Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

KnightWorld v1.2

 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:14 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11143
Location: Canton, CT, USA
Morgan Vening wrote:
I'd like people's opinions on how Errants have fared as they are now, and whether replacing them with Lancers would have been a better option.


I like Errants they way they are. I was originally in favor of reducing the Errants' speed based on stats from Titan Legions, but I'm rethinking that. I usually field them in a mixed formation with Lancers; so reducing their speed might make me think twice about having a formation that has units with two different speeds.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:32 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:46 am
Posts: 158
Morgan Vening wrote:

Quote:
admiral_tee - Knight Shield query.

Carlos got it exact as to interpretation. The other issue, regarding the Front90, it was probably determined that keeping the fluid approach of the new Epic rules was more important than the older static systems. In most circumstances it's considered that formations respond to at least a lesser degree to the actions of the enemy. So a formation of TK wielding speedsters, with no other enemies nearby can't just fly around behind the Knights, and let fly, the Knights will adapt the shield to face them. If there is a crossfire, that confusion opens up the opportunity. The reason for the CC exclusion is the uniformity (Shields don't work in CC), and CAF used to be a combination of CC and FF.

Quote:
admiral_tee - KnightShield vs VoidShield and DC2

These are inherited, but things I don't have an issue with. Castellans and Crusaders have kept their DC2 both because 3 unit formations are inherently weak for suppression purposes, and because going beyond 4+RA usually requires an exceptional reason. I could probably drop the VoidShield for a KnightShield, and drop the costs of these formations (and it's definately not completely out of consideration), but most people seem to like them as they are, and I don't see a reason to change them, for now.

Just a quick explanation of my design philosopy regarding the Knights. I'm not driven to make the Knights list a direct translation of the Titan Legions rules any more than I do of making them a direct translation of the dinosaur herder Space Marine rules, the NetEpic rules, or gods-forbid a new 40K Apocraplypse (and with that Grey Knight wankmobile, I wouldn't put it past them if they thought they could make a buck). What I'm looking to create, is a balanced army list, that has the general "feel" of a Knight list, has enough tactical options to allow some creativity in design, and is fun to play (both with, and against). I'm not otherwise locked into a single way of thinking, and I do give consideration to any and all opinions voiced. A lot of the unit stats and design protocols were inherited from the previous designers, but anything that hasn't been changed as of v1.2 is something that I don't currently have an issue with. Units may change, and as I've intimated above, there are certain things I'm considering. But until I've got a better understanding on the capacities of the current list, both within my own meta-game, and with the NetEA community as a whole, wholesale changes would be a little premature, IMO.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion


I agree with your replies esepecially the last statement/paragraph. However:

I still feel that its odd that some units have a void shield and others don't. Its almost like having Reavers and Warlords with Voids and Warhounds with something different... Its more a case of it being out of place in terms of fluff (what little there is) as well as having to remember a different mechanic (i know thats not a biggy, but generally all armies have repeated special rules - having Void and Knight Shield seems to fill only a game mechanic balance issue, rather than a fluff issue...).

I think also, that lowering the Castellans/Crusader cost would give the Knight Army a little more flexibility, as well as allow for more activations. I can't imagine these knights costing a little less would give the knight army list a game breaking edge.

Anyway - i'm pleased with the hard work so far - just couldnt believe no one has mentioned it so far and had to pitch in my 2 cents.

Tee


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:27 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:12 am
Posts: 354
Location: Houston Texas
I for one like the fact that the support knights do have void shields. It saved me In my last game. For each model has in effect three hits. For 500 points(475 now for castellians), that's a steal but worth the points. As for errants I'd do what dwarf supreme is doing and having mixed regiments in order to do a combined style of assault.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:03 pm
Posts: 1081
Location: London, UK
Played a 3k GTS game against E&C's Cadians tonight. We didn't have time to go after the 3rd turn but general consensus around the table was that the knights had squeezed out a 2-0 victory or at least would win on tiebreakers. This is the list I used along w/ my comments:

2*3 Wardens (1 ballista, 2 battlecannons each)
Consensus was that these were perhaps a bit too tough w/ 6 DC and 1 void shield for just 250 pts each. That and their 4+RA means they are probably point for point the toughest fm in the game! The balista also has a very generous range when shooting as AA. Also I don't understand why these are DC2 since the models are the size of every other knight. Perhaps at DC1 w/ the void shield they would be better balanced. But then the cost would likely go down to 225 or 200.

3 Paladins
Useless compared to the other DC1 knights. So useless they were ignored by E&C for the most part and managed to capture some objectives late in the game.

2*6 Errants (1 w/ a seneschal to make it a BTS)
Shot and assaulted to bits, probably because of how much terror they inspire. They are decent even when clipped which was quite surprising. The 30cm move with the 30cm MW4+ makes them great choices in most situations. Probably too good for 75 a pop.

2*3 Lancers
Didn't do much but I really should have used mixed fms of them and Errants to avoid being clipped with the Errants. Once again, probably too good at 75.

Warhound w/ Turbo and Vulcan
Costed at 300 pts. Felt right in all regards. Mostly picked it as I had ran out of support fm slots.

3 Trebuchets
Useful. The 60cm range makes its vulnerabilities almost irrelevant. It's too cheap at 125 pts compared to other artillery. Perhaps to bring the knight flavour more and make its vulnerability more relevant, change the range to 45cm? This makes it a compulsory garrison which is risky, or something that sits in the back to be used only defensively. Don't know the fluff for it so not sure. But next time I will spawn these more :)

2*6 squires w/ ballista Warden
Excellent fms! Can garrison w/ overwatch, put a BM on aircraft, do the scouting thing w/ screening, are tough (8 hits+1 void altogether), etc etc.

Overall the DC1 knights could all stand to lose 1 attack, perhaps the first strike is just their regular DC1 attack not yet another extra.

So even if I mention that so many things are too powerful when considered on a 1 to 1 basis, we also have to remember that armies function as a whole. Knightworld has:
- no teleporters
- no decent infantry to take buildings and cover
- will fight most of its assaults outnumbered
- can't handle artillery on the backfield as it can't just thunderhawk marines in or teleport termies in
- has only fighters but no bombers now
- an SC is a big commitment
- relatively little fearless fms
- modest SR
- no planetfalling nor spaceships
- is overall easy to break

Next time I will give the crusaders/castellans a go if I can find the right models for it. Otherwise it's spam Lancers/Errants and Wardens...

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:23 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20886
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
My impression was that Lancers and especially Errants are much too good for their points cost. They cost the same as an Ork Stompa and are about twice as good.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:43 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:46 am
Posts: 158
Why were tthe Paladins useless?
Are you referring that they're under powered compared to Errants and Lancers, or referring to their capability/stat-line?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:45 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:03 pm
Posts: 1081
Location: London, UK
Compared to Errants and Lancers. As useful as buying an fm of 3 Leman Russes who are better at close combat (which will never happen) but w/ shorter ranged battlecannons. Easy to break, too. Either they become cheaper than the other knights to make them a sort of rank and file knight, or they need some improvements to give them a specific role.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:39 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5964
Location: UK
Im inclined to agree that one of the main reasons to take paladins … is because plastic paladins are cheap and people actually have the minis. 24 errants/lancers would cost ~£200 ::)

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:41 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:03 pm
Posts: 1081
Location: London, UK
Paladins suffer from Tactical Marine syndrome, except in this case the Devastators and the Assaults actually move faster too.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:03 pm
Posts: 1081
Location: London, UK
Evil and Chaos wrote:
My impression was that Lancers and especially Errants are much too good for their points cost. They cost the same as an Ork Stompa and are about twice as good.

Perhaps not twice as good but definitely better. On the other hand you can't add AA or filler to the fm like you can w/ Stompas. Still I agree that the points cost is not right for them as they are now.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:50 am
Posts: 835
carlos wrote:
So even if I mention that so many things are too powerful when considered on a 1 to 1 basis, we also have to remember that armies function as a whole. Knightworld has:
- no teleporters
- no decent infantry to take buildings and cover
- will fight most of its assaults outnumbered
- can't handle artillery on the backfield as it can't just thunderhawk marines in or teleport termies in
- has only fighters but no bombers now
- an SC is a big commitment
- relatively little fearless fms
- modest SR
- no planetfalling nor spaceships
- is overall easy to break

You also forgot a consistent Initiative 2+ on an army that's primarily Assault based. That can be a pretty harsh mistress.

carlos wrote:
Evil and Chaos wrote:
My impression was that Lancers and especially Errants are much too good for their points cost. They cost the same as an Ork Stompa and are about twice as good.

Perhaps not twice as good but definitely better. On the other hand you can't add AA or filler to the fm like you can w/ Stompas. Still I agree that the points cost is not right for them as they are now.

I'd also add that I think Stompas are a smidge overpriced at 75pts. And I agree with Carlos that straight comparisons aren't always applicable.

But I've got in mind a fix for the next version to reduce the power level of Lancers. And I REALLY need to either boost the Paladin's effectiveness, or drop their capability somewhat and just make them cheaper (50pts). I'd prefer the former, but within the constraints, it may have to be the latter.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 12:01 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:03 pm
Posts: 1081
Location: London, UK
Oh and yes, the fixed 2+ initiative sucks especially with such an expensive SC, no bonuses to assault activations and the need to do rolling assaults which are quite hard to pull off.

Another disadvantage that is not immediately obvious is that with almost everything being WE, it's very hard to pull off a decent sustained fire action. Against a fm of 6 knights, any clever opponent can manoeuvre in a way that LoS are compromised to the point that only 3 or 4 knights can sustain. Comparatively, a Leman Russ formation of 9 can pack in a tight 3x3 block and sustain all around. It's possible to spread out to avoid this, but the army already has a massive footprint as it is.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:21 pm
Posts: 1978
Location: Thompson, MB, Canada
I would always recommend making things better rather than cheaper in this list.

Dammit, Knights can be a real pain to find. :P And where's the fun in proxies?

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:58 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:03 pm
Posts: 1081
Location: London, UK
Another small amend is to make core formations more flexible in terms of what kind of knights it can take: at the moment if you want to mix types you can only have 3 of type A and 3 of type B. Why not have any mix? 3/3 mix seems kind of odd.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:16 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20886
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote:
I would always recommend making things better rather than cheaper in this list.

I wouldn't be surprised if Paladins were actually balanced, and the other knight types slightly too good.

Just theory hammering, but we couldn't actually see it as being likely that a Marine army could beat a Knight army.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net