Why I think KoE aren't great

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

  • DanT wrote:

    Maybe players just have expectations in their heads that don't relate to the current rules of the units in front of them, but rather to some version that exists in their heads?
    For me this is more it. I remember 6th edition where a KoE charge was scary to an enemy. I don't want to go back to the point and click world of 6th, but some more damage on the charge so that an enemy doesn't want to get charged by my cavlary would be nice.

    There will always be exceptions to the rule but most non elite units should suffer from a KoE charge, and they don't always suffer enough.

    This gives me more options against infantry units, and particularly stubborn units. Currently our steadfast breaking, high static CR doesn't work against these units and so most of the time we just avoid them. I don't want to avoid a unit just becuase it's stubborn.

    As has been mentioned before, maybe we should be looking to make most of our cavalry better agianst infantry and worse against single monsters. Strength 6 is overkill against most infantry but good vs monsters so maybe dropping that to strength 5, AP3 on the charge would be an option?

    Or just flat out saying that the strength bonus is dependant on the size of an enemy. +2 strength & AP vs normal sized models (so human sized infantry & cav), +1 strength & AP vs large models and +1 AP vs gigantic models. That means that we need characters to do heroic stuff like killing monsters which fits the fluff pretty well, I think. :)

    KoE would then be more like the charge of the Rohirrim at Minas Tirith which fits the fluff better than the monster killing knights does. If every knight and his dog can kill a monster then that's not very heroic......
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    @Sir_Sully and to defend @echoCTRL, he does have a great mind for fluffy rules and I think that’s equally as important, or even more important because power levels can be tweaked with later
    I agree that @echoCTRL does usually design rules that I like the feel of. I've been hopeful for the book since it has been anounced as there are some good choices for the team and I expect echo will be one of them.

    I just got the wrong feeling from a couple of exho's posts and that's what I was responding to. If the book is almost as fluffy as the hombrew echo did, we'll be in a good place. :)
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Davian wrote:

    You mean like a rule saying ”if knights and peasants fights in the same combat, no CR is generated by the opponent for wounds inflicted on peasants” ?

    or more like ”Knights never suffer negative modifiers to their leadership because of dead peasants”

    some kind of upgraded insignificant rule? :)
    At the time of writing it I was imagining something like the first example. It would be an insane rule, and it would most likely never happen. But I feel we need some way use Levy as leverage in combat together with knights. Right now, they are too much of a liability to be used in this role reliably (whether they should be able to perform anything reliably for their current price point is up for debate). Again, I feel that there is a disconnect between the perceived role of the Levy, and the role they are actually able to perform. I may be biased here, seeing as I own ca 70 Levy who currently ride the pine for most games.
    :charge2: Kingdom of Equitaine
    :oldmen: Dwarven Holds
    :orclaugh: Orcs and Goblins
  • Sir_Sully wrote:

    @Swelt
    Display Spoiler

    Swelt wrote:

    I'm no expert on jousting or anything, but a quick Google search found this explaination of jousting, though this is from reddit so take it with a grain of salt. Possibly some fluff for getting a bonus to hit vs being easier to hit?

    "Skill and tactics are a bigger part than you might think at first glance.

    First, the Jousting Lance they use can range from 9 to 14 feet in length. A longer one gives you more reach and keeps you farther from your opponent, but it's also heavier and more difficult to wield than a short one. That can make using a long one "clumsy" and extremely difficult, increasing the chances that the rider using it will drop it on impact (lessening the force of that impact) or miss his opponent entirely.

    So right off the bat, there's some strategy in choosing Lance length. Go with a short one and it will be the easiest to use, but it will require you to tuck in closer to the railing that divides the lanes and increases your chances of being struck by your opponent, who will theoretically have an easier time hitting you. Using a longer one will increase your distance from your opponent, making it theoretically harder for him to hit you, but you're now using a larger, heavier Lance that may be difficult or impossible for you to use effectively.

    If you and your opponent are roughly the same height with roughly the same reach, you may simply want to try to use a lance that's 1-2 feet longer than his. However, if he's already using a 14-foot Lance, you now must also to maintain equal distances, or use a shorter lance and tuck into the railing, hoping you can escape or deflect his lance, and hit him in the chest.

    If the other rider is taller or shorter than you are, this simply amplifies the issues regarding length choice.

    Even once these issues are dealt with, there's quite a bit of strategy to play "on the lane". For instance, the faster you ride, the more potential impact you carry, but the horse will be moving more, and with more impact, making it harder for you to find and keep your aim.

    Further, do you try and keep your distance in an attempt to force your opponent to miss wide so you can peg him? Or do you come in close, attempt to deflect his blow and use additional force to knock him off?

    I'm only scratching the surface here in terms of variables, but you get the point. Rider skill, rider strength, tactics and positioning are all part of Jousting. Reach and luck are part of it, but the guy with the longest arms/longest Lance isn't always going to win."

    This is pretty interesting but it does assume a couple of things:
    • jousting by it's very nature is knight against knight. Knights against infantry is slightly different and as @Marcos24 said, it's easier to hit a static infantry block than it is to hit a single moving target.
    • Both riders have similar skill levels. We're talking about knights who are meant to have been using lances (and other weapons) all their lives. vs infantry who are standing still. I recon they'd hit more often than not.
    Additionally you can make a good argument that all the tactics that you mention (do you try and keep your distance, Or do you come in close, etc) is mirrored in how KoE play.
    Cavalry historical was countered with deep blocks, or square formations. Horses are hesitant to charge into these formations. Historical heavy cavalry would be sent in on the flanks or after the enemy ranks were disrupted. Stories from the medieval age tend to raise the importance of knights, likely due to the fact that only the nobility could read.

    That being said, this is a fantasy game so basing KoE after legends and stories makes more sense then going off of historical accounts.
  • Niebieski wrote:

    What was the men-at-arms (equivalent of peasents if I understand correctly) power in warhammer? They were stronger than peasents, so what would be their relative statline in t9a if converted - something along the lines of heavy infantry?
    Maybe the unit can have an update option to give better fighting stats, while keeping cheap units for people who want to keep disposable peasants.

    Maybe they unit could be a peasant mob, then the upgrade could be men at arm's.
  • Niebieski wrote:

    What was the men-at-arms (equivalent of peasents if I understand correctly) power in warhammer? They were stronger than peasents, so what would be their relative statline in t9a if converted - something along the lines of heavy infantry?
    Yes, in 5th edition men-at-arms were almost exactly like the heavy infantry of EoS now (statline was the same and equipment options too). In 6th edition the equipment stayed the same, but they lost 1 point WS and BS and 2 points of LD. With those stats they were worse than a goblin (a goblin had 1 point LD more).
    Stone: "Nerf Paper, it is overpowered. Scissors are well balanced."

    :KoE: :VC: :WDG_bw:
  • Davian wrote:

    You mean like a rule saying ”if knights and peasants fights in the same combat, no CR is generated by the opponent for wounds inflicted on peasants” ?

    or more like ”Knights never suffer negative modifiers to their leadership because of dead peasants”

    some kind of upgraded insignificant rule?

    Swelt wrote:

    Maybe the unit can have an update option to give better fighting stats, while keeping cheap units for people who want to keep disposable peasants.

    A simpler solution is what VS are proposing. Peasants only grant half CR.
    So in the example @Marcos24 presented, the IG would have actually lost the combat by a few points instead of winning it by a landslide.

    Trying to increase their stats to achieve the same effect will require them to be as strong as Deepwatch defensively, which seems pretty weird for a levy/men-at-arms.
  • This would be a controversial opinion, but if it is necessary, I would prefer to get rid of the levies at all, and use some other kind of troops that actually sinergize with our cavalry. I know that there are people who likes peasants. But, if given the option that we can get rid of the peasants to have a good heavy cavalry army, I would gladly give them away, even though I own a ton of models...

    Basically I'm here for the Knights :D . Of course that is not gonna happen, but if anyone else want the project to create a LAB were an all heavy cavalry army is the center piece or even cavalry only is the way to go competitively, please feel free to post it. There are some armies which didn't have shooting or it is testimonial, so if we need to get rid of the peasants to have better knights, I would be happy to get rid of them. Mark that this is only my opinion and that I would prefer that having both would be better, but I still stand that if that's impossible, peasants should stay at home to work the fields and let the Knights do war
  • A men at arms unit would be nice but the reason a heavy infantry block in EoS works well is because of the buffs they can get,

    • they can have FiER
    • a prelate to bypass hitting everything (except peasants) on 4s
    • or lightning reflexes
    • or battle focus pretty easily
    • distracting
    • in addition to more reliable magic when they generate like 10 veil tokens or whatever. Along with the bound spells to force some dispels and waste our dice
    • Or because they get free charges into flanks, as a support units but that’s a easier to block at the start of the game
    So, without stepping on their toes, what we could do that EoS does not do is create synergy in combinations of units in combat or presence by:
    • debuffing enemy units
    • Buffing knights to hit better (strongest option) because we deplete the enemy units of models
    • Buffing peasants/men at arms to die less (won’t bleed combat res)
    • A little bit of a combo of the above but weaker versions
  • Swelt wrote:

    Cavalry historical was countered with deep blocks, or square formations. Horses are hesitant to charge into these formations. Historical heavy cavalry would be sent in on the flanks or after the enemy ranks were disrupted. Stories from the medieval age tend to raise the importance of knights, likely due to the fact that only the nobility could read.

    That being said, this is a fantasy game so basing KoE after legends and stories makes more sense then going off of historical accounts.
    True, The thing is that cavalry equipped with a lance was still dangerous to those large blocks (depending on their weapons).

    In the napoleonic wars squares were threatened by lancers because the lancers had the ability to reach over the muskets. If the muskets were loaded this wasn't possible but it was the main reason why squares tended to hold their fire against cavalry. Translating that to T9A, lance cavlary would be a threat to any unit that doesn't have spears or halbards - i.e. any unit where the lance can out reach their own weapons.

    There are also accounts of squares breaking against cavalry sometimes becuase the square fired late and a dead horses momentum broke their formation.

    Going back to medieval times, longbows were very important at breaking up the ranks of large blocks and longbows are something that we have. THe English would soften the enemy up with longbow fire and then the knights would charge. The last volley could be timed so that it hit seconds before the knights charged home so that the enemy formation didn't have time to close up.

    A rule to simulate the archers firing ahead on the knights like this has been proposed before in allowing KoE archers to fire into combats created by a knight unit charging in the same turn. I.e. I charge with knights and in the shooting phase the charged unit is a valid target for archers. If the archers do a wound, apply a debuff to the enemy unit.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Swelt wrote:

    Maybe the unit can have an update option to give better fighting stats, while keeping cheap units for people who want to keep disposable peasants.

    Maybe they unit could be a peasant mob, then the upgrade could be men at arm's.

    McBaine wrote:

    Yes, in 5th edition men-at-arms were almost exactly like the heavy infantry of EoS now (statline was the same and equipment options too). In 6th edition the equipment stayed the same, but they lost 1 point WS and BS and 2 points of LD. With those stats they were worse than a goblin (a goblin had 1 point LD more).
    In 6th ed WFB they were very similar to what they are now but were called Men @ Arms. I think that's a solution that would make everyone happy.

    Crusaders should become something of a decent infantry unit that people are looking for from Levy and Cursaders need a redesign because at the moment tthey don't really do anything. They're an ok tarpit but Levy do that better from core. They can deal some damage but not significantly more than the levy and forlorn knights deal significantly more. They seem to be a middling unit that nobody really wants or takes. Making Crusaders a type of veterans unit with some rules that make them a cheapish solid unit that can hold the line.

    Take the halberd option away from Levy and give that to Crusaders. A stubborn unit with Dis 8 and rally around the flag (6") to the two levy units either side is a useful thing to have to help hold the line and lets the cavalry . They're not going to be elite infantry because we have too much of that already but they could be a solid and useful unit to have on the table.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Sir_Sully wrote:

    A rule to simulate the archers firing ahead on the knights like this has been proposed before in allowing KoE archers to fire into combats created by a knight unit charging in the same turn. I.e. I charge with knights and in the shooting phase the charged unit is a valid target for archers. If the archers do a wound, apply a debuff to the enemy unit.
    Sounds like a super interesting rule for combined army approach. What kind of a debuff are you thinking of - CR or some actuall debuffs to stats?

    Sir_Sully wrote:

    Take the halberd option away from Levy and give that to Crusaders. A stubborn unit with Dis 8 and rally around the flag (6") to the two levy units either side is a useful thing to have to help hold the line and lets the cavalry . They're not going to be elite infantry because we have too much of that already but they could be a solid and useful unit to have on the table.
    It makes more sense in my mind to have crusaders with relic in the unit be unbreakable rather than flagellants on their own.
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    So, without stepping on their toes, what we could do that EoS does not do is create synergy in combinations of units in combat or presence by:


    debuffing enemy units
    The debuff could be an interesting idea. Could we do something like the following and add it to the levy:

    Cavalry Support Levy
    When any enemy unit is engaged in more than one arc and is engaged in this unit's front arc, the enemy unit must reroll all rolls of 6 in the close combat phase.

    That might be too strong an effect...

    the problem really is that in every scenario where knights are in a flank or rear of an enemy unit, it's better for the KoE player if the levy aren't involved in that combat. Even with the half CR solution the knights would be better off if there was no levy. So this solution makes it easier for levy to assist knights in flanking but, you don't want them there after you flanked.

    So maybe a better solution is for a disengage option for the levy once the knights have charged. Maybe something like:

    We've only got one job lads....
    The unit can choose to make a disengage action provided the following conditions are met:
    • The unit is only engaged in it's front arc
    • At the start of the controlling player's movement phase all enemy units engaged with this unit are engaged in multiple facings
    The decision to disengage is made at the beginning of the movement phase before moving any other units and is resolved immeadiately.

    Disengage action
    When a unit decides to disengage, the controlling player immeadiately removes D6 models as casualties distributed as shooting attacks. Then turn the unit 180 degrees about it's centre and move it 2d6" directly forward. This move will imeadiately stop 1" away from any unit (friend or foe) or any impassible terrain.


    If after making this move the unit is still within 1" of any units it was disengaging from remove models as causalties unil this is no longer the case. If 25% of the unit is lost during this move a panic test is required following all the usual rules for discipline tests.


    The unit cannot choose to move further this player turn (but it can flee or otherwise move involuntarily where the rules require) and cannot shoot in the shooting phase or cast spells in the magic phase, although any wizards can channel as normal.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Niebieski wrote:

    Sounds like a super interesting rule for combined army approach. What kind of a debuff are you thinking of - CR or some actuall debuffs to stats?
    I wasn't sure to be honest. Could be anything from -1 Discipline (which is a bit meh) through -1 to hit to Disrupted (which is probably too strong).

    It would need to be something that is balanced so an enemy doesn't feel sucker punched by it but also something that's worth doing from our perspective.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • I think it’s close to hopeless to get peasants and Knights to synergize in combat together. Any ways of doing this would probably violate fundamentals of this game... But this anti-synergy does seem thematic (the disdain knights/nobility have for lower classes) albeit not beginner friendly in the slightest.

    With the way the rules are phrased to maximize number of models in contact, a combo charge means the knights are forced clip a unit instead of the peasants, but a Reliquary does partially solve this issue (but only for clipping purposes). Still rather niche and awkward to pull off... maybe if peasants didn’t have to maximize contact on charges with knights, but that is dangerous territory..

    Instead, maybe it’s interesting to think about how peasants can facilitate and make way for knights to achieve those favorable combats. Chaffing, Chaff management etc.
    The change in font size of this post is purely accidental: my phone is stupid, and I am too stupid to fix it.
  • Niebieski wrote:

    Folomo wrote:

    Maybe a -1 Agility? This would allow the knights to hit before/simultaneous to most spear units
    Wouldn't it be irrelevant 90% percent of the time tho? How about -1 to DEF and OFF for first round?
    Which has the same problem in that it's situationally good or irrelevant. It needs to be something worth the effort the vast majority of the time.

    jaith1 wrote:

    I think it’s close to hopeless to get peasants and Knights to synergize in combat together. Any ways of doing this would probably violate fundamentals of this game... But this anti-synergy does seem thematic (the disdain knights/nobility have for lower classes) albeit not beginner friendly in the slightest.
    which is where my idea for disengaging the peasants came from. Essentually if knights are in a fight you don't want peasants in it as well.

    jaith1 wrote:

    Instead, maybe it’s interesting to think about how peasants can facilitate and make way for knights to achieve those favorable combats. Chaffing, Chaff management etc.
    What sort of things are you thinking? How would you get those peasants doing those things?
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Sir_Sully wrote:


    jaith1 wrote:

    I think it’s close to hopeless to get peasants and Knights to synergize in combat together. Any ways of doing this would probably violate fundamentals of this game... But this anti-synergy does seem thematic (the disdain knights/nobility have for lower classes) albeit not beginner friendly in the slightest.
    which is where my idea for disengaging the peasants came from. Essentually if knights are in a fight you don't want peasants in it as well.

    jaith1 wrote:

    Instead, maybe it’s interesting to think about how peasants can facilitate and make way for knights to achieve those favorable combats. Chaffing, Chaff management etc.
    What sort of things are you thinking? How would you get those peasants doing those things?
    Disengaging feels too elite in my opinion... but I cannot claim any good ideas of how peasants could do this in a beginner friendly way... maybe allowing cavalry to run over peasants as if they were open terrain... but that seems too brutal/heartless for an Arthurian-inspired feudal society.

    Maybe peasants can only be sacrificial tarpits to buy time. Like VS slaves. All tarpits in this game have this issue of bleeding too much CR. So I think accepting levies as ‘a tar pit deluxe’ is the only thing we could hope from them... at least they can hold an elite infantry unit in place for 2 combats... but maybe it just needs to be cheaper?
    The change in font size of this post is purely accidental: my phone is stupid, and I am too stupid to fix it.