OK, here it is. This is only a preliminary concept for the now. I want to encourage playtests of this, and see if it's a direction to go in. The previous version (v1.2) has not yet been abandoned as the primary direction.

This version came about due to discussions regarding certain problems (namely coupling the size of the formation with the blast marker mechanic), and various solutions proposed.

This version is based off the unreleased v1.3, which made some changes to the Errants (TK powerfist, refurbed Thermal Cannon), and Paladins (stripped down a bit, made cheaper).

To that, I've given all Knight Formations ATSKNF (Might of the Omnissiah), and either raised the costs (the three core units), or reduced their damage capacity and removed Void Shields (the three Support gained an increased FF to compensate for lost assault characteristics, and gained the Shock Lance and KnightShield abilities). The Baron remains the only Knight to have DC2.

In addition, I've changed the composition of the Custodian Knights (Crusader and Castellan), to allow a slightly more flexible approach, and done some minor cost/effect modifications to other units. The Hyapsists have been removed for the now, pending a review of how to fit them in in a more appropriate role.

If you are completely opposed to the Might of the Omnissiah special rule (ATSKNF), feel free to try it with all Knights as DC2, subtracting 1 from AV, CC and FF, and adding a Crit of "Destroyed". Be happy to hear how that worked as well.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion

looks interesting, I'd be happy to give you a game over Vassal.

I'm guessing Tank Killer on the Errant is supposed to be Titan Killer?

Yes it is. Corrected.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion

Interesting changes. I'm not sure I agree with giving Castellans and Crusaders Shock Lance, but we'll see how it works out. However, I do like the idea of a mixed formation of "Custodian" Knights.

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

It was an error in memory. I remember them all having KnightShields, and thought they had Shock Lances as well. Given the head shape is similar to the other chassis, and the Shock Lance emanates from the 'eyes', I just put it in. It helped balance the Knights new Firefight. Crusaders went from 2 FF4+ to a single FF3+ and a conditional FF5+ First Strike. Castellans gained the Shock Lance as an additional (due to feeling it still needed a minor bump). Removal of the Shock Lance for fluff reasons would be compensated by a revaluing of FF capacity, in all likelihood.


That came about after discussions with several people. Apparently there are more than a few players out there who for one reason or another, have an off-triplicate number of Custodian class Knights. One player has 4 Crusaders, another has 2 Castellans. Allowing players the ability to field all their Knights was a working goal. With the minor restructuring of the Core Units (and the Warden for Aspirants/Squires), the possible combinations allow those without a large breadth of miniatures to put them all on the table.

The other reason for mixed formations is so the two chassis can be properly balanced, without the faux points issue that v1.2 had. This format allows me to see the two on their merits. Will people field mixed formations? Will one or the other be relegated to 'meh' status? It's definitely a question I'll be asking of those willing to write Battle Reports/After Action Reports.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion

Good point about adding the Shock Lance. I forgot that they both lost a CC or FF attack since they went from 2 DC to 1.

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

Looks good so far. Should be able to provide batrep within the week.

1DC for support knights is a good move as is mixed units.

I think paladins need to stay better but we'll see where this ends up.

Do we use lightning stats from drooptrooper list?

Cheers MV for the update.

The problem with Paladins, is that making them intrinsically balanced against the others, AND keeping at least a passing resemblance to the background, doesn't gel. Errant CC should be better. Lancer Shooting should be the same. Paladins shouldn't be faster than either. When you've got all that, keeping them at a similar cost just means a formation that doesn't get taken. And given they're the most numerous physical model, I wanted to make them more useful on the table.


I was planning on using the stats in the NetEA Draft list, but the version in the Elysian list (at least the one I have) seems more appropriate.



That may change (as things update, and if the NetEA army book has a standardized configuration), and I'll update the list to include them (and the Thunderbolts) shortly.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion

Has anybody played any further games w/ this list? I might pick up the knights again towards mid-november/december and eager to know how balanced the list is.

_________________

I've played them a limited amount of times, with the new rules. There doesn't seem to be a problem, balance wise. They're a little more resistant to losses, but at a fairly significant cost/effect.

IE, in comparison to the previous version, a Lancer formation gets 3 units now, for what was 4 units then. They're harder to break, but have 75% of their older close combat potential.

They're also a bit more useable for their firepower, as their ability to shoot isn't as easily degraded as it once was. 1BM does nothing, and 3BM's means a still respectable amount of FirePower out of a 4 man formation.

Haven't been playing it as much as I'd like, due to work commitments, and a group that is currently going through a WHFB/WH40K kick. That'll blow over soon enough, but I've got to weather through that, and get back to the important stuffs.

But I definitely want to hear from people who are willing or able to give this list a try. If not a Battle Report, just a commentary on overall play, and any units that stood out functionally (for good or ill), would be fantastic.

Morgan Vening

I'll be playing a game against Onyx in the next 4 weeks and i'll be using this version of the Knight list, he'll be using the core SM list.

I am a new player of EA, having played SM/TL a lot a long time ago, and i currently play Steel Legion.
The Knights are a very different play style, thats fairly obvious.

Is it me or is the Knights playstyle/tactics have similarities to the 'core' SM list?
When playing Knights, you will outnumbered (in nbr of models not necessarily formations), have very good stat lines and special abilities - however you'll need to plan your assaults/firefights well otherwise there's a risk you will lose those assaults and firefights.

As a IG SL player, i have seen a few examples of SM detachments assaulting my Mech companies and losing, due to the mech formation being larger.

How best would you prevent losing assaults to potentially larger formations with your own formations of 3-4 models (+3 more if you add extra).. - or planning for assaults?

Also, the Knight formation upgrades really are summarised as either more Knights, a Leader, or a Baron (once only).
It's a dilemma as to whether an additional 1-3 knights is a better choice vs a Seneschal upgrade.

The Baron also doesnt seem to fit well into either Paladin, Errant or Lancer formations. He's slower than a Lancer, faster than a Paladin, longer range than a Errant. At best he seems to fit better into Errants due to having same speed.

Thoughts, discussions?

Tee

admiral, if you go look at my game reports for version 1.2 you should see lots of comments about playing knights and the choices I made:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20845&start=18
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20845&start=37
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20845&start=54

I believe I address all your comments above in one way or another.

_________________

Yeah, there's a few observations there that i'll use to influence my army list.
With the changes to the Castellans and Crusaders in this list, are they more attractive now. Seems with your experiences they're still not a good choice - at least compared to other Knights/Titan options.

Shame, with the light Quake Cannons and supplemental weapons they seem a good option.

Tee

What's the point in bringing in the Lighting Fighter?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The only reason I didn't take Crusaders/'tellans in those games was because I didn't have suitable models. They've since changed and are now DC1 (used to be DC2) so they become even more fragile and easy to break (same BMs to break but are now easier to kill). Use with care!

_________________