ortron wrote:
Any more progress on this list?
I was quite happy with the changes in this version but I looks like play testing has dried up? I don't have an opponent at present as the other epic gamers have moved south with work and the new recruits are still at the initial collecting/painting stage.
There's been a slowing of development, but it seems to be across almost all lists. And I'd attribute most of that to the focus on getting the Compendium complete, and not wanting to put up changes before the official release.
ortron wrote:
I would like to trial the Wardens with indirect on the frag launcher, 2BP or alternatively a disrupt/ignore cover. The 1Bp, 45cm attack seems a waste of time in comparison to the other 2 choices. Preference would be for indirect, potentially providing an alternate to the trebs.
The Wardens, not just the Frag Launcher versions, are the one that I'm definitely wanting to take a closer look at. I've not really been happy with cost/effect on these since the change to MotO. I just didn't want to rush to fix them, and over-correct. I'll probably see them change in value, than effectiveness, as it was an 'intent' thing that they have a mecha-portable version of the Secured Weapons. But if that starts being difficult, I'll look into keeping or increasing the costing, and making them more useful. But yes, Wardens are definitely on the change list.
ortron wrote:
My other thought after the last game was to move the Paladin to 3+ in CC and go back to 3 for 300pts. From the old fluff I thought the Paladins were the experienced knights and with the suit having a comparable CC rig to the Errants I could easily see them being on par in CC. I think this would make them more attractive and useful for holding the line whilst the spec knights aim to work to their strengths.
I'm not against changes to the Paladins, but I always saw them as filling the role of Tactical Marines. More numerous, less specialized. While Titanicus did have them comparable to Errants, it also put Errants in a too-specialized role, that wasn't an issue under Titanicus due to the focus on War Engines. The perceived loss of effectiveness on a Paladin has been at the broadening of the Errants into broader useful tool.
While I'm still not completely happy with the Paladins, it'd need more than a 3+CC to value them at 300 IMO, and I also had in mind, at least, that each Knight Class filled a specific (but not too specialized) role. In the case of the Paladin, it was a more directed maneuver firepower role. CC being the domain of Errants, FF for Lancers, and Custodians being faux-Artillery. But that's not set in stone either, as they currently don't have a significant firepower advantage over the others, and I can't see the Lancers getting less, or the Paladins getting more.
ortron wrote:
MV,
Perhaps these suggestions go against your intent but at this stage I can't see them altering the character of this list in any great way, but rather a balancing of the current knight platforms/weapon options.
There's nothing disagreeable in any of the suggestions, and in the case of the Wardens, I'll definitely be doing some work. But for now, I'll probably keep the Paladins as the base workhorse, without specialization. While I do source from WD Compendium 3 (Space Marine), and Codex Titanicus (Titan Legions), I don't want to adhere slavishly to either, as I feel the game focus has changed significantly since then, specifically with the relative rarity of true War Engines in the modern game. Making the Force work well against Mechanicus/GBM/Eldar Titan armies, and comparatively weak against others, would turn what's already a niche army into essentially a scenario-specific one. And I don't think anyone wants that.
Morgan Vening