Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

DKoK...

 Post subject: Re: DKoK...
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:23 am
Posts: 706
Quote:
Also we need to remember that we already have Baran Siege Masters, if people want trench warfare so badly why is no one using them!
Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that in most games of epic despite the fact that the opposing armies are of equal size and neither side starts the game in a winning position some armies still dig trenches?! Even though they are arguably less tough to break through than an extended line of medium infantry or scouts? It makes no sense!


As Kyussinchains so eloquently put it, Siegemasters are boring (really boring, just watch the huge length of set-up compared to time spent, you know, like, moving things ;) , in any battlereport) and mediocre.

Their mediocrity is created by the fact that they are a remarkably static army list in a game where 4 of 5 objectives are on the other side of the table, and because their trench rules don't function in epic rules (i.e. they don't function as a defensive bonus likely to make the formation more likely to win when defending against an assault, instead they force the formation to be X units per CM and become ludicrously clip-able).

Death Korps on the other hand are currently a functional horde assault army, and much more fun to play than Baran. They're a Guard army that can wrestle with the bigboys like Eldar and drop Marines at tournaments, and that's a good thing. They also, in my opinion, get too much value from their Gorgon transports per point spent, and this has an impact on the list's relative power. The Gorgons are a virtually required upgrade to make the mandatory core formations work, so starting with them has the biggest impact on the list as a whole.

I think the goal should be to improve their balance by increasing the costs as needed and making changes to ensure the list is more enjoyable for opponents to play against, without ruining it as a competitive choice.

I've sent Rug a list of suggestions to that effect. I won't be posting anything from it until I've heard his view, but the nut-shell overview: I'd have had to drop a full 300pts of units to run my Cancon army with my proposed version of the list.

I wouldn't mind having a go at Baran Siegemasters and even the well-intentioned but uncompetitive Mossinian Rebels. Do Mossinians even have an army champion?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: DKoK...
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 5:48 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 76
Location: Australia
A few thoughts from an entirely theoretical background (yet to play with or against the DKoK, but am planning on building an army soon and have read quite a few battle reports/discussion). If more experienced players disagree with me they're probably correct, but these are just my at-a-glance suggestions for improving the list.

There seems to be a general agreement that the DKoK should be a siegebreaking army. At the moment, most people taking the list use it to do the same thing: spend around half your points on Gorgon-mounted infantry companies, use cheap AA emplacements to up the activation count, take some Warhounds for the MW shooting, and finally add a few units of Rough Riders or Grenadiers for high-speed objective grabbing and assault initiation. A fun army, but not much variety.

When I think Krieg, a few things come to mind. Massed infantry formations, Gorgon rushes, trench warfare, massed indirect/barrage fire support, and access to short-range tanks as assault formations.

Of those, only Gorgon rushes seem to work well with the current list. As others have said, trenches/fortifications seem to be pretty incompatible with the E:A rules, so let's leave them out for now.

Infantry formations

I love the idea of 20-strong infantry coys without ranged firepower. However, they're obviously a static formation without transport. I feel that the transport-less formation is possibly overcosted, if anything: maybe making bare companies 250/350 pts would make unmounted formations viable?

This would need to be accompanied by an increase in Gorgon cost. As a quick suggestion, making them 125pts each could work: this would make a mounted formation 500/600 pts, with half of that in the Gorgons. Points obviously open to tinkering, but you get the idea.

Another option possibly worth considering: has allowing Infantry to enter play through Engineer tunnels been discussed? Engineers keep their ability to tunnel, but instead of the breaching drill being a marker, it acts similar to an Eldar Webway for the next turn. This would make footslogging infantry viable, and give Engineers an important niche: something like Engineers tunneling in at the end of T1, assauting nearby formations, then a follow up Infantry Company at the start of turn 2. Shouldn't be too hard to add limitations to stop this from being ridiculous. Forcing the entering company to wait until the game turn after the Engineers' tunneling entrance also gives the opposing player time to react by moving away from or surrounding the tunnel exit.

Something like this would give infantry blobs three viable functions: gorgon-mounted assault troops, footslogging defensive/follow-up troops, and behind-enemy-lines heavy hitters but with more warning than teleporters. It would also give Engineers a purpose, because right now they just look too weak to achieve anything (massive points drops could also help, but I like the idea of Engineers as a very expensive utility formation.). Call it something like 400pts for 8 (or maybe 6?) Engineers.


Fire support

Right now, the most attractive option for long-range fire support seems to be the singleton Warhound. This is boring: everyone else already does the same, while the DKoK should have a very thematic alternative in artillery support. As others have said, singleton Warhounds should probably go, and maybe up the cost of warhound packs (I'm not sure if they're being abused, but they just seem unnecessary/unthematic in this list).

The other thing to do is make artillery more attractive, and I'm honestly not sure how best to fix this. Artillery Companies seem a bit overcosted, and dropping them to 500pts or thereabouts might work (3x Earthshakers for 200 implies that 9x Earthshakers should be less than 600, to me).

One solution could be to lower prices across all platforms, but make Trojans an optional extra. The ability to relocate gun batteries every turn doesn't seem right to me, and the Trojans add more resilience than seems deserved. This is especially true for the AA battery, where 125 pts gives you 3 AA installations *and* 3 ablative wounds. I'd be inclined to offer Trojans as a 50 or 25pt upgrade, or similar: 125 pts for a static AA bubble seems fair, and adding mobility and resilience to that should IMO be a costed choice.

Making platforms cheaper than platforms + trojans/emplacements as they are now (with the option to upgrade) could lead to more interesting choices: artillery parks become more viable (I'd happily take 3+ ~150-175 pt Earthshaker batteries at 3k), but are completely static and very vulnerable to anything that can reach them (counterbattery fire, teleporters, and aircraft unless you have lots of flak).



Changes along these lines could move DKoK from a monobuild (Gorgon infantry + singleton Warhound support) list to different possibilities. Artillery softening followed be tunnel assault, Thunderer/Macharius (both possibly also overcosted?) armoured spearhead backed up by infantry wave, or a classical Gorgon rush should all be viable builds. TL;DR: Gorgons are too attractive at the moment, but Krieg needs more options anyway. Deathstrike silos are cute, but really a distraction from the core issues with the list.


Last edited by Jianaran on Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: DKoK...
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:27 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6353
Location: Leicester UK
GlynG wrote:
kyussinchains wrote:
it was also written from the ground up as a siegebreaking list with the focus heavily on attack rather than the boring-as-batshit siegemasters, if you want loads of trenches and static artillery, the baran list will give you all the mediocrity you desire ;) it has nothing to do with 'wonky' internal balance, the list was specifically written to avoid static, defensive play

I believe you're wrong on that. I was around when the Krieg list was being developed and it was designed to flexible and able to be run mobile or static, or a mix. Just like SM or CSM armies can be run as planetfall armies, mechanised armies or a mix. The FW Vraks books make it very clear that the DK tactics are to make war in an extremely static trench warfare way, writing the list specifically to avoid that would have been inappropriate and against their background.


Just going on the comments from E&C in general about his reasoning behind writing the krieg list, and the generally accepted community attitude towards it, plus everything said about how weak a 20-strong infantry formation with minimal shooting in trenches would actually be....

Quote:
Are siege armies always boring to play? I wouldn't want to play one all the time, but it could be fun to play with or against one for something different occasionally. Similar with all planetfall armies or all titan armies. I've fielded DK armies without Gorgons and found them fine and you'll still have some mobile/fast elements in a list (Death Riders, Grenadiers, Engineers or Titans).


Yes, they really are dull to play....and face, sure in a one-off game or narrative campaign fhey have their uses but as a tournament list (which let's not forget is basically the remit of the netEA project, developing lists suitable for tournament and pick up games).... bleh... you wouldnt make anyone's day bringing siegers to a tournament

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Last edited by kyussinchains on Sun Feb 22, 2015 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: DKoK...
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:22 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:51 pm
Posts: 582
kyussinchains wrote:

Quote:
Are siege armies always boring to play? I wouldn't want to play one all the time, but it could be fun to play with or against one for something different occasionally. Similar with all planetfall armies or all titan armies. I've fielded DK armies without Gorgons and found them fine and you'll still have some mobile/fast elements in a list (Death Riders, Grenadiers, Engineers or Titans).


Yes, they really are dull to play....and face, sure in a one-off game or narrative campaign fhey have their uses but as a tournament list (which let's not forget is basically the remit of the netEA project, developing lists suitable for tournament and pick up games).... bleh... you wouldnt make anyone's day bringing siegers to a tournament


I think I am the only one on the entire board that actually rather likes the Siegemasters list...

_________________
My EPIC and BFG Blog: https://epicaddiction.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: DKoK...
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 12:52 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:13 am
Posts: 361
Location: Oz
Matt-Shadowlord wrote:
Quote:
They're a Guard army that can wrestle with the bigboys like Eldar and drop Marines at tournaments, and that's a good thing


I would use a different word than wrestle. Like broken and under priced.

Also, Matt do you feel that competitive guard lists are in short supply? Guard armies have won 3 out of the last 4 cancons. They didnt win the fourth because there were no guard players lol!

Cheers
Jim


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: DKoK...
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:04 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6353
Location: Leicester UK
RichardL has done very well with steel legion over the last few years in UK tournaments.... more limited meta but the lists are pretty much identical between netEA and EUK...

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: DKoK...
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:13 am
Posts: 361
Location: Oz
:spin Wow that was a huge post jinaran! There are some awesome ideas in there that would be worth testing. The 40k trygon works in a similar manner I think but would essentially gives guard access to teleport/gate technology. Overall though I think that would be a whole new guard variant, rather than just a mod for the raging DKoK monsters.

Great points on the AA and arty wagons.

It seems the more you look under the hood of this list the more broken bits and pieces you find. No wonder it is so good at "wrestling". ;)

Cheers

Jim


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: DKoK...
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 4:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1486
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Jianaran wrote:
One solution could be to lower prices across all platforms, but make Trojans an optional extra. The ability to relocate gun batteries every turn doesn't seem right to me, and the Trojans add more resilience than seems deserved. This is especially true for the AA battery, where 125 pts gives you 3 AA installations *and* 3 ablative wounds. I'd be inclined to offer Trojans as a 50 or 25pt upgrade, or similar: 125 pts for a static AA bubble seems fair, and adding mobility and resilience to that should IMO be a costed choice.

Making platforms cheaper than platforms + trojans/emplacements as they are now (with the option to upgrade) could lead to more interesting choices: artillery parks become more viable (I'd happily take 3+ ~150-175 pt Earthshaker batteries at 3k), but are completely static and very vulnerable to anything that can reach them (counterbattery fire, teleporters, and aircraft unless you have lots of flak).


+1!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: DKoK...
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2015 12:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: UK
GlynG wrote:
You do make a reasonable argument against it. People with a model for one could just use it as an objective marker instead.

Which model do you mean, anyway? The one that's the same size as the SG model from the objective pack? Seems a no-brainer for a blitz objective (which is how I use mine).

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: DKoK...
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:14 pm
Posts: 60
Location: Valencia - Spain
Hi all, I am not an expert at all (indeed I have played just once with DKOK) but I have been following the discussion for some days and I would like to share my ideas.

When thinking about which army do I want to play with I usually think about the play style (aggresiveness, CC oriented...) and the background (which for me has to be appealing at least). In the case of DKOK I imagine them as a mass assault force and siege. The part of trenches and defensive siege I think it is already covered by the Siege Masters, so if I ever want to play that style I can just use them. So, for me, the DKOK list should be develop to cover the assault role (which is not covered by other IG lists). I imagine lots of soldiers, supported by artillery and some tanks (some).

Reading about the Siege of Vraks one of the things that is quite clear is the massive infantry assaults. However, that could be very challenging in Epic since it is more a game of "movement" and objectives than of "kill them all". I have not tested a fully infantry list but I think it will not be very competitive.
It is here where the Gorgons come into play...they add the necessary speed/cover to allow the massive assaults.
Being this said, I would agree to a lower cost for the pure infantry units (sacrificing maybe the CC 5+ for 6+) and the value increase in the Gorgon cost. Regarding the critical effect I think the inmovilized is hard enough...it basically makes useless the transport and force you to abandon it. However, a 1D6 kills could be also reasonable.

The artillery seems key to me. I think there are two types: the long range (earthshakers…) and the medium range. The medium range I imagine them moving behind the infantry to launch sells just before the assault (medusa, bombards, mortars, quad launchers…). For the longe range I think they should only have gun emplacements and not trojans. The others I think the trojans is ok.
The medium range I have not used them , are they useful as they are today? To me they seem a bit "short range" to make full use of them.

The tanks I agree that it should be only a fraction of the force and with much less options that other IG lists. Maybe allow only Leman Russ Demolisher? (short range, very much orientated to assault positions…). I would add a limitation of only 1 formation per 1.500. The superheavies…I would also limit the amount, only 1 each 1.500 (except Macharius which maybe should be improved a bit).

The titans,it seems fine the limitation to only warhounds in pairs.

About the navy…I do not understand why the heavy bombers. I think that the long range support should be accomplished with the artillery, not with planes. Maybe limit to only thunderbolts or limiting the number of bombers?

The silo…I have not tested it, but the main reason to use it I think is to fight against lists based on WE. How could the DKOK fight (with a list with lots of inf, etc) against titans? I see the need of something powerful enough to hit them hard.
Maybe improving the short range artillery would fix this? (TK for the Medusa?)

Well…just my ideas. I would be very happy if I can contribute to the testing or the development of the list. However, I spend a lot of time travelling…so to be helpful I could play test with Vassal? (If anyone wants to, let me know!).

Regards

Gwydion

_________________
Gwydion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: DKoK...
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:26 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 6:49 am
Posts: 141
Hey guys,

Where is this at now?
How far away from a play test list are we? As i'd really like to see some progression sooner rather then later. Are there people that don't believe the list should be improved / brought into line & that's whats holding it up?

Thanks,

Sam.

_________________
Epic hobby blog
http://fuddshobby.blogspot.com.au/
https://www.facebook.com/FuddsEpicHobby/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: DKoK...
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 12:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 740
Location: San Francisco, CA
Heavy bombers are there because they were in the Vraks books. There aren't many other lists that allow their use, so I'd be hesitant to cut them out. Have they been a problem?

It sounds like there's a philosophical conflict here. Some people complain that the current DKoK list encourages everyone to build the same list, while others think the list is flawed because it allows players to not build the same list. I'd prefer flexibility myself. We're grown-up enough to build thematic armies without being strong-armed, and restrive lists get annoying at larger points values.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: DKoK...
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:45 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:14 pm
Posts: 60
Location: Valencia - Spain
Hi!

About de bombers my point was that there are already other options in the army list which fulfill that role. Also, it seems a bit strange a list with 5-6 bombers in my opinion.

However, you are right. As far as the list is balanced is up to the players to make it more or less thematic.

Are the bombers balanced? I suppose they are by themselves, but a list with 5-6 bombers...not so sure. Has anyone played that option?

Regards!

_________________
Gwydion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: DKoK...
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: UK
Gwydion wrote:
Hi!

About de bombers my point was that there are already other options in the army list which fulfill that role. Also, it seems a bit strange a list with 5-6 bombers in my opinion.

However, you are right. As far as the list is balanced is up to the players to make it more or less thematic.

Are the bombers balanced? I suppose they are by themselves, but a list with 5-6 bombers...not so sure. Has anyone played that option?

Regards!

Give it a go? There will be a new AC by next week, I daresay there will be a new version of the list to test soon after.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron

Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net