Dangit Matt I represent that remark! Lol! Especially down here in the gulf east Texas area. Off to the topic, the knights remind me of that anime called Escaflone (or some spelling like that). Proud warriors in large battle suits with a no guts no glory mindset.

Funny you should mention that as my knightworld is entirely built using 1/400 Gundam figures like these

_________________

When isn't it fun to give crap to our fellow members of Adeptus Ineptus?

But seriously, I am willing to playtest Knights. Something needs to be done to make it harder to kill Knights when the formation is broken.



I definitely agree with Matt in this regards. He quite effectively chewed up my Knight formations once they became broken. My Knights went from being difficult to kill to dying in droves once the formations became broken. ATSKNF would be easier to manage and playtest, since it's a rule we're all familiar with, but I'm not sure a Knight formation should be harder to break in general. In any case, I'm willing to try either of the proposed rules.

I give credit to Matt for changing his tactics. I admit that I became a bit overconfident during turn 1 and didn't play as intelligently as I should have.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

I'm just curious, given that they have a 4+RA save and will essentially discount 50% hackdowns just like ATSKNF, isn't Indomitable a pretty powerful rule given that Marines don't get to make their saves vs hackdowns? I can see that Marines will automatically get those 2 discounted but then they don't get a re-roll.

e.g

4 Terminators Marines get 4 hackdowns in an assault = 2 hackdowns only due to ATSKNF. 2 Dead Terminators correct?
4 Knights get 4 Hackdowns = 2 hackdowns (2 saved with a 50% saved by their 4+ armour) which get a re-roll save thus reducing the result to only 1 Hackdown(50% chance of a second save). Thus Indomitable gives better results in resolution? Is this correct?

I can see that Marines get a plethora of other bonuses after an assault which means they get back in the fight quicker, but isn't Indomitable just that little bit better in the "here and now" of an assault making Knights just a little better?

Just trying to get my head around Indomitable and its effects.

Cheers

I think the idea is that they're the same to break as before, but don't fall to pieces once broken. That should should balance out the "harder to kill when broken" with all the other goodies Marines get with their acronym. Note as well that they're more likely to lose the assault compared with Marines, due to the whole "count BMs as half" deal.

I think it balances out quite well all said and it will make Knights a tougher army without overpowering them.

In this specific event, yes. They have an approximate 25% casualty rate, rather than the Marine's 50%+ one. One of the differences is that Marines aren't susceptible to ineffectual sniping. A formation that can only place a BM on a formation has a chance of killing a Knight, but can never kill a Marine. And as Muppet points out, this is just a small part of what makes Marines so much more effective. But there's definitely been a balance issue with regards the Knights and BM attrition.

If the 'fix' is too potent, or proves unworkable in the future, I'll modify or yank it. Any overpowering will definitely show up, if it exists. But given the other inherent weaknesses of the formations, I'm happy to go "a little better" than Marines in this one particular area.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion

Looks like I'll be playing again on the 9th of June w/ my Mobile Suits, sorry my Knights! How about having a test list ready for then? I don't mind playing a true test list, i.e. an army composition that you'd like tested.

_________________

With the limited testing so far, basically, anything you want to field, will be fine. There's nothing that stands out as far as needing stress testing, over any others. A balanced force (1+ of each core formation, a mix of the non-core), or one that tries to exploit a certain concept (heavy Errants, massed Squires, as an example). Just post the results, and how what you did take, functioned or failed, and why. Also, a quick rundown of why you DIDN'T take certain formations/compositions. The latter tends to get glossed over in reporting, and can be as important as anything else.

Morgan Vening

The next time I play, but not including NEAT IV, I'll play Knights and try this rule.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

batrep here: viewtopic.php?f=84&t=20811

A few thoughts:

Knight shields and void shields. All the DC1 knights have knight shields, fine – but then the DC2 baron gets a knight shield while the DC2 crusader/castellan/warden have a full void shield, is there a particular reason?

The FF/CC split on lancers/errants seems a bit odd. The errants have the best ranged shooting of the pair, but the worst FF, while the lancers, with a massive lance, get the worst CC? The extra attacks even it out more and the lance is small arms not assault, but they both still feel a bit out of place, is one of them meant to be FF and one CC centered?

Knight shield. This special rule, allowing save vs TK, could be of use in other lists, could it get a more generic name/text so that it could be used elsewhere if needed? It could also be changed from allowing a '4+' save to allowing the unit to take its normal armour save (no re-rolls) – this would have no effect on the knights who are all 4+ anyway but again makes it a rule that could be used elsewhere.

Indomitable. From one game I found this to be very strong. Knights have a problem with small formations breaking, but this is also one of the best way to kill a horde of RA4+. I think id rather see something that makes them harder to break than harder to kill, as it is the breaking that is the initial problem. If it is kept and found to still be a bit OP, maybe remove the RA re-roll allowance on indomitable, but keep the regular save – this would soften it a bit and make broken knights somewhat easier to kill without guaranteeing their destruction.

From a 'chivalry' fluff perspective (if that is even still in the background) once one of the noble knights has broken that would be it – he has shown himself to be an unworthy failure etc, not a tower of RA4+ strength. I would see knights as being hard to break but wretched and outcast once they have turned their backs.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

Just throwing it out there: Make them Unbreakable?

This would mean that costs could be kept high on small formations and make this the major restriction of the list. It would also mean that they are at the mercy of removing BM and limited actions to get rid of consistently mounting BM as they would not be able to shoot and possibly failing initiative rolls, be even more limited on their actions yet again.

It also solves DC items dying on BM accumulations which I hear is another issue.

The rule is also less cumbersome to read and adopt.

It would capture the above sentiment, however I know it is a far stretch for people to accept. But now it is out there....

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Mainly, I'm still considering a tweak of the KnightShield rule and whether Void Shields are warranted on the Crastellans, and so reshuffling would have been counterproductive. I'm not sure Crastellans warrant DC2 based on the official miniatures (they're smaller though a little more robust, than Errants). There will be changes in the future, but I didn't want to throw everything up into the air without some more serious consideration. A side note, the effect that PinPoint attacks have, is problematic with regards Barons. Lost more Barons to PP and failed DT tests, than I have to the enemy.

Another one of the issues I've been wanting to play around with. But with this, I'm kinda set on the Errants being the CC specialists and the Lancers being FF specialists. The shooting is actually fairly disparate from it's beginnings, with the Thermal Cannon actually given a boost (in the initial incarnation, Thermal Cannon had a 25cm range, which translates to approx 15cm in this version). That'd make them even worse, and I already see them slightly inferior to Lancers. The Power Lance has been configured as a FF weapon, with the burst coming from within the Lance, rather than the Lance contacting the opponent (which given the actual miniature is probably a good thing, from a leverage/tensile strength perspective). Whereas the Errant's Power Gauntlet is completely CC oriented.

It already exists, for the most part. It's essentially an Eldar Holofield (the mechanical effect is almost identical), with the two additional provisios. There's several special abilities that could be refined and added to the standard list. Indomitable, Support Craft, and the WorldEaters/BloodAngels thing.

Actually, personal experience has been that breaking wasn't the problem, having enemy units look sideways at them when they were broken, was. I'd like to see other people's opinion on this, or if it's just me. Making them harder to break is still an option, but I want to see where Indomitable takes us first.

Sounds like a good idea. Was what I was considering, should it prove too big a boost. The only problem with it to start, is that it's essentially divesting the new rule, from the old one (Hena's Death Guard). Which we've already discussed above, re: KnightShield/HoloField.

Appreciate the playtest report. Hope to see more. I'll ask some questions on the other thread later.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion

Came up with this thought last night. What about making them DC2, and dropping the stats and EAs to compensate?



You get roughly the equivalent number of hits (granted you have a chance at a lot more MW, but you could mitigate that by dropping the stats further) and they would essentially benefit from ATSKNF.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

To an extent, yes. But that's as problematic in concept as giving the Knights Power Fields instead of the KnightShield concept. The bookkeeping gets extreme. In an AMTL list, you're really only screwing around with 5-6 War Engines. It's not inconceivable to have 30+ Knights on a table. And a list that has a fair amount of ranged fire can distribute wounds fairly easily.

It's not off the table, but it's not something I think would be easy to implement, or needs to be at this stage of development.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion

Thanks for the reply, excuse the ignoance re: holofields

Would increasing the Baron's speed be considered? This would make him more viable to take with errants/lancers, rather than limiting him to just paladins … on an unrelated note i want to test some lancer/errant heavy lists when i next get the chance

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs