Played a 3k GTS game against E&C's Cadians tonight. We didn't have time to go after the 3rd turn but general consensus around the table was that the knights had squeezed out a 2-0 victory or at least would win on tiebreakers. This is the list I used along w/ my comments:

2*3 Wardens (1 ballista, 2 battlecannons each)
Consensus was that these were perhaps a bit too tough w/ 6 DC and 1 void shield for just 250 pts each. That and their 4+RA means they are probably point for point the toughest fm in the game! The balista also has a very generous range when shooting as AA. Also I don't understand why these are DC2 since the models are the size of every other knight. Perhaps at DC1 w/ the void shield they would be better balanced. But then the cost would likely go down to 225 or 200.

3 Paladins
Useless compared to the other DC1 knights. So useless they were ignored by E&C for the most part and managed to capture some objectives late in the game.

2*6 Errants (1 w/ a seneschal to make it a BTS)
Shot and assaulted to bits, probably because of how much terror they inspire. They are decent even when clipped which was quite surprising. The 30cm move with the 30cm MW4+ makes them great choices in most situations. Probably too good for 75 a pop.

2*3 Lancers
Didn't do much but I really should have used mixed fms of them and Errants to avoid being clipped with the Errants. Once again, probably too good at 75.

Warhound w/ Turbo and Vulcan
Costed at 300 pts. Felt right in all regards. Mostly picked it as I had ran out of support fm slots.

3 Trebuchets
Useful. The 60cm range makes its vulnerabilities almost irrelevant. It's too cheap at 125 pts compared to other artillery. Perhaps to bring the knight flavour more and make its vulnerability more relevant, change the range to 45cm? This makes it a compulsory garrison which is risky, or something that sits in the back to be used only defensively. Don't know the fluff for it so not sure. But next time I will spawn these more

2*6 squires w/ ballista Warden
Excellent fms! Can garrison w/ overwatch, put a BM on aircraft, do the scouting thing w/ screening, are tough (8 hits+1 void altogether), etc etc.

Overall the DC1 knights could all stand to lose 1 attack, perhaps the first strike is just their regular DC1 attack not yet another extra.

So even if I mention that so many things are too powerful when considered on a 1 to 1 basis, we also have to remember that armies function as a whole. Knightworld has:
- no teleporters
- no decent infantry to take buildings and cover
- will fight most of its assaults outnumbered
- can't handle artillery on the backfield as it can't just thunderhawk marines in or teleport termies in
- has only fighters but no bombers now
- an SC is a big commitment
- relatively little fearless fms
- modest SR
- no planetfalling nor spaceships
- is overall easy to break

Next time I will give the crusaders/castellans a go if I can find the right models for it. Otherwise it's spam Lancers/Errants and Wardens...

_________________

My impression was that Lancers and especially Errants are much too good for their points cost. They cost the same as an Ork Stompa and are about twice as good.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Why were tthe Paladins useless?
Are you referring that they're under powered compared to Errants and Lancers, or referring to their capability/stat-line?

Compared to Errants and Lancers. As useful as buying an fm of 3 Leman Russes who are better at close combat (which will never happen) but w/ shorter ranged battlecannons. Easy to break, too. Either they become cheaper than the other knights to make them a sort of rank and file knight, or they need some improvements to give them a specific role.

_________________

Im inclined to agree that one of the main reasons to take paladins … is because plastic paladins are cheap and people actually have the minis. 24 errants/lancers would cost ~£200

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

Paladins suffer from Tactical Marine syndrome, except in this case the Devastators and the Assaults actually move faster too.

_________________

Perhaps not twice as good but definitely better. On the other hand you can't add AA or filler to the fm like you can w/ Stompas. Still I agree that the points cost is not right for them as they are now.

_________________

You also forgot a consistent Initiative 2+ on an army that's primarily Assault based. That can be a pretty harsh mistress.


I'd also add that I think Stompas are a smidge overpriced at 75pts. And I agree with Carlos that straight comparisons aren't always applicable.

But I've got in mind a fix for the next version to reduce the power level of Lancers. And I REALLY need to either boost the Paladin's effectiveness, or drop their capability somewhat and just make them cheaper (50pts). I'd prefer the former, but within the constraints, it may have to be the latter.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion

Oh and yes, the fixed 2+ initiative sucks especially with such an expensive SC, no bonuses to assault activations and the need to do rolling assaults which are quite hard to pull off.

Another disadvantage that is not immediately obvious is that with almost everything being WE, it's very hard to pull off a decent sustained fire action. Against a fm of 6 knights, any clever opponent can manoeuvre in a way that LoS are compromised to the point that only 3 or 4 knights can sustain. Comparatively, a Leman Russ formation of 9 can pack in a tight 3x3 block and sustain all around. It's possible to spread out to avoid this, but the army already has a massive footprint as it is.

_________________

I would always recommend making things better rather than cheaper in this list.

Dammit, Knights can be a real pain to find. And where's the fun in proxies?

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Another small amend is to make core formations more flexible in terms of what kind of knights it can take: at the moment if you want to mix types you can only have 3 of type A and 3 of type B. Why not have any mix? 3/3 mix seems kind of odd.

_________________

I wouldn't be surprised if Paladins were actually balanced, and the other knight types slightly too good.

Just theory hammering, but we couldn't actually see it as being likely that a Marine army could beat a Knight army.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The reasoning for that, is that a Knight battle formation is a minimum of 3 Knights. What a Knight army can do, is integrate two battle formations (3+ of one, 3 of another). That's the reason I rejected the idea of mixing Castellans and Crusaders. I don't want the Knights to be TOO flexible, and I do have an aversion to that level of customization micromanagement. It's one of the things I think lists have gotten away from in the last couple of years.


I can see it as difficult, but not impossible. But the same can be said for any high AV army. I've lost Knights against Marines on several occasions, but I've not seen Marines ever beat AMTL.

One of the keys to my losses with Knights has been once a formation is broken, it's a 4+ to rally if you're willing to give up the next turn, and a 5+ if you're not. With needing the SC (unless he's targetted) for activations, opponents have never found it difficult to neutralise a couple of formations.

Making sure that the most significant threats have BM's, especially where a combination assault looks likely (3+ activate, 4+ retain) is pretty crappy. And killing the SC is a priority if you can manage it.

The support formations, both peasant and Crustellans/Wardens tend to fold to assaults fairly easily.

Having said all that, the core Knights will likely be copping a modest nerf to supporting fire (hitting Lancers hardest), in the next incarnation, and I'll probably be adjusting the Indomitable to a base 4+ rather than an armour roll. I want them to be resistant to BM attrition, but it was never my intent to make them almost immune to it. But that all depends on people commenting, preferably from game experience. And reports, like the one carlos wrote on the previous page, are greatly helpful to making the list more suitable.

Morgan Vening

I support the Indomitable as just a single save change. OTOH, why don't crustellans also get Indomitable?

_________________

... and about Marine armies beating Knight armies, how about World Eaters (as assaulty as marines go!) beating Knights in this report? viewtopic.php?f=84&t=19927

It seems impossible on paper but then you figure in pinpoint attacks, aircraft strafeing and superior SR and initiative and it all starts to look more doable.

_________________