Defence is not the same as armour. They make them tougher up north.
2 Likes
Northern Alliance|Frost Giant| Hrimm is better
|Northern Alliance|Human Clansmen| suck, badly. Orcs can get this type of unit to work as cheaper/better support. Just take dwarves or huscarls
|Northern Alliance|Ice Kin Master Hunter| not bad, but niche
|Northern Alliance|Orlaf the Barbarian| better options
|Northern Alliance|Snow Troll Prime| OK if running lots of trolls, but no one does.
The de5 thing is obviously a carry over from the original rules, plus they are s*dding massive compared to the Basilean infantry and look better armoured than orcs. In most fantasy wargames/RPGs barbarian types are normally hard as nails, and at least this lot arenât just in loin cloths 
2 Likes
Stop with that nonsense please. Iâm from the North East of England⌠and that trope needs to just go away.
Someoneâs geographical place of birth doesnât have a bearing on their ability to take a weapon blow, or survive being hit by a lethel projectile.
1 Like
Well, to a big extent Mantic decides whatâs what in their own game. So if northerners in Pannithor are objectively hardier than most folk, thats just how it is. 
1 Like
From my point of view I play Basileans and was happy with the Sisterâs chariots when they were movement 9 and regular. I stopped using them when they went to irregular and speed 9. When they became regular again I was disappointed that they stayed at movement 8. In my opinion since they are a light chariot and pulled by panthers who are speed 10 a drop for the chariots should be speed 9.
I do like the sisters lancers and plan to start playing them again (when shops open their gaming areas). I also do not see many people taking the Basilean Arbalest either. I do believe shooting overall is seen as too random to count on in most armies. So shoot overall is not heavily used in my area.
Just my two cents.
4 Likes
I think most units could be fixed by finding the right points value - there must be a price where theyâre worth taking - but that this might not be the most satisfactory solution.
You really want units to have a unique role/purpose, even if theyâre taken less frequently - maybe due to requiring more fineness, or being part of a less common build. Ideally, youâd want them to be good at what they do.
Differentiation by price, seems to me to be a bit dull - for example KoM crossbowmen/handgunners, and seige artillery/cannon.
2 Likes
It can be tricky, esp with trying balance units within an army and across other armies.
A lot of the units on this list arenât bad - just that in the list they are from there is a better option (cheaper, better value, more useful etc). In many cases, switch that unit from army X to army Y and it would get picked more.
There are others however that are just poor, over costed, irregular when they really shouldnât be or have no real purpose in the army.
One of the examples you give (xbows & handguns) is appropriately costed for the extra piercing - its just that static unit shooting is, in v3, really not worth it anyhow. With the siege artillery/cannon issue, the latter is simply so much better (the reverse was true in v2), so you only take the artillery once you have run out of cannon slots.
1 Like
I think weâre agreeing.
I would say that units have to balance both across the armies, and hold their own within the list. You could argue that non-competitive options give people a choice to field miniatures, but this will frustrate some.
With the KoM examples I gave, I would like to see a reason to take crossbowmen and siege engines other than their price - e.g. bowmen are cheaper but more mobile.
4 Likes
I wonder if giving individuals/small groups a list to work on is the problem? If a team looked at all the lists, would there be less inconsistencies?
1 Like
Yeah - weâre on the same hymn sheet.
Think however it is done (and the RC does a pretty cracking job overall) there are going to be balance issues - designing things by committee doesnât always work either? They do get a lot of data, ask players who use those armies for input etc.
Also there are armies with so many options (undead, FoN for example) that good stuff gets left out simply as we arenât playing 5k games
2 Likes
Agreed, a small group play testing may not be the best solution. The limitations of available players, forces and units could mean that somethings fall through the cracks. Also, groups that game together on a regular basis will naturally find that they form their own meta, and get used to the play styles of opponents.
Open testing to the community as a whole is a much better way to help the game iron out the kinks in the force selection department.
This. While choice is a great thing, over saturation of choice can lead to an illusion of choice.
Sorry if I have come across a bit negative in my recent posts, I like Kings of War, it came very close to being a great game with 3rd edition, and I want it to be a great game.
2 Likes
Original post is updated with a bunch of 2021 data! 
1 Like
Been thinking about this some more.
I think I have found the main culprit that is causing all this.
Bane Chant.
Most if not all casters have it as (2/3), which makes it near enough guaranteed. All is needed is one die to roll a 4+ for ot to work.
It skews units damage ability far beyond their points cost, and at the same time makes force selection slide over to higher Defence units.
For example a unit with Crushing strength (1) goes to Crushing strength (2) . If it is attacking a unit with Def 5+ it has now gone from 4+ to 3+. That is from 1/2 to 2/3. That is a big jump. Attack Def 4+ goes from a 3+ to a 2+, that is again a massive jump. Players are more than likely fully aware of the prevalence of Bane Chant and how it turns Def 5 to below average, so favour Def 6 to help mitigate the impact that Bane Chant has on the game.
This is before we look at artifacts, and how is it possible to point Bane Chant effectively, due to how it works far better on units that already have Crushing strength/Thunderous Charge, than those who donât have either of those abilities.
As it is it seems to be pointed at 10pts per die. Which is not enough I think. Bane Chant (2) is 20pts, and Bane Chant (3) is 30pts.
If instead of increasing Crushing strength by 1, it gave a unit Crushing strength (1), it would help lift up a lot of units that are not taken, while also not over powering thise who already have Crushing strength. A small change, bit one which I think would open force selection a lot more.
4 Likes
thatâs what the CoK packs are
Just some initial thoughts. Iâd say that you have to factor in the base price of the caster, especially if thereâs no inspiring or meaningful combat ability. Also, bane chant might not be useful for a large part of the game.
At the risk of putting words in his mouth, I think weâre talking about getting it right (as far as possible) the first time, rather than patching it a year or so down the line.
Did you notice any significant differences/trends when adding the new data?
this can work but also give bad results
the made Warmachine/Hordes in one Edition a public Beta to get it right in the first place, resulting in the worst balance they ever had
there is the problem that while testing gives data, without an accurate report of the game itself, it is worthless (as saying unit A is bad without knowing in which list it was bad, against which opponents and why you won/lost those games)
1 Like
yup.
Yes and no, seeing as they come out roughly a year into the games release and are another publication need to buy/bring to the table.
Way back when Kings of War was first developed, the proposed rules were all free online, and players where asked to send in their feedback and data. From this attempts were made to flesh out a full system. Which was then released as Kings of War first edition.
Free open testing then use that feedback to make the end result.
Clash of Kings is more a series of patchs after the game has been out in the wild for a year or so and feedback has been gathered.
No system is ever going to be perfect and without flaws, table top gaming has far too many variables to factor in, and the possibilities can not all be accounted for. With that said, it is best to make the game where all options in force lists are viable.
2 Likes