By the way Rug. I think you should perhaps take a look at reducing the price of the macharius tanks. To me they seem like a sub par choice. At 350 point I'm always going to try to rearrange my list to take 2 super heavies instead.

I would also like to see a change of the formation (regardless of price reduction or not) to two times ordinary machariuses for 225 or 250 pts with the option of adding the command tank for a corresponding cost.

I agree the Machariuses are a bit subpar at the moment for what they are. They're slow at 15cm with most of their weapons only having 30cm range.

I'd like to them to stay at 3 in a formation but to drop 25 to 325 and 100 for the upgraded one. I like the idea and models, but tend to include them initially in a list and then end up swapping them out for something better.

I've played Krieg quite a lot, including several tournaments, and have a large army so would be happy to participate in changes and playtesting.

For the record, since the rule about war engines not being able to barge or move over their own units was clarified/amended they've been a harder army to win with. Still a good army, but it definitely made them harder to use and deploy. I will confess to some natural bias since noone wants their prize army to be whooped with the nerfbat too hard, but since that change I'd say I find it easier to win a game with my Biel-Tan, Tau and certainly with the Minervans.

They probably do need some changes, but I'd suggest picking the major one and trying that rather than too large a list at once. As far as I can tell, it comes down to the Gorgons, and that would be the key place to start. The risk is that the list can't function without them; the Core is only massive infantry formations or the fairly poor Deathriders (half the attacks of rough riders), and the infantry are unarmed and unarmoured (1 stubber per 20 stands) so really had better be able to do something in assault other than die thematically. The usual Krieg lists I run and have seen spend about 1,375 out of 3,000 points on these through simple lack of choice, and it is my genuine opinion that if this formation is made too bad/expensive, the army would get shelved from a competitive point of view.

The main reason for complaint seems to be 26 dice being rolled and up to the first 6 hits being taken on RA in absolutely ideal circumstances. That leads me to believe that apart from a price bump and a possible worse crit, the main complaint might be dealt with by making the formation 10 infantry in 1 Gorgon.

It's a suggestion that would require playtesting, but could be the most direct response to the bucket-of-dice issue.



That's correct; a couple years ago I did an excel spreadsheet to compare the various tanks vs a huge range of targets, and after that didn't bother with macharius tanks. I can dig that out if you like.

Yeah please do. I would be interested to read that. Having not yet built my army it's still only theory hammer on my part. I'd really like to include them. They are really cool. Just can't justify the points when doing a list. The core formations are quite expensive so one naturally wants to keep the cost of the support choices down.

This is the Super Heavy Performance guide I made a while back, and it compares a wide range of tanks based on how many kills they might be expected to do against a range of targets.
They are all based on how many of that sort of tank you can buy for around 2400-2500 (so for example 38 Leman Russes = 12 Baneblades = 7 Macharius Platoons)

The best characteristics are marked in Red (eg the Shadowsword's 90cm range), and very good characteristics are marked in Orange (eg the Macharius tank's 75cm range).



What this chart shows about Macharius tanks is that they have good long range firepower (bettered only by Shadowswords and equalled only by Leman Russes), but the only thing they are competitive for when you factor their costs in is killing unarmoured infantry (eg Guard) out of cover less than 30cm away from them - hardly a role anyone is looking to fill. Even there, Exterminators and the super-generalist Leman Russes beat them.

At first glance they look like a decent all-rounder, but they're pretty mediocre for their cost. There might be only one time they are ever better than Leman Russes: in assault, when all the leman russes have an enemy in base contact, the Macharius could use WE rules to do a Fire Fight attack each.

And that's the Math behind why I never use them.

Also shows up baneblades IMO too.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I'd also like to see their engagement capabilities included as well; they're often used as support fire units or engagement initiators, so the number of hits they can deliver in FF is also relevant.

I usually count 'pips' (1/6 of a hit, ie hitting on 4+ is 3 pips); In that metric, we get:

12 Baneblades, DC3 FF4+ - 108 pips
12 Shadowswords, DC3 FF5+ - 72 pips
9 Warhounds, DC3 FF4+ - 81 pips
7 Macharius platoons, 3xDC2 FF4+ - 126 pips
38 Leman Russ , AV FF4+ - 114 pips
38 Demolisher/Exterminator, AV FF3+ - 152 pips

I'd still take Warhounds over Machariuses any day, since it is so much easier to get them into position. But it does show that there is something they're not rubbish at

Fairly sure that there's been some discussion about baneblades being...mediocre...before so I think it's a known issue. I certainly know the only reason I use baneblades now is that I run out of models to be Shadowswords in an SHT Co...

Discussion, yes. IIRC the status is that changes to the BB need more testing, and before that, a playtest version of the list published.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

For the life of me I can't recall a single army list for DKoK that doesn't have Gorgons. I love the idea of them and don't believe anything drastic should happen to them. I do agree however that some price change may be in order.

I also feel that the list appears to be a bit one dimensional at times.

Let me say first that I agree with other sentiments stated in the past regarding fluff... namely it comes a distant second to balance. I feel DKoK has a real opportunity to play just like the fluff says by having an opportunity to be a true horde army, one that exemplifies attrition and a grim determination one would expect from the army. This would be in addition to utilizing the might Gorgons. Below is just a suggestion as to what that might look like.

1. Reduce CC form 5+ to 6+ to standardize across all IG infantry as suggested.
2. Reduce Infantry Company and Regiment HQ cost by 50 points, 250 and 350 respectively to represent the decrease in CC and to encourage more horde style armies.
3. Increase 2xGorgon upgrade by 75 points to 200.
4. Decrease Infantry Platoon upgrade cost by 25 to 150 and increase transporting Gorgon by 25 to make it 75 pts.

I'm overall indifferent to the critical/transport infantry death ideas floating around.

The idea is that the reduction in Infantry and Regiment HQ companies allows for a potentially different play style via hordes of infantry. While some consider the heavy increase in cost for the 2 Gorgons over the top, it takes into account the decrease from the infantry companies. This is under the assumption that Gorgons were too cheap to begin with, creating a net 25 point increase in an infantry and Gorgon formation. The Platoon and transporting Gorgon are meant to cancel out essentially. This could potentially allow for both the Gorgon heavy armies as well as horde style armies.

I'm sure some might argue that this causes Infantry Companies to directly compete with Death Riders, but in all honesty they share very different roles. I feel one of the key difficulties I have had in designing DKoK lists is simply that infantry create quite the bottleneck in terms of cost. The formation IMO is already overcosted what with the fact that it can't really do anything besides assault, and the CC reduction would be just more reason to decrease the cost slightly. Lowering this cost opens certain options as a result without empowering Gorgons any further. In case of abuse you could always simply put a limit on the number of Infantry Companies similar to Death Riders (ex: 1 Formation per 500 points, etc.).

Let me know if I'm being crazy, that extra hour of daylight savings gave me too much time on my hands to think about this kind of stuff.

I too feel like a reduction in cost is reasonable if the CC is lowered, it makes the formation more vulnerable. 50 pts might be a bit much, but 25 pts.

The gorgons could be raised by 50 pts which would still produce the wanted 25pts price increase for the gorgon formation.

A formation that rolls (up to) 26 dice in an engagement is fantastic - even if it needs 6's (4 hits statistically).
Once you add in outnumber and outnumber more than double along with the inevitable 4+ reinforced armour this formation is amazing, even when needing 6's.

I don't see a need to reduce the infantry cost at all.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

I think the point is to make the gorgons not-inevitable. It would be nice to see foot infantry work as a strategy without the gorgons. As plain infantry coys, 4 hits is not lots - it's about what a guardian formation would get. With no armour and difficult to get all those units in range I don't think it's all too unreasonable to move some of the cost from the inf to the gorgons as proposed.

What works against us is the way assaults work. Killing an unarmoured infantry is much easier than a 4+ reinf gorgon, yet is worth the same in assault resolution. From the fluff it one might expect that it is hard to win an assault against these big infantry companies just by killing a few guardsmen, but that is not borne out in the game. It's a bit out there, but I do wonder if a special rule like "the opponent gets +1 on resolution for every 2 stands killed, rounding up" would address that? They would still be affected by blast markers so it's not like fearless or grots, it just means they can engage and win despite heavy losses, even if they have a ton of BMs afterwards. Obviously it would need to be paired with some sort of nerf to the gorgon combo as the aim is not to buff but to realign the balance.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Well the point would be to reduce the cost of the inf without the gorgons. What I suggested would actually raise the cost of the inf + gorgon formation, which I think is a good thing based on previous discussion.

Point made, And maybe the infantry don't need a point decrease, but at the end of the day the unit isn't that amazing. It's strong, but doesn't have a way by itself to apply that force. It's the delivery system, AKA Gorgons that really create that multiplier effect and synergy. But without Gorgons the list can't really do much at all. Combine that with the fact that the infantry have to be purchased to even get support formations and you wind up with a list that pigeon holes you into a mono build, a strong mono build, but a mono build nonetheless. Decreasing infantry cost slightly and gorgon cost majorly might diversify and balance out the list a little simultaneously. I'm ok with just a Gorgon price increase but think the infantry are still worth considering.