Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Knights!
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=11311		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:12 am ]
Post subject:  Knights!
Calling all knight fanatics, time to engage each other once again.

The question is, do you wish to stick with the knight stats as they currently are, or go for something new?

Remember you are dealing with a model that will never again be made so will have to be scratch built by most. Historically there seems to be 5 or so types.

The focus I think should be on stats for a knight list, but with units that could be used by any titan lists that see fit.
Author:  Warmaster Nice [ Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:54 am ]
Post subject:  Knights!
Personally I think two knight types should suffice. One Gun/CCweapon and one Heavy Weapon variant. Add perhaps a Baron and I think you would have enough variation to keep collectors happy as well as keeping things simple enough for most scratch builders to be able to keep up.
Author:  Tyrael [ Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Knights!
My opinion, that must be few types of knights:
Paladins lead by baron - universal type. Household - 6 knights and seneschal(character), may bee upgraded by adding Baron.
Lancers - "fast an furious" :). CC type of knights, fast moving( maybe 30sm), low weapons an firefight, strong CC. Three suits in house hold
Crusader\Castelan - slow moving, heavy armored weapon batteries(Castelan - AT\Crusader - AP). Three suits in house hold
The knight shield is  problem, maybe it mast give reroll to armor save when hit by MW, but  i am sure, that it must not help against TK weapons.
In my vision - knights are AV, not WE (remember they just a suit of armor), all, except Crus\Cast, with knight shield. Crus\Cast - with 1 void shield.
i don't know about Errant Knights( maybe they are to young and green to fight in full scale conflicts ) and Warden Knights(i couldn't find their background).
Author:  Tyrael [ Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Knights!
Something like this :
Author:  wargame_insomniac [ Mon Dec 24, 2007 10:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Knights!
Why drop Knights Errant? Is adding one more Knight variant with short ranged melta weaponry that confusing?

I would want to leave errants in any knight list, even if make them as upgrade to lancer in the same way you are suggesting making castellans as upgrade for crusader.

As a minimum we should be able to field all of knight variants that were in Epic 40k.

Cheers

James
Author:  Markconz [ Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Knights!

(wargame_insomniac @ Dec. 24 2007,20:52)
QUOTE
As a minimum we should be able to field all of knight variants that were in Epic 40k.

That would be 2 then :;):

Paladin (and lancer, errant etc) - assaulty.
Castellan (and Crusader) - shooty.
Author:  Tyrael [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 7:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Knights!
According to background - Knight Errant are yang wariors in bad suits. While Lancers - next step for them. Stats of Errant must be poor. Any ideas?

2 Markconz: there are many types of knights, they are very important part of WH40K universe and Adeptus Mechanicus. We just can't forget them.

Link to knights background:
http://www.specialist-games.com/epic/fo ... IC_ID=6362
Author:  Markconz [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Knights!

(Tyrael @ Dec. 25 2007,17:29)
QUOTE
2 Markconz: there are many types of knights, they are very important part of WH40K universe and Adeptus Mechanicus. We just can't forget them.

Not talking about forgetting them (though I'd hesitate to say they are an important part of the 40k universe these days - obscure would be more like it).

I'm talking about what would be an appropriate subset for the AMTL tourni list, as opposed to a specific AM knight list which could indeed go into more detail.

I (and Warmaster also) suggested two basic types might be good, fat shooty ones and the rest (same as they were classed in E40k). Chris reckons just one type would be good (and leave out the fat shooty ones).

Edit - why did you make the Baron a WE Tyrael? That would seem to make him rather vulnerable.
Author:  Warmaster Nice [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Knights!
I agree with Markconz. I think we could go with an Ork-style abstraction here: The exact armament of the Knights may vary slightly to suit the fighting style of each Knight Pilot but their overall combat role remain the same. The weapon description doesn't need to be completely accurate. For the Knight Paladin/Errant it could simply be:

Close Combat Weapon (MW whatever)
Knight Cannon (AT4+/AP4+ or whatever)
If the exact cannon is a Melta Weapon (Which may have shorter range but greater damage output) or a Battle Cannon (vice versa) I think can be compared to how Marine stands are said to have a generic Missile Launcher even though actual squads could also carry plasma guns or heavy Bolters as heavy weapons.

You could also re-name the weapons something a bit more glamourous if you want. :D

POint is: Does it add much to the list to have a multitude of variants? Eldar WAve Serpents is another example: FW Produces them with a number of weapon options but the rules set still suggests a single common weapon config. Other variants exists, but in the grander scheme of things the actual difference in these weapons are fairly minimal.


I could accept the variations if a Knight Errant needed to fullfill a specific role in the list that the Paladin (Or other units in the amy) cannot. However it is my opinion that the actual battlefield roles will be so similar that it will basically become a matter of chance (or miniature aesthetics) which variant you are going to pick in the end.

It is all a matter of taste of course. Like Mark I don't mind more Knight variants in a Knight specific list. But for AMTL which are already going to have a huge number of options to boil down, this seems like one of the areas which could be simplified relatively easily.
Author:  ortron [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:05 am ]
Post subject:  Knights!
How about treating them like oversized SM dreadnaughts. With either 2 or 3 chasis types and with a choice of wpns. Then you could even purchase them in that class/size. So for example within your formation of 3 support knights there might be 2 crusaders and 1 castellan.

This would also help for people who don't have complete collections of the old models.

Assault knights (Thermal Cannon + Power Gauntlet OR knight cannon + power lance)
Tactical (battlecannon + autocannon + CCW)
Support(Quake Cannon + Gatling AC OR Quake + TL Lascannon)

That way you could get away with including all the knights but drop 2 entries from the army list.
Author:  Ilushia [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:37 am ]
Post subject:  Knights!
IMHO? It's not necessary, nor really desirable, to have large numbers of different kinds of knights in the titan list. In a knight-list, sure. But not in the AMTL list. Ideally you want knights to fill a role no titan specifically does. In this case, I recommend melee bias, with more speed then a reaver and less then a warhound, but more survivable then a warhound when they get there. Combined with reasonable melee weapons you get a 'line breaker' formation of forward-moving knights who hit the enemy after the titans in the back soften them up with the big guns. Makes them feel very fluffy IMHO, and doesn't overlap them with the titans much. Giving Knights access to said 'big guns' in the AMTL list means they'll be competing with titans for usage of heavy weapons, which doesn't feel right given the point of the list is to be centered around titans not knights.

In the Knight World list I'd be more then okay to see assaulty, shooty and support knights in full swing. Just... Not in the AMTL list. Fluffy or not, it's just not an option I think adds anything to the list directly and would tend to detract from the titans (Not to mention giving them even MORE options to field really powerful long-range cannons).
Author:  Mark_Logue [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:22 am ]
Post subject:  Knights!
I would be really disappointed by a cut down in the number of night types available.  I would rather keep the individual character of all the different types of knights available.  

The fact that I have a couple of units of each does bias my thoughts I must admit.
Author:  Markconz [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:45 am ]
Post subject:  Knights!
I think this is an interesting point, those who actually want knights at all will be those who have them, and they will want more than one type.  Others who don't have them won't care either way.

I've got a bunch of knights but haven't used them yet. How balanced were the AMTL2.0 knights in the opinion of those who have used them?
Author:  Ilushia [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:05 am ]
Post subject:  Knights!
The paladins are slightly too slow, IMHO, by about 5cm for their primary role. And being war-engines it's quite common to see them wipe out most if not all things in base-to-base with their macro weapon chainswords and have nothing to spend other melee attacks on. The lances being first-strike FF are really wickedly powerful.

Lancers are WAY too good as they stand. Really REALLY too good. The faster movement speed and firefight abilities of them make them rediculously killy. 45cm of engagement range, combined with 6x MW First-Strike, 6x First-strike and 6x normal 3+ FF attacks, plus an inspiring leader 4+ RA and more, for 500 points is WAY too good IMHO. Both times I've fielded a full unit of 6 of these guys they pretty much obliterated whatever I pointed them out without even so much as a contest.

The lances being ranged weapons feels wrong, to be honest. It means virtually every knight has a first-strike firefight attack. I'd never take Errants at their current stats, either, as due to the WE combat rules they'd kill everything in base to base and very little else compared to the Lancers which can obliterate 8-10 guys pretty easily in an assault and don't have to worry about getting into BtB at all.

For Lances my best suggestion is make them EITHER firefight OR First Strike, not BOTH. First-striking firefight macroweapons on lancers are just sick, especially with a 3+ FF value. I think they'd be better represented by being First Strike melee weapons, as opposed to FF weapons. Paladins really need to go up in speed slightly, and lancers should probably come down slightly even with the changes to their weapons (Even with First-Strike Melee attacks they'd still be pretty darn badass). Being WEs is a mixed-bag with them, while it means you can't be forced to use your melee value, it also means your melee value doesn't 'spill over' making the Errant less valuable IMHO. I'd recommend they become AVs rather then DC1 WEs, despite the advantages being a WE brings.

Seneschals don't feel too powerful at present, but they are a very nice bump for the unit. Comparable with a Chaplain I think, only without the extra attack. Makes them extra-deadly, but not too much so. Primarily fielding lancers just makes me feel dirty, a 250 point formation should not be able to assault with 45cm reach and enough guns to wipe out a marine tactical formation in a single go the majority of the time. And these guys can, pretty easily, do so. Never mind 6 of 'em which will eat just about anything I've ever put them up against short of a titan (Which is what I have other titans to fight anyway, so they really shouldn't be fighting enemy titans to begin with unless I've already dropped shields so I can get something like 4 DC worth of damage off on it, 3 of it with first strike!). If they were melee-range they'd be fine, I think. With CC 3+ and AVs nstead of WEs, but as it stands their incredibly long reach and horrendous numbers of attacks just slaughters practically anything you care to fight with them. 6 of 'em can kill 6 tac marine stands on average rolls BEFORE the tac marines get to attack them at all! And another 2 during the main engagement!
Author:  wargame_insomniac [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Knights!

(ortron @ Dec. 25 2007,23:05)
QUOTE
How about treating them like oversized SM dreadnaughts. With either 2 or 3 chasis types and with a choice of wpns. Then you could even purchase them in that class/size. So for example within your formation of 3 support knights there might be 2 crusaders and 1 castellan.

This would also help for people who don't have complete collections of the old models.

Assault knights (Thermal Cannon + Power Gauntlet OR knight cannon + power lance)
Tactical (battlecannon + autocannon + CCW)
Support(Quake Cannon + Gatling AC OR Quake + TL Lascannon)

That way you could get away with including all the knights but drop 2 entries from the army list.

That was where I was heading but you phrased it better than me. I think it is important that any Knight model can be fielded in GT AMTL list but accept that certain restrictions must be made to quantity of unit selections.

This way we are preserving the ability of Knight specific sub-list to have more choices of Knights whilst still usable in main AMTL list.

I would prefer 2-3 Knight unit selections with allowing other variants as unit upgrade. e.g. may upgrade from Castellan to Crusader for free and (for example) upgrade from Paladin to Errant/Lancer for 5 points (example for illustrative purposes only).

Cheers

James
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/