I believe it's mainly to give them the barge ability, and the ability to split their extra FF and CC attacks effectively.

As MikeT said, a long time ago many people made the argument that a lot of the WE abilities should apply to knights. Barging and assault abilities are the main ones, but also terrain effects and to a lesser extent line of sight.

Personally, I've never been a fan of the 1DC war engine idea.

MV,

Well done for keeping the Knights going. I'm generally happy with what you have done and are keen to get a game in soon with the new changes.

If I may add my 2 cents in addition to what has been covered already...

*Knight Speeds
I think the Errant is off at 30cm, I'd say not as fast as Lancer but greater than or equal to paladin so 20/25cm. Based on look of model and stats in other versions of game.

*Paladin AC vs HBs
Looking at both plastic and metal Paladin models in front of me, I can't see a WYSIWYG argument for either. I'd stick with AC for now as the AC is probably a good "generic" secondry weapon stat to keep for balance and is simple to model for potential proxie/conversions.

*Castellan Gatling Cannon:
My suggestion to balance Castellan off againsts Crusaders superior AT is to give it a couple more shots but with less effectiveness. Therefore the Crusader picks off armoured targets whilst the Castellan sprays the area in the hope of getting kills. Proposed stats: Gatling Autocannon 45cm 4x AP5+/AT6+ -

Another option would be to add AA to the Castellan Gatling Cannon? I'm not as keen on this but it could potentially use its weapons high rate of fire as a poor AA weapon.

*Warden
Like the extra wpn addition here and will be planning on using it for my AA cover. May I suggest alternate wording in the notes such as "Warden may have only 1 of the following Battle Cannon/Frag Launcher/Ballista Cannon" current wording appears a carry over from 2 option warden.

*Armiger Sentinels
Like the look of these!

*Aircraft
I love the idea of changing the marauder bomber for the lightning. Also, modern Fighter Jocks and Cav/Tank officers have a tendancy for arrogance and both would consider themselves above infantry (please.. no hate mail.. you know its true )
I could see knights and thunderbolt/lightning pilots in the same sterotypes.

Keep up the good work. Now for me to get painting!

Geoff

The power gaunlet has seperate stats for the Knight Errant and Knight Lancer which is correct?

It's a typo in the description. The Lancer has a Power Lance. The actual statistics listed for both are correct.

I'm looking at getting back into active development of this list, once work stops kicking my ass. 50+ hours a week since before Christmas are not really conducive to development. Shouldn't be more than a couple more weeks.

Morgan Vening
- Knightworld SubChampion

Use Battletech minis and offend the purists!

The lack of available models is a problem, though if I wanted, I've got a pal with what can only be described as a bucketload of various knights.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

I resemble that remark! I intended to use official Warden models, but that fell through. So I use Shadowhawks or Wolverines for BattleCannon versions, Riflemen for AA versions, Archers for BP versions (though I've never actually fielded the latter, I do have sufficient numbers for a formation of them.

A big issue is confusion of scale. For someone just starting out, the Mantagen/Mantragen from Dark Realms Miniatures are a good start. As are current format Heavy Gear. Or certain Battletech miniatures. The only problem is, all these aren't really compatible with the old line of Knights, so hodgepodging it is a problem. But from scratch? It's the best solution, IMO.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion

Is it bad that I was reading that last post saying "Hey, I know someone with a bunch of Knights too!" Doh!

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

I'd be all up for some robots designed by the CAD ninjas on this forum but I think their efforts are focussed elsewhere for the moment.

In the meantime I've been dabbling with these toy robot kits, 6 sets gets me an admitedly not overly balanced 3000 pt army of

3 Crusaders 500
3 Castellans 500
3 Wardens 250
6 Paladins 450
3 Lancers 250
3 Errants 250
1 Baron 200

2 Warhound titans 550
1 Seneschal 50

I've only played around with a couple but there's a nice size difference to distinguish between DC1 and DC2 and a vast assortment of firepower, comparisom pics below contain a converted baron and either a castellan or crusader with a part converted paladin below. They're not the prettiest but £15 quid for an army isn't to be sneezed at and it beats the hell out of ebay prices for knights! I would have taken a comparisom pic with a knight but the only one I own was cut up for the barons head and base.

_________________
You see a mouse trap? I see free cheese and a f*cking challenge! - Scroobius Pip

ceimeifukan: OT, but I love the scroobius pip quote!

I really, really want to use the 1/400 Gundam figures in Epic. Since there are no Tau walkers, maybe try this one?

_________________

Should the Knight Lancer's Power Lance have First Strike like the Baron's?

Also, I would suggest that the Knight Errant's speed be reduced to 20cm or at most 25cm.
The Lancers and Barons with their longer legs and lances should be the fastest knights, let the Errants either run with or slightly ahead of the Paladins.
The Paladins engage the enemy at range with their Knight Cannon while the Errants close in for the thermal powered coupe de grace.

It wasn't intended that way. The Baron gets the best in terms of weaponry. The Lancers get the stuff more easily/cheaply produced. In much the same way that Space Marine characters get access to superior weapons to even the most elite troops.


The speed of the three main Knights is one that is still being considered. The only problem with making Errants categorically slower, is that it significantly affects the comparative balance. Having a FF specialized formation FASTER than the CC specialized formation, makes fielding the latter a much harder choice. Because the FF unit already has the intrinsic bonuses of distance (with your proposed suggestion, the Lancers have a 45cm Engage distance, the Errants 20-25cm. That's significant), and utility (the Lancers can do their primary action, and still offer fantastic supporting fire, whereas the Errants are significantly poorer (both get 2FF+1FFMW attack, the Lancers at 3+, the Errants at 5+). So besides the "realism" aspect, I also need to maintain a balance aspect.

A change like that you recommend, would require a restructuring of the costs of Knights. It may be necessary with regard the Paladin anyway, but isn't something I'm wanting to put forward just yet. I'm still wanting to see playtests/army builds to see exactly how preferred each of the three basic models are, as well as the two tubbos (Castellan and Crusader), and what mix of Wardens people field. I have my own preferences, but a list can't just be shaped only by my perceptions. Varying playstyles and metagames need to be analyzed to robustly balance the list.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion

Can i get a hotlink to the most recent knight list? I'm currently building an army and so far have 10 paladins, 3 errants(hopefully 3 more by tomorrow because of ebay), i own no lancers but after the last post or two i had a total duh moment having over 200 battlemechs in multiple castings and types. I also own 1 warden, 1 troop of castallians and 1 crusaders. (and a ton of plastic thudd guns and other such things).
I liked the idea of a Baron using an atlas thats been heavily modified. thats a neat looking conversion. Now i just have to find some things i want to use as lancers.