When you wrote Invulnerable Save with capital letters, I assumed you meant the rule with the same name, giving an unmodifiable 6+ save.

When shot at with a MW, option one would give the 4+ holofield save, and then a single 4+ armour save on account on the knight having RA. Or have I got the Holofield rule all wrong? How is this worse than option five getting a single 4+ armour save vs MW attacks and then a single 6+ Inv save? I must be missing something here?

Holofields do not get the reroll of RA when hit by MW, Lance, or TK. Normally it's still beneficial in Eldar, because it's 3+ Holo vs 5+ Armour. In Knights, it's the same 4+.

Morgan Vening
- Knightworld Sub-Champion

1. Knights don't get an actual Holofield i hope.
2. Holofield is a 3+ save not 4+.

I would rather see them getting RA4+ and an 5+ Invulnerable Save (instead if 6+ Invulnerable Save).

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Oh my, I just re-read the holo field rule and realized I missed the "unless"... Thanks for clearing that up. (Note to self: Read up on rules before asking silly questions...)

There's still a lot of thought going into the best way to approach it. I'm likely to leave it at the 1.02 version for the first round of testing. A couple of things are getting shaken up a little first, and I don't want the Knight shield getting in the way of that.

I doubt a 5+Inv would be viable without a points increase. It makes them essentially a ~83.3'% save vs normal weapons, and ~66.6'% against MW. That's probably a little more than I want them to be.

In answer to 1+2, the rules for the older version of Knight Shield (1.02) are functionally the same as a 4+ Holofield with two negatory conditions (Crossfire and Close Combat). While I obviously wouldn't call it a holofield, I was just using it as a rules analogy. Much like Co-Ordinated Fire is "Commander for Shooting Actions".

Morgan Vening

I don't think you should be married to the current stats of 4+ reinforced armour, i think 5+ reinforced would allow a much better leeway in what you can do with the shields.

It'd need to be something hefty, as I'd want to keep an approximation to the current ~75pts. And would require a fairly significant restructure.

That's not to say I won't consider a change, but the 4+ to 5+ save is a big change (an almost doubling of the casualty chance). I have seriously considered 3+/5+Inv, and at least thought about a half dozen others. During the early stages, I'm keeping with the 4+ RA more to make sure the rest of the parts are moving the way I want first. RA is one of my pet peeves (behind Fearless and Skimmer), so I'd like to move away from it, but for now, I feel it's better to keep to the familiar.

Morgan Vening
- Knightworld Sub-Champion

After going through the rule with Dave, one of the 1st things that came to mind is the fact that a power field, which as far as I'm aware in the fluff absorbs a certain amount of energy before failing (and can't be replenished, like void shields), only offers protection against Tk shots. Doesn't make much sense to me that something that can protect against Tk makes no difference against standard AT, unless the 4+RA includes some aspect of that powerfield goodness (that isn't then affected by CF or CC).

I'd personally go for the Ork power field version, 1 each, negated by CC or CF. Once it's gone, it's gone. Shouldn't be too hard to keep track of. As it stands, it doesn't really add a whole lot to the army flavour unless you're up against AMTL or Oddboys (as examples and yes I am aware that other armies have Tk, just not all of them).