar to chess, which is my personal preference of a tactical game)
  • So, the way I think about the rubber lance syndrome is that it's not necessarily that KoE has bad offensive output, it's that is really concentrated on the the turn you charge. Sure, other armies have units which can whiff on the charge, but one of our core themes is charging knights, and lets face it, that's why most of us got into this army in the first place. And yes, while we do have tools to mitigate a round of bad luck, they are concentrated in the magic phase which forces us to commit to a charge before we know if we can get the spells off.

    Think of the process which leads up to the charge: We maneuver, we clear chaff, we commit to the charge, and we don't whiff the charge roll. We've chosen the target wisely (hopefully). Now comes the moment we all live for, and the dice betray us. We get less then average amount of wounds, maybe we roll a few 1s on armour saves (not that it's like the good old days where AP without high strength was rare). In a good situation this might just mean that we don't manage to break the enemies steadfast. On a bad day, we have to start taking break tests without steadfast. We did everything right, playing to our army's strength, and yet we are denied success. This can happen to other armies, but we are uniquely susceptible to this.

    And I'm sure this sentiment isn't helped by seeing other armies getting the tools to negate these situations on their elite shock cavalry, like DEs new Raptor Knights or WotDG Chaos Knights, whereas our GKs are almost exactly identical to when they were last released by the old game in 2003
    :charge2: Kingdom of Equitaine
    :oldmen: Dwarven Holds
    :orclaugh: Orcs and Goblins
  • Too often knights hit with the force of a hundred pillows. But they're also hyper mobile with their speed and ease of wheeling, hard to kill and bring a ton of static resolution with them.

    With their movement and ranks, they could easily break most stuff on the charge provided they could also reliably kill stuff too. And if your win condition is "charge something on the front facing with a 8/16 unit".... well, that's basically easy button Warhammer.

    For them to be more hitty, they'd need to lose a lot of speed. Could knights with something like 7/12 movement work, provided they had more punch?
  • @Marcos24 You say KoE needs a solution to rubber lance, but I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure why you think that?

    KoE has access to divination, so for a mere 285 points with the magical heirloom you have a model with 3 solid spells to address rubber lance. Between the hereditary, stars align, and know thy enemy, you have very good odds to get at least 1 spell, if not 2 off that helps offset rubber lance if that is truly your biggest concern when playing the army.

    Out of curiosity, do you field a divination wizard, and if so, why haven't you found it sufficient in your games to improve the rate at which you hit the enemy?
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW


    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • I think he means access to more passive buffs, such as EoS’ easy access to Hatred and Lightning Reflexes.

    As a KoE opponent, the Divination-based solution is problematic when the damage is entirely charge dependent. I know to hold my dice for anything that makes it easier for the Knights to hit on the turn they charge, and can then focus on stopping defensive buffs in subsequent turns once they’ve been pinned in place.
  • dan wrote:

    I think he means access to more passive buffs, such as EoS’ easy access to Hatred and Lightning Reflexes.

    As a KoE opponent, the Divination-based solution is problematic when the damage is entirely charge dependent. I know to hold my dice for anything that makes it easier for the Knights to hit on the turn they charge, and can then focus on stopping defensive buffs in subsequent turns once they’ve been pinned in place.
    But EoS is about synergy, while KoE is not, so asking to steal EoS solutions to fix problems there are already solutions too isn't realistic.

    You can hold your dice for anything that makes hitting easier, sure, but considering it's possible to force through spells to hit better with only 2 spells from divination, completely ignoring the fact KoE has an entire 3rd spell to play with, you can save all the dice you want, but still aren't guaranteed to stop the improved to hit chances in most magic phases.

    So, if other armies with Div access can force through spells to hit the only reason I can think of for why KoE isn't capable of that is people either are not taking div wizards (which seems to largely be the case) or they are choosing not to place focus on spells to improve their odds to hit, both of which would suggest that it's not something they are strongly concerned about from a list building/game playing stand point.

    Which considering that KoE is largely played as a scalpel it makes sense. Tools to get your sclapel where it needs to be alive matters more than making sure it cuts a little better. But if you wanted to build KoE as a hammer, it would revolve around lores like divination to ensure that when your do slam your hammer into a unit it was hitting hard, first, and consistently.
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW


    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • The whole discussion is very focused on the mounted Knights and I understand that for they are the armys "core" for most commenters as it seems.
    I personally would love for every part of the army book to be a viable option. Maybe giving all the Levy's and the crusaders and the warmachines and maybe even the yeomen and brigands some more synergies with the oath of fealty or the castellan or with each other. To show a whole army working together under the guidance of elite Knights and driven by the lady. How that specifically would be achieved rules wise I can't say for I am relatively new to the game and never played Warhammer in any iteration.
    It would be unfortunate if the LAB team assumed that only the units with lanceformation were important to the community even though I think they are important as well. I hope I am not the only snowflake feeling that way :P
  • From a perspective of a beginner I would like one of the most relatable faction to be easier to win with. It might be stupid argument, but I am a human being i enjoy knight and human fighters more than I do, a fantasy angle of elves and demons. I think it is fairly established that human faction have quite a few people more interested in historic fashion of the game. I don't enjoy the fact that koe is hard to master faction even if it is effective in when used by expierenced player.

    I think there is a reason why human/good factions are very often beginner friendly faction in games. That is not a case in t9a i think. I think that is bad choice that human faction are one of the hardest to win with from developer perspective. I think it is easier to be open minded about less reletable faction, and human factions should be more of you-get-what-you-see.

    I like heroic charges - I am simple human being and I think alot of people imagine cavalry to be exactly that, not very scalpel like manuverish army. This doesnt feel natural when I imagine medieval army.

    Also I like peasents and I would like peasant to be viable option.
  • Nicreap wrote:

    dan wrote:

    I think he means access to more passive buffs, such as EoS’ easy access to Hatred and Lightning Reflexes.

    As a KoE opponent, the Divination-based solution is problematic when the damage is entirely charge dependent. I know to hold my dice for anything that makes it easier for the Knights to hit on the turn they charge, and can then focus on stopping defensive buffs in subsequent turns once they’ve been pinned in place.
    But EoS is about synergy, while KoE is not, so asking to steal EoS solutions to fix problems there are already solutions too isn't realistic.
    You can hold your dice for anything that makes hitting easier, sure, but considering it's possible to force through spells to hit better with only 2 spells from divination, completely ignoring the fact KoE has an entire 3rd spell to play with, you can save all the dice you want, but still aren't guaranteed to stop the improved to hit chances in most magic phases.

    So, if other armies with Div access can force through spells to hit the only reason I can think of for why KoE isn't capable of that is people either are not taking div wizards (which seems to largely be the case) or they are choosing not to place focus on spells to improve their odds to hit, both of which would suggest that it's not something they are strongly concerned about from a list building/game playing stand point.

    Which considering that KoE is largely played as a scalpel it makes sense. Tools to get your sclapel where it needs to be alive matters more than making sure it cuts a little better. But if you wanted to build KoE as a hammer, it would revolve around lores like divination to ensure that when your do slam your hammer into a unit it was hitting hard, first, and consistently.

    Sure but most armies rely on some kind of character/unit synergy, and most have access to at least one character or unit that provides passive buffs outside of magic. EoS just takes it to an extreme by having a lot of those options, on top of access to the same Divination buffs you’re referring to. In other words they don’t have a monopoly on it, they’re just the best at it.

    So while I don’t think KoE should suddenly out-synergy EoS, I don’t believe access to a non-magic based tool or two that helps boost their ability to guarantee first-turn damage output would necessarily step on any toes.

    Here’s an easy example I just thought of as a rule to give Grail Knights:

    Divine Inspiration: Friendly models gain Battle Focus against enemy units in base contact with a model with this rule.
  • Nicreap wrote:

    dan wrote:

    I think he means access to more passive buffs, such as EoS’ easy access to Hatred and Lightning Reflexes.

    As a KoE opponent, the Divination-based solution is problematic when the damage is entirely charge dependent. I know to hold my dice for anything that makes it easier for the Knights to hit on the turn they charge, and can then focus on stopping defensive buffs in subsequent turns once they’ve been pinned in place.
    But EoS is about synergy, while KoE is not, so asking to steal EoS solutions to fix problems there are already solutions too isn't realistic.
    You can hold your dice for anything that makes hitting easier, sure, but considering it's possible to force through spells to hit better with only 2 spells from divination, completely ignoring the fact KoE has an entire 3rd spell to play with, you can save all the dice you want, but still aren't guaranteed to stop the improved to hit chances in most magic phases.

    So, if other armies with Div access can force through spells to hit the only reason I can think of for why KoE isn't capable of that is people either are not taking div wizards (which seems to largely be the case) or they are choosing not to place focus on spells to improve their odds to hit, both of which would suggest that it's not something they are strongly concerned about from a list building/game playing stand point.

    Which considering that KoE is largely played as a scalpel it makes sense. Tools to get your sclapel where it needs to be alive matters more than making sure it cuts a little better. But if you wanted to build KoE as a hammer, it would revolve around lores like divination to ensure that when your do slam your hammer into a unit it was hitting hard, first, and consistently.
    I don't know in your local meta, but in mine, one or two dispelling scrolls are mandatory. So in the turn the Knights need to charge, you can pretty reliably stop two spells and bind one. Specially because KoE is not a strong magic faction...which is also something I would like the LAB team to address
  • dan wrote:

    So while I don’t think KoE should suddenly out-synergy EoS, I don’t believe access to a non-magic based tool or two that helps boost their ability to guarantee first-turn damage output would necessarily step on any toes.

    Here’s an easy example I just thought of as a rule to give Grail Knights:

    Divine Inspiration: Friendly models gain Battle Focus against enemy units in base contact with a model with this rule.
    Sure, but they already have exactly that concept in the banner of the last charge. But the request was to straight up copy what EoS had with the argument that EoS works as a synergy army....as it was designed to?

    And used to undermine the original claim that KoE already had access to ways to reduce rubber lance via div magic and their hereditary.

    But beyond that it is also pointless to formulate an argument based off a book that hasn't gone through the LAB process, KoE will have to find it's design centered on it's fluff without restricting the space that EoS can be developed into, and considering KoE isn't only about knights, all this heavy focus on ways to try and make KoE into wild hunters in full plate and fieldable...at all is something of a waste of a lost cause.

    00TnT00 wrote:

    I don't know in your local meta, but in mine, one or two dispelling scrolls are mandatory. So in the turn the Knights need to charge, you can pretty reliably stop two spells and bind one. Specially because KoE is not a strong magic faction...which is also something I would like the LAB team to address
    the 8 phase, sure, on almost any other magic phase, no, your opponent cannot reliably stop 2 spells if you commit to getting them through, they simply do not have the dice to do so.

    This has nothing to do with being a "magic faction" or not, but based solely off of dice spread. If you charge in and NEED one of two spells to go off to achieve your desired goal, take all your magic dice, split in half and throw half your pool at each of the 2 spells, in most cases, your opponent will be incapable of stopping both, in some they will, and that's just the nature of a dice based game, and in some you will get both spells off, again the nature of a dice based game. But if those spells are truly what matters most, your opponent cannot reliably stop you from getting at least one off, and the fact KoE has a 3rd spell, just adds even more redundancy, since as you pointed out, it means they can continue to employ that strategy even when binding scrolls are used.
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW


    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • I'll gladly trade in Banner of the last charge that has the potential of up to 18 impact hits in addition to the knights attacks for just devastating Charge [hatred or lightning reflex] baked into the units.


    @DanT and more reliability is preferable to to me than just potentially more damage, but hatred/LR or something like that would add both
  • 00TnT00 wrote:

    You can't decide that because there are some players which can win at tournaments with an underpowered army the army has to stay underpowered. In top tournaments KoE is doing good because it's handled by good players with a lot of experienced and they are cared for when choosing the opponent. And still, there are armies faring better and practically every other army is taken more, so that tells you about the state of the army, though it still has some hardcore players trying to make it work
    For starters, I play KoE as my main army. I play with other armies but don't really contribute to their forums because I don't care nearly as much about them as I do for KoE. So if anything, I'm biased in favour of KoE.

    And then you contradicted yourself. If KoE is doing so well then they're not underpowered. The army looks underpowered ON PAPER but on the table it isn't according to the project stats. I may not like that but that's the reality of the situation.

    And lastly, I didn't say that the army has to stay underpowered, I said that it's not as simple as just adding extra damage because that just makes those good players better. With a 2+ armour save and the blessing combined with March 16 the semi avoidance playstyle is available to the good players. In order to make KoE more accessable my suggestion is to reduce the march rate of our cavalry, so that the semi avoidacne playsytle is much harder to pull off and especially against some armies which will be more manouvreble.

    That makes KoE play differently and hopefully, reduces the skill level required to be good with KoE. That's my goal without removing the need for skill entirely. It's a delicate balance of many things and not as simple as you are making out.

    Marcos24 wrote:

    and for the record, KotR in Warhammer did have s4 at some point! I forgot which addition but it might've been 5th, I think the first iteration of the Arthurian theme
    I started in 6th ed so I'd have missed that... :) Appologies for getting this wrong though.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.