Probably true. And Kustom/Mek Stompas. Things have evolved over time, though the current 40k Stompa clearly owes its lineage to the original Epic Stompa, model-wise. In which case the ideal thing to do is rebrand the current list stompas as Mega Dreads (stats are almost identical anyway) and Supers as plain old Stompas. It's hard enough convincing existing 40k players to try Epic, without the additional confusions that come up because their favorite units seem flat out wrong on the battlefield.

But yes, off topic in the sense that fixing the Stompa confusion relates only in the fact that we're likely to see 40k stats for knights sooner or later (possibly sooner according to http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/02/pre- ... titan.html ), and that sticking with outdated versions of rules in the face of new official ones is a source of that sort of long term confusion.

Barring revision to the existing fluff on their size, armor, and use, plus their likely stats, Knights should be War Engines and probably have 2DC but no Might of the Omnissah. Keeping 1DC and Might with Reinforced Armor and an invulnerable Knight Shield is also probably close enough, mechanically, that the advantages of previous testing and simplified table top management may be worth it.

Knights being released by gw next week apparently.. we should start hearing rules rumours soon. I expect forgeworld will be making variants too.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Wow. Timely. Looks like that rumor is panning out.

That actually makes me quite happy, as it means we'll have the first fresh "official" GW look at knights since the the SM/TL era. Running the BlackLegion Translator(tm) should give us a solid idea of what sort of stats we should be aiming for in E:A.

Saw that pic earlier today. They seem to have stayed at least somewhat true to the knight paladin and I'm almost hopeful that GW has created a model that's worth picking up out of the box

_________________
-Vaaish

It looks ****-hot and for the first time in a fair while, I'm looking at a GW new release and thinking I might actually buy one or three

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Okay, we have our first actual supposed leaked details on the new Knight release: http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/02/deta ... ights.html

There's no doubt that the new rules, assuming these are accurate, are going to call for a 2DC War Engine in Epic terms.

Superheavy Walker

Paladin: 375
Errant: 370 points

AV 13/12/12 HP 6, 4+ Invuln on 1 facing, not in CC.
WS 4, BS 4, I 4

Strength D chainsword, 3 Attacks.

Paladin: 2 shots, 72 inch (presumed), S8 AP3 Large Blast, 2x Heavy Stubber
Errant: 36 inch, S9 AP1 Melta, Large Blast, 1x Heavy Stubber

Running this through some quick and dirty conversion, we get 40k-based epic stats of:

Paladin
Type: War Engine
Speed: 25cm
Armor: 5+
CC: 4+
FF: 4+
Paladin Battle Cannon: 75cm, 2xAP4+/AT4+
Paladin Mega Chainsword: (CC) EA(1), TK(1).
DC2, Walker, Reinforced Armor, Knight Shield, Fearless

Errant is roughly the same, but might warrant dropping to FF5+, due to lacking the extra stubber and having a 1 shot main weapon instead of 2. The Errant's Thermal Cannon would improve slightly to : 30cm, MW3+ and FF(MW), given it's got better than Melta strength and a large blast and most non-blast meltas end up MW4+ in epic terms. It's also not clear if it still has the Power Gauntlet, or if it now fields a Mega Chainsword like the Paladin.

In terms of stats, there's a definite improvement in resilience and firepower for a Paladin over the previous incarnation.

With 6HP, there's no doubt it's now a DC2 vehicle. AV13/12/12 is slightly better than a Stormraven and slightly worse than a warhound, both of which have 5+RA. 3+ might also be a legitimate value, but relatively few AV/WE in epic have 3+ armor, mostly only Dreadnoughts, which are 12/12/10 and thus slightly worse than the Knights. The other key note is that all 40k Super Heavies are always Fearless.

Weaponwise, the battlecannon is now 2 rather than 1 shot, but not twin-linked that the description mentions. That said, we could probably call it functionally twin-linked and move to AP3+/AT+3 instead of 2x AP4+/AT4+ Either way it's a significant boost in firepower. The old heavy bolters are gone, replaced with multiple heavy stubbers, which are slightly lesser weapons, but probably enough to retain FF 4+, due to the overall increase in volume of shots.

The existing Knight shield rule that Dave proposed would continue to work just fine for the new 40k version. The same vulnerability to Crossfire is present, though the inability to use it in CC might warrant a slight tweak (right now it's only lost when being engaged, when it should probably now be 'against attacks in base to base').

The downside of all this is that individual Knights are definitely worth more than the existing formation points. My gut reaction is that this is probably on the order of 350 for 3. Errants, if they have no other compensation like the Power Gauntlet or higher speed, would probably check in at 300 or 325 for 3.

Comparing a group of 3 Paladins at 350 to a Supa Stompa, at 325, they have about the same survivability (1 more net DC but slightly worse armor using the Knight Shield 4+ then RA at 5+ vs the Stompa's flat 4+RA), have rather superior ability in assaults, somewhat worse shooting (4-6BP MW is very good), but they'll have better overall initiative and mobility.

Compared to a singleton Warhound at 275, they're more survivable (1 net DC more, plus 4 then 5 save, rather than 5 then 5), have roughly similar, though longer range shooting, are vastly better in assault, but would have worse initiative and slightly worse mobility.

Comparing to Vior'la Riptides with Missile drones at 375 for 3 and 3 drones, the Knights would have better engage potential (especially in CC), slightly less overall shooting and durability, lower mobility and initiative. Without the 3 drones, the Riptides are only 300, and would lose their edge in both shooting and durability, but retain their better mobility and initiative.

Those are my first thoughts. I'll try to keep this updated as more legitimate details appear.

DaR - some new photos up on warseer; the Errant looks to have only the chainsword, no power gauntlet. Pity. Awesome models though.

There's also rumours that FW is already working on resin bits for the plastic kit, the Castellan and Crusader are the ones that spring to mind immediately.

FWIW, if anyone does not follow 40k news at all, the Knight rumors are now completely confirmed. Feb 22 White Dwarf for rules and pre-order, the following week for actual models. They're pretty gorgeous. Many sites have pics of the important rules parts: http://gmortschaotica.blogspot.com/2014 ... umour.html

The rumored rules were more or less right on. The Paladin's cannon is not actually two cannons, but is rather "rapid fire". In 40k terms it's 2 shots, but I'd say for Epic purposes, especially balance, treating it as Twin-Linked is probably for the best. AP3+/AT3+ is probably less game changing than 2x AP4+/AT4+, which is what the stats would translate directly as.

Worth noting as well is that the "Reaper Chainsword" on the Paladin and Errant should now be TK(1) by the new background and rules. It's a Strength D weapon. That means in 40k terms it allows no save of any sort, including invulnerable saves. The Destroyer weapons are noted in the Escalation book fluff as 'Also Known as Titan Killer'. In function, they basically roll a single d6 instead of normal armor penetration rolls. On a 1, it does a Penetrating hit. On a 2-5 it does an automatic explode! (ie, complete death) on any non-super heavy, and does d3+1 Hull Points on Super Heavies (this translates to 1DC damage in Epic terms), and on a 6 does d6+6 (an average of 3DC equivalent) Hull Points to Super Heavies and Explode to anything else. Against non-vehicles it does a similar number of wounds and ignores toughness, so again, it's going to instant-kill almost any non-monstrous creature, and will usually do the equivalent of 1DC to very large monstrous creatures which are mostly war Engines in Epic terms like Tervigons, Greater Demons, etc.

The Errant not having its Power Gauntlet is kinda sad, especially combined with the Thermal Cannon not getting enough of a boost to warrant anything better than its existing MW4+ vs the Paladin's now upgraded Battlecannon. I'd thought about suggesting 1BP, MW, but that seems to step on the Quake Cannon's role a little too much. MW4+, TK(1) might be acceptable, as it gives the Errant back its extra Titan hunting power relative to the Paladin (since both are now chainsword armed, and the Errant lost its superior Gauntlet). In return, the Errant should also drop to FF5+. While the Thermal Cannon is pretty fearsome, it's only single shot relative to the battlecannon, and the Errant now has fewer anti-infantry weapons than the Paladin in the form of its heavy stubbers. The other option is just to accept that Errants are not as good as Paladins and drop their points. Or go back to trying the Errants being faster than the Paladins (not sure 20cm vs 25cm is enough of a difference, and the Lancer definitely shouldn't be more than 30, and the Errant not as fast as the Lancer).

Given the information DaR has given i think his stats are spot on. But i'm leaning more toward 2 x AP4+/AT4+ for the Paladin's Battlecannon as each shot has a template. In general each shot with a template translates as a separate shot in Epic rather than twin-linked.

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

I'll admit, begrudgingly, that I'm impressed with the look of them. They definitely retained the feeling of the epic models, and the rules are somewhat inline with how they played in SM/TL.

I don't want to get in to a "it has to be this because that's how it is in 40k" debate though. The play group is divided so anyway we go is going to lead to people being unhappy. The compromise would be something between the SM/TL, 40k and current stats. The problem with compromise, especially on these boards, is people always want more then they get, and anything they don't get is just "wrong". The list can be balanced with stats and rules from any one of those three sources, and any combination of the three.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Knight world isn't something I've ever really been interested in, but a list that matches to the new 40k stuff could be really interesting.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

New knight rules on warseer.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthrea ... ost7071674

That's 2 DC engine to me.

I'd generally agree, but in this case it's part of the compromise that Dave mentions. 2x shots would be "right", but I think it ups the overall firepower of the Paladin too much to fit in the context of where knights need to be pointwise. I'd already suggested 375 for 3, given the switch to 2DC and Fearless. Adding in more shots, even at lesser AT/AP, would probably push that up to at least 400. That starts making it fairly hard formation to build an army around, as the cheaper Errants suddenly start looking more attractive as your mainstay formation to keep your activation count up.

Fearless is another part of the change I'd personally be willing to compromise on. 40k's version of Fearless no longer perfectly matches what E:A Fearless really does for a unit. Looking purely at the E:A rule 2.1.3, it does seem to fit the Knightly ethos. No fear, never retreat, always charge, etc. However, not taking further damage from blast markers and assaults when broken... that's really strong as an armywide rule in a force with smallish formations that are already fairly hard to kill. That said other AM forces already have the capability of all fearless armies, as do other equivalent forces for other factions, so it's not unprecedented.

All said, I'd really like if we could get something down to 325-350 point formation for 3 Paladins with a 300 point 3 Errant formation. I feel this list really needs 9-10 activations at 3000 points, and getting the mainstay Paladin formation above 350 makes that really hard.

So here's my proposal:

Paladin
Type: War Engine
Speed: 25cm
Armor: 5+
CC: 4+
FF: 4+
Rapidfire Battle Cannon: 60cm, AP3+/AT3+
Reaper Chainsword: (CC) TK(1)
DC2, Walker, Reinforced Armor, Knight Shield, Fearless

Knight Shield: Units with a Knight Shield may make a saving throw on a 4+ when they are hit instead of using their armor value. No modifiers ever apply to this saving throw and it may be taken against macro-weapon, lance and titan killer hits. However, each point of damage from a titan killer hit must be saved separately. If the unit also has reinforced armor and fails its Knight Shield save it is allowed to re-roll its save unless against lance, macro-weapon or titan killer hits but the re-roll is made on its normal armor save. Finally, none of these benefits apply if the units is in a crossfire or against attacks made by units in base to base contact.

Offensively, compared to the initial rules for my first prosal, drop the battlecannon from 2xAP4+/AT4+ to 1xAT3+/AP3+ and reduce range to 60cm and emove the EA from the Chainsword. Those two changes combined remove a lot of excess firepower that going to 2DC and the new cannon would otherwise have given, though does respect the 40k rules having long range and more firepower. The 60cm range helps units with 15cm move and 45cm weapons keep in standoff range, and there's fairly ample precedent for making Titan weapons 60cm to begin with, so I feel this is again a reasonable compromise between 40k actual rules and E:A gameplay needs. On the CC front, going to 2DC still leaves 2 swings per Paladin, so it's the same as the 1DC + EA version that we had in the 1.3 and 1.4 lists.

On the defensive side, with 5+RA, 2DC, Fearless, and a version of the Knight shield that works similarly to the Eldar holofield, they're a tiny bit tougher than before, but not massively so. Fearless adds most to their ability to eventually close to Engage range without being broken. This does similar work to what Might of the Omnissah/ATSKNF did in the 1.3 and 1.4 versions of the list. They're especially vulnerable to being flanked or based in assault now, as 5+RA is notably worse than the old 1.3's 4+RA when they can't claim the Knight Shield save, which helps offset the advantage that Fearless gives. Your knights now can't be killed by harassing fire, but are more likely to be outright destroyed if you carelessly charge them up the center of the board where they can be flanked or assaulted by strong CC formations.

Given all this, I think that 325 for 3 is a reasonable starting point.

Compared to the 1.3 and 1.4 formations of 4 Paladins for 300 points and a 275 point singleton Warhound with standard Megabolter+Plasma armament:

Offensively you're about equal at range to 1.3 and 1.4 Paladins, the battle cannon has 15cm more range, but heavy stubbers are only small arms and don't contribute a ranged AP attack like bolters did; the 3+ attacks offset the extra body of previous lists. Proposed Paladins fair slightly better when doubling due to the shift of 3+ to 4+, but 1.3 and 1.4 gain more from Sustain with the 4+ to 3+ boost and extra body than the 3+ to 2+ for Proposed. The Warhound offers more AT and AP firepower than either, and almost double in the AP case.

In FF assault Proposed Paladins generate 3 normal hits, while 1.3 generate 4 when engaging and 2 when engaged and 1.4 generate a flat 2 normal in any FF. In CC assault, Proposed Paladins generate 3 TK hits, while 1.3 would generate 2 Normal and 2 MW hits, and 1.4 generates 4 Normal and 2 MW when engaging and 2 Normal and 2 MW when being engaged. The new paladins are thus slightly better in CC against RA targets with 5+ or better, but slightly worse against non-RA targets overall. Across the board, this comes pretty close to a wash, IMO. Warhounds throw an average 1.5 normal attacks in FF, about 2/3rds of any of the Paladin formations, and again 1.5 normal in CC, which is roughly half or worse than any paladin formation. Lesson: Don't engage with Warhounds.

Defensively, the 3 proposed Paladins take an average of just over 16 normal hits to completely remove (18 less the odds that one of the 6 unsaved hits will crit and wipe out an extra DC), assuming they may use their Knight Shield. This is up ever so slightly from 16 for the 4 Paladin formation from 1.3 and significantly from the 12 attacks for 4 Paladins from 1.4. Against Macro Weapons and TK weapons, it takes around 10-11 hits (12, again less crit chances) for Proposed, vs 8 hits against 1.3 and 1.4.

When denied the use of the Knight shield, it takes around 9-10 normal hits (10.8 less crits), 8-ish MW hits (9, less crits), and 5-6 TK hits (6 less crits) to destroy the full formation of Proposed Paladins. For 1.3 a formation takes 16 normal, 8 MW, and 4 TK hits to destroy. For 1.4, this drops to 7.2 normal, 6 MW, and 4 TK hits. 1.3 and Proposed are denied their save slightly easier than 1.4, as 1.4 does not care about CC attacks, while 1.3 and Proposed do.

All told, this is mostly a wash relative to 1.3 in the pure math department. The proposed Paladin stats have slightly better MW resistance across the board, in exchange for rather worse normal resistance when denied Knight Shield against regular attacks. 1.4 clocks in at the bottom in pretty much every category.

Comparatively a completely fresh Warhound takes 5 TK hits, 6.5 MW, and 7.4 normal hits on average to destroy. This can go up in the Warhound has time between attacks to regenerate void shields at the end of turn or by regrouping.

Moving on to the slightly harder to measure defensive aspects.

Proposed Paladin formations would be slightly more vulnerable to BP weapons, due to the extra DC potentially generating more hits. However, the biggest factor is Fearless vs ATSKNF/Might. This does make the proposed Paladins immune to destruction via blast markers and being hacked down post assault. It's hard to quantify this mathematically as so much of this depends on the opponent's army and tactics. Fearless can still be suppressed however and 2DC Fearless is equally easy to suppress as 1DC ATSKNF, so advantage goes to the 1.3 and 1.4 formations with their extra body, which can still fire with 7 BM on it, while the Proposed formation would break at 6. The Warhound can't be suppressed without being broken, but takes only 3 BM to do this, though that can take up to 5 hits due to void shields.

So, yeah, feels like 325 for 3 with those stats is pretty spot on.

Dude, really nice work and argument! I'm impressee and think that your stats and pricing seems good.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam