Quote:
Giving that the Pal, Err and Lan all had them back then it's going to stay. Also, it's not really the issue that was stressed with the Errant. It's its MW FF.
Fair enough.
Out of curiosity how does MW in assault actually work on war engines? I assume it's not like Small Arms, EA(+1), MW such as with wraithguard where only the EA gets the MW bonus. For war engines then does each DC attack becomes macro?
And if MW is really the main issue why not just get rid of it? There is plenty of precedent, war engines in particular, that do not get MW in assault (specifically FF) despite fairly powerful ranged armaments. Shadowswords, stormblades, super-stompas, gargants, tau riptides, etc. If they actually have it, often times the only reason they have MW in FF is because of a particular weapon, and even then they only get Small Arms, EA(+1), MW in most cases. In fact there are even more non-war engines that do not get MW despite very powerful ranged weapons, deathstrikes, fusion cannon hammerheads, LR executioners to name a few. More often than not MW is used in FF with comparatively small weapons such as melta guns, multimeltas, etc. which are far less cumbersome than say a thermal cannon might be. If anything a thermal cannon would cause collateral damage in an assault due to how massive, powerful, and cumbersome it could be.
Anyways, I am open to the +10 point change, but just want to say that the list feels tight for points as it is and if implemented just a few errants could mean the difference between an additional knight or not. This may be fine as it forces decision the player must make when list building. Perhaps the errants need a price bump for what they do or perhaps the errants just need a slight nerf to keep them in line with paladins. Love the list in the mean time and congrats on getting it approved!
