Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Knight World stats

 Post subject: Knight World stats
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:03 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 8853
Location: Worcester, MA
Since the special rule thread has morphed into a discussion on this anyway I guess it's time to start up this thread.

We've got three camps: current list, SM/TL flavored, 40k flavored. Let's see if we can reach some middle ground, starting with the Paladin.

Current List:

Code:
Knight Paladin  WE  25cm  5+  4+  4+
Knight Cannon      45cm  AP4+/AT4+
Heavy Chain Sword  (bc)  MW, EA(+1)
Shock Lance        (bc)  EA(+1)   
DC1, Walker, Reinforced Armour, Knight Shield


40k flavor (ala DaR/BlackLegion):

Code:
Knight Paladin  WE  25cm  5+  4+  4+
Rapid-Fire Battle Cannon  75cm  2x AP4+/AT4+
2 x Heavy Stubber         30cm  AP6+
Reaper Chainsword         (bc)  EA(+1), TK
DC2, Knight Shield, Reinforced Armour, Walker.


And for SM/TL Flavored, a breakdown:

Movement: 20cm in SM/TL, which could work at 20cm or 25cm
Armor: Same as the russ, so 4+RA if AV or 1DC, 5+RA if 2DC
CC: given the CAF either 4+ if AV/DC1 or 5+ if DC2
FF: given the armament, 4+ if AV/DC1 or 5+ if DC2
Weapons: a battlecannon (same as the russ so 75cm AP4+/AT4+), the special rules for the chainsword would equate to some kind of MW in (bc)

So, depending on how we go with the type, either a DC1/AV:

Code:
Knight Paladin  WE  25cm  4+  4+  4+
Battle Cannon  75cm  AP4+/AT4+
Chainsword     (bc)  EA(+1), MW
Shock Lance    (bc)  EA(+1), FS
DC1, Knight Shield, Reinforced Armour, Walker


or for DC2:

Code:
Knight Paladin  WE  25cm  5+  5+  5+
Battle Cannon  75cm  AP4+/AT4+
Chainsword     (bc)  EA(+1), MW
Shock Lance    (bc)  EA(+1), FS
DC2, Knight Shield, Reinforced Armour, Walker


So let's compromise

People should weigh in on the DC, should it be an AV, DC1 or DC2?

On movement, I think 25cm works. It keeps the current stats (one less change) and everyone seems to agree upon it.

On the weapons, I'd rather stick with MW for the Chainsword. It will allow us to go to TK for the Errant's Powerfist as I think anything above that will be too scary. There's also nothing stopping people from converting a bigger chainsword arm and counting it as a TK weapon on the Errant.

For the Battlecannon, we've got three different takes, so the middle ground (just a regular battlecannon) is going to be the best compromise. The rapid-fire battlecannon can be saved for the Baron (maybe that tech isn't readily available at the Knight World this list is representing) as the current list as it as 2 shots, and so does SM/TL.

On the Heavy Stubbers, I think these can be filed under the Knights FF ability, same goes with the SM/TL bolters that were on the Paladin.

Finally, on the shock lance. I'd like to get it around even though it's gone from the current 40k rules. It used to be a 25cm shot right before an assault in SM/TL. I think a FF EA(+1), FS attack represents that well.

For CC, I think 4+ is fine for an AV/DC1 but too good for a 2DC WE. It's not twice as good as a Dreadnought in 40k. However, a EA(+1) MW at CC5+ isn't all that amazing. If we went DC2, what about just giving MW to all the CC dice, with no extra attacks? 2@CC5+, MW seems pretty scary to Marines.

And the same goes for FF. 4+ is pushing it for a 1DC/AV given it's armament in comparison to an EA Russ, at 2DC I think it's too much and FF5+ is a better fit.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2018-05-15


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World stats
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 8:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5375
Location: Bristol
75cm battle cannon seems to be the way to go. Twin linking it instead of two shots should be on the table as a compromise too; so 1 x 75cm AP3+/AT3+.

Stats-wise I'm strongly in the camp of it being an AV or 1DC WE, other stats seems fine.

I agree that the Errant should have a TK attack for it's power fist.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World stats
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:22 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Agreed with Glyn, and between AV and DC1 I'd prefer AV to keep parity with the other large walkers/vehicles.
My only concern about a 75cm AT3/AP3 Battlecannon is that it risks elevating the points of the unit too much, and I'd prefer the less powerful version if that is the case.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World stats
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 1222
Location: Westborough, Massachusetts USA
Given the points made on other threads about the size of the vehicles, I think DC2 is preferable. I also think it is the most efficient (i.e. fewer special rules) solution to small formation sizes that would be an inevitable part of any knight list.

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World stats
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:21 pm
Posts: 71
Location: Seattle, WA
After seeing Matt-shadowlord's breakdowns in the Tau Hammerhead thread, I went ahead and did something similar for the Paladins for myself.

I'm not sure what to make of it.

Basically, if you compare Paladins to other "heavily armored" units like Land Raiders (325 for 4 models) or half a Leman Russ company (650 for 10, so roughly 325 for 5), then 3 Knight Paladins using 5+RA and 2DC are roughly as survivable as either (the Leman Russ are tougher overall, but can be suppressed/broken more easily, the Land Raiders are basically almost identical defensively with ATSKNF). But both formations output way more firepower at range (more than 4x more for Russes, upto 3x more for Raiders, if everyone gets to fire everything). The Russes not only have more battlecannons, but Lascannons and double Heavy Bolters. The Raiders have, of course, double twin-Lascannons and Twin Heavy Bolter.

You can likewise compare to similar numbers of points of SM Dreads and Ork Stompas/MegaDreads. The comparison likewise not very kind to these Paladin stats. The Paladin suffers less in comparison for firepower, but more in durability, per point, compared to either, and only really clearly wins in speed.

People complain a lot about killing Leman Russes, but I rarely see any complaints about their offensive power, and Land Raiders had their points reduced to 325 because they just weren't viable above that. If we're looking at 3-4 Paladins in the 300 points range, depending on stats (my last proposal in the other thread was 325 for 3), we're coming up pretty short. Obviously the Paladin's superior CC ability during an Assault has to be factored, but I'm wondering if maybe including the Heavy Stubbers as actual ranged weapons and keeping 2 battlecannon shots isn't out of the question. Not even from a fluff/rules perspective, but strictly from a gameplay balance one. A formation of 3 with 2 shot battlecannons and some AP6 Heavy Stubbers would still have less overall output at most ranges than either 5 Leman Russes or 4 Land Raiders, and even at 2DC, 5+RA is not any harder to kill.

(If anyone wants to see the exact maths on the above, re: toughness and firepower, I can provide, but it's a lot more text for an already long post)

I'm wondering if we haven't lost the forest for the trees, strictly trying to keep up with the SM/TL, 1.3 or 1.4 stats and points.

Has anyone during their playtesting of the 1.3 or 1.4 lists found that Knights had "too much" or even "enough" firepower to really do anything reliable at range? How about the opposite? Did you have trouble getting enough firepower on units to soften them up before an assault?


Quote:
People should weigh in on the DC, should it be an AV, DC1 or DC2?


AV is definitely out, IMO. Paladins are big, tough, powerful and should not be barged and should be able to barge. They are tall and bulky and should block LOS. They should take more units to tie up in Assault and tie up more units in return. They should not lose access to the terrain types they currently have access to.

1DC with 4+RA and ATSKNF could be done, but in the end, I don't think it's any better a representation of how the Paladin should behave on the table top, and is worse in some ways. Paladins should be crit-able, for instance, and should have to fear Titan Killer weapons. Likewise, other models of similar size are mostly 2DC War Engines (Riptides, Trygons, Eldar Knights, etc), with the only real counterpoint being the Stompa, which is a bit odd (due to the change between SM/TL and modern 40k era, where a "Stompa" should really be 4DC, and the existing Epic unit which is really more MegaDread sized at 40k scale, at which point it does belong being an AV).

I now firmly prefer the 2DC 5+RA version. As much as my initial desire to not have to track separate damage counters made me kneejerk deny it, I think it's a better solution overall. It matches the background, 40k rules, and model sizes better, and allows more flexibility in other rules design areas, including not having to use ATSKNF/Might of the Omnissah if we don't want to.

Quote:
On movement, I think 25cm works. It keeps the current stats (one less change) and everyone seems to agree upon it.


25cm speed seems fine. It's fast, but Knights need to close if they want to bring their superior assault capabilities to bear. By 40k stats you can justify either 20 or 25cm, and based on my reasoning here, I think 25 is fairly reasonable.

Quote:
For the Battlecannon, we've got three different takes, so the middle ground (just a regular battlecannon) is going to be the best compromise. The rapid-fire battlecannon can be saved for the Baron (maybe that tech isn't readily available at the Knight World this list is representing) as the current list as it as 2 shots, and so does SM/TL.

On the Heavy Stubbers, I think these can be filed under the Knights FF ability, same goes with the SM/TL bolters that were on the Paladin.


See above for my potential concerns on offensive power. As I said, I'd like to make sure we're not so caught up in what came before that we make a unit that's not good on the battlefield. I think that regular battlecannon (75cm 4+/4+) alone and no stubbers makes this a very very weak option compared to its AV tank peers and even most AV Walkers. And that's not even getting into the relative offensive power of lighter armored but more mobile options like Falcons, Hammerheads, etc. or the fact that a Knight is supposed to fall between a Scout Titan and an armored vehicle on the scale of such things.

Quote:
Finally, on the shock lance. I'd like to get it around even though it's gone from the current 40k rules. It used to be a 15cm shot right before combat in SM/TL. I think a FF EA(+1), FS attack represents that well.


I'm fine with FF EA(+1) First Strike, especially if we go to FF5+ on 2DC. Mechanically it works. I'm a bit indifferent as my personal bias tends to be towards matching the new 40k rules, but I also think it's appropriate given the background. The other option is to do to it what is being proposed to the heavy stubbers. Just fold it into the general FF stat instead. Keep it at FF4+ for 2DC and label it 'Shock Lance (small arms)' in the stat line. People who love the old fluff will see and be happy, people who care about the new fluff won't see anything that affects the rules and will be equally happy.

Quote:
For CC, I think 4+ is fine for an AV/DC1 but too good for a 2DC WE. It's not twice as good as a Dreadnought in 40k. However, a EA(+1) MW at CC5+ isn't all that amazing. If we went DC2, what about just giving MW to all the CC dice, with no extra attacks? 2@CC5+, MW seems pretty scary to Marines.


For the close combat specs, I will say that in 40k with the Super Heavy Walker rules, a Paladin is much more than twice as good as a basic Dreadnought in close combat. It's got 50% more attack base to begin with, its weapons cause every hit to be at least instant penetrations (as opposed to needing to roll) and almost always extra Hull Point damage and instant explode/death results. As a SHW, it also gets a special Stomp attack which does d3 extra penetrating hits on vehicles or S6 AP4 templates on infantry units, plus a few other minor bonuses relative to the Dread. A regular Dreadnought on the charge would be quite lucky to destroy a Land Raider (as it can't do enough HP to kill it outright, it would need an explode result on the damage table, a 1 in 6 shot per penetrating hit) . A Paladin on the charge would expect to kill the Land Raider, fairly easily, and be a little shocked if it didn't (It would have to miss all 4 attacks, or roll a 1 on the Destroyer weapon table for every attack that did hit, otherwise the Land Raider is guaranteed to be exploded, and even if every hit rolled a 1 on the table, the followup stomp would still in theory finish off the remaining hull points). If a Paladin charged a squadron of non-superheavy vehicles in 40k, it could reasonably expect to kill 2 of them, and maybe even a third in a single melee phase.

If we do intend to stay the single shot or even twin-linked Battlecannon and no stubber course for firepower, then the Paladin really needs to be able to make that up in CC assault, otherwise it becomes a completely inferior unit to a Leman Russ or Land Raider in every way. This is a unit literally designed to carve up enemy War Engines. You already have to cross the table under fire, successfully Engage, and then make it in to base to base, and only then do you get to apply your tank-sized giant chainsword. If that's your only significant damage output, then you better make it count when you get there. 2DC@CC4+, MW would be the absolute minimum I'd want to see, or 2DC@CC4+ and an EA(+1) with TK(1). Errants could go up to d3 on their TK attack, to represent the gauntlet.

If we instead were to say Paladin's should be more firepower-oriented than CC, and increase ranged firepower on their battlecannons, so that assault was not a Paladin formations's only reliable damage output, then I could see scaling back to 2DC@CC5+, MW. But they need decent damage output in at least one area.

Quote:
And the same goes for FF. 4+ is pushing it for a 1DC/AV given it's armament in comparison to an EA Russ, at 2DC I think it's too much and FF5+ is a better fit.


If we go to FF5+, then the Stubbers should almost certain get a separate actual AP6 ranged attack and the Shock Lance should give that EA(+1), FS attack. If we keep the Stubbers and Shock Lance as just FF boosters and no extra attacks, then we can roll that all up and call it 4+.

In total, this is the initial proposal:

Code:
Knight Paladin  WE  25cm  5+  5+  5+
Battle Cannon  75cm  AP4+/AT4+
Chainsword     (bc)  MW
Shock Lance    (bc)  EA(+1), FS
DC2, Knight Shield, Reinforced Armour, Walker


Assuming we use the '4+ holofield-style save, no CC no Crossfire' for Knight sheild, you have a unit that is only slightly more durable overall than a Leman Russ or Ork Stompa and about the same as a Land Raider (2DC, but more vulnerable to crits, in crossfire, in cc, plus worse armor even when the shield usable and no ATSKNF), with less damage output per hull at range (half or less inside 45cm, 1/3rd or less inside 30cm), but a bit better in FF (3@5+ is about 2x as effective per hull as a Russ/Raider/Stompa 1@4+), with good but not amazing CC ability (About equal to Stompa 1@CC4+ and 1@CC4+MW).

I'd have trouble costing this much more than the 60 or 70 points that marks the area between a Russ and Raider/Stompa, and maybe even lower depending on if the rest of the list comes close to having cheap ranged fire power to balance this out.

If we're happy with a formation that functions mostly like heavy tanks and walkers and starts at something like 4 for 250 or 275, and scales up to the classic household of 7 for another 175 (425-450 total), then these stats are probably okay.

My personal bias is towards something where Knights are mini-Titans and not slightly bigger MBTs. We have several lists that do heavy AV units as their primary schtick. Ulani/Minervan and Scions of Iron in the Imperial space, and even Steel Legion can easily run this way. The AMTL list obviously focuses mostly on Battle Titans, with lots of DC and shields per unit. The Knightworld list offers the possibility of something in between those, which is fairly unique. And for that, these stats are not adequate, especially on the offensive side.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World stats
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11122
Location: Canton, CT, USA
Dave wrote:
or for DC2:
Code:
Knight Paladin  WE  25cm  5+  5+  5+
Battle Cannon  75cm  AP4+/AT4+
Chainsword     (bc)  EA(+1), MW
Shock Lance    (bc)  EA(+1), FS
DC2, Knight Shield, Reinforced Armour, Walker

I prefer these stats. DC2 eliminates a special rule. I like keeping things simple.

Quote:
On the weapons, I'd rather stick with MW for the Chainsword. It will allow us to go to TK for the Errant's Powerfist as I think anything above that will be too scary. There's also nothing stopping people from converting a bigger chainsword arm and counting it as a TK weapon on the Errant.

Agreed, keep Chainsword as MW.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World stats
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:59 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
I start to really like DaR and his reasonings :)

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World stats
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:28 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:55 pm
Posts: 200
Location: Harrisburg, PA
DaR wrote:
Has anyone during their playtesting of the 1.3 or 1.4 lists found that Knights had "too much" or even "enough" firepower to really do anything reliable at range? How about the opposite? Did you have trouble getting enough firepower on units to soften them up before an assault?


Dear. God. Part of the reason I've stayed with the 1.3 version instead of the 1.4 version was Paladins lost their "heavy bolter," and the difference between victory and crushing defeat against a larger infantry formation (orks, beefed up Black Legion) was often whether or not I could spend 1-2 turns softening them up with fire before making the Engage move.

DaR wrote:
I now firmly prefer the 2DC 5+RA version. As much as my initial desire to not have to track separate damage counters made me kneejerk deny it, I think it's a better solution overall. It matches the background, 40k rules, and model sizes better, and allows more flexibility in other rules design areas, including not having to use ATSKNF/Might of the Omnissah if we don't want to.


Amen.

DaR wrote:
See above for my potential concerns on offensive power. As I said, I'd like to make sure we're not so caught up in what came before that we make a unit that's not good on the battlefield. I think that regular battlecannon (75cm 4+/4+) alone and no stubbers makes this a very very weak option compared to its AV tank peers and even most AV Walkers. And that's not even getting into the relative offensive power of lighter armored but more mobile options like Falcons, Hammerheads, etc. or the fact that a Knight is supposed to fall between a Scout Titan and an armored vehicle on the scale of such things.


That build-out actually makes it into something closer to a Super-Ragnarok tank, come to think of it. The 75cm battle cannon alone offers significantly more opportunities to prep units from turn one. That said, I'm not worried about longer range encouraging "stand-off" gameplay; you'd be wasting a Knight's potential just using the battle cannon.

As for the heavy stubbers... I'm not convinced 2x AP6+ is going to be all that effective, especially when the Knight is likely to be Doubling for maneuver purposes.

DaR wrote:
I'm fine with FF EA(+1) First Strike, especially if we go to FF5+ on 2DC. Mechanically it works. I'm a bit indifferent as my personal bias tends to be towards matching the new 40k rules, but I also think it's appropriate given the background.


I'm one of the older-school fans and would love to keep the Shock Lance just for the oddball coolness factor of having a Knight Cyclops-zap targets when charging.

DaR wrote:
2DC@CC4+, MW would be the absolute minimum I'd want to see, or 2DC@CC4+ and an EA(+1) with TK(1). Errants could go up to d3 on their TK attack, to represent the gauntlet.


+1 to this. I'd like to see 2DC@CC4+ (or 5+) MW. In my experience, the chainblades and power gauntlets do all the heavy lifting when it comes to getting your points' worth of your Knights. It also represents the Knight driver using the chainblade as a combat weapon rather than kicking at infantry, kicking at infantry, and oh yeah, swinging a massive tank-sized chainblade almost as an afterthought.

Also, going MW on the basic attacks means we could differentiate between Paladins/Errants with MW CC, and Lancers/Barons with MW FF. Presumably Castellan/Crusader/Wardens would run default "stompy" attacks without MW.

As for pricing, I'm going to forgo commenting on that and leave that for people with better spreadsheets already set up for the task.

_________________
My General Modelling Blog: http://armiger84.blogspot.com/

My Battlefleet Gothic Project Log: http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5318.0


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World stats
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 5:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5375
Location: Bristol
Existing equivalently sized units like the Ork Stompa and the Slaanesh Knights are just AV though. There were 3 types of Slaanesh Knight abstracted into one unit profile and though one is relatively small the other two are equivalent in size to the Imperial Knights. These units are definitely not going to be changing from being AVs in the Ork, Black Legion or LaTD lists (ask the relevant army champions if you doubt this, they will confirm this) so for consistencies sake the Imperial Knight should stay AV too. There's a distinct power creep going on to here to follow the detail of the latest 40k rules and it isn't needed. 5+ Reinforced is in a similar ballpark of toughness to 4+ Reinforced but the latter is simpler and less hassle to track

4+ Reinforced is very tough in epic terms (an Epic Land Raider is considerably tougher relative to a Predator than a 40k Land Raider is to a Predator), so with that and a shield knights can be plenty tough enough. The Slaanesh Knights are similar sized and yet only have 4+ and an an invulnerable save, no reinforced. Abstraction and what works best for epic is more important than slavishly following the detail of the 40k rules. Malcadors are a good example: they are 2DC WE in 40k but have been translated to be a 4+ Reinforced AV rather than a 2DC 5+ Reinforced WE, as units of lots of 2DC WE simply don't work well in epic.

With 2DC there would be considerable extra book keeping, gaming damage by moving damaged knights to the back and time and hassle in-game of frequently having to check if individual WE knights can see and be seen past other knights. This isn't an issue with other armies or where they only have several WE but would be annoying with an army of 30-40 of them. It goes against the simple abstract approach epic should take and honestly would put me off wanting to play with the army.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World stats
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:21 pm
Posts: 71
Location: Seattle, WA
As pointed out in other threads, for every precedent that's an AV, there are precedents that are DC2 War Engines. Slaanesh Knights? Same size, AV. Eldar Knights? Same size, DC2. Stompas? Same size, AV. Riptides? Same size (maybe slightly smaller), DC2.

It's not even strictly the walkers. You mentioned the Malcador? Yeah, it's an AV. But the Macharius? Same size as a Malcador, but it's a DC2 War Engine. Both are 2 Structure Points super heavies in IA, one is AV, one is DC2. The Malcador is only in one Developmental list though, while the Macharius does appear in multiple lists as a DC2 War Engine, including the already Approved Death Krieg list. Having looked these up to confirm, I will come back to the Macharius in my next post, because I realized it's very interesting in light of another comparison that was made.

So the AV/WE divide is clearly not consistent, and thus up to the specific needs of the army and the list writer to decide. We have the legitimate option to go either way without it being any sort of power creep on one off inconsistency.

As far as LOS goes, I guess I just don't see this as a big deal. The Knightworld list has always had DC1 War Engines, going back to at least E&C's original 1.02 list and I don't really recall anyone complaining about that aspect of the list in the past 6 years (admittedly, I haven't looked terribly hard). Nor have I seen this complained about in the Tyranid lists, where it's possible to have formations with 5 plus War Engines, and worse, inter-mixed with non-WE infantry and AV classed units. I personally never had LOS to multiple war engines be a significant hassle in any of the games I've played (including of Eldar Engines of Vaul and a fair number of IG Super Heavy platoons in some test games where I had 12+ Baneblades out). At least 9 times out of 10 it's immediately obvious, maybe more. If we were doing formations of 7 as the default, I might think it an issue, but if we do 3 or 4? Not really.

I will grant you there's some extra book keeping associated with DC2 over DC1. I don't like that (and have said as much). I would not say it's considerable, though. At DC2, you're either fine, damaged or dead, no need to actually track multiple wounds with dice or dial counters or even multiple tokens or the like. It's a pain, but I don't think it's any more of a pain than having to do math for ATSKNF every time I need to figure out if the unit is broken or how many models are suppressed or how many blast markers I'm removing in a rally. Or any less abstract than having army-wide special rules to allow the Knights to barge and not be barged (one of the major reasons why knights have historically been DC1 War Engines, and not AV).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World stats
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:56 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3323
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
I agree with DC2 WE.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World stats
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:07 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:21 pm
Posts: 71
Location: Seattle, WA
GlynG's mention of the Malcador made me look up the stats for the Macharius in the Krieg list to ensure I remembered right that it was DC2.

While looking at it, I realized that it actually is very similar mechanically to what I personally would like out of a Paladin.

To recap for those who haven't the stats on hand:

Code:
Macharius   WE   15cm   4+   6+   4+
2x Battlecannon   75cm   AP4+/AT4+
2x Heavy Bolter   30cm   AP5+
Twin Heavy Stubber   30cm   AP5+
DC2, Reinforced Armor


So, compared to the versions of the Paladin I originally proposed, the Macharius is more heavily armored (4+ vs 5+, both Reinforced, which makes the Macharius tougher against normal weapons even if the shield can be used, and much tougher if it can't), but lacks the Knight Shield (and thus is weaker against TK attacks, if the Paladin's Shield can be used). The Macharius has more and better secondary armaments, but is slower and lacks the CC capabilities. Given other suggestions in this thread, I'll offer a slightly tweaked version of my last proposal, which I hearby dub, 'Macharius-style Paladin'. It takes the FF5+ suggestion, along with removing TK and any EA for CC in favor of just basic MW on all CC attacks, but remains CC4+ due to several people's notes that a Paladin's value is often its CC assault capability.

Code:
Macharius-Style Paladin   WE   25cm   5+   4+   5+
Rapid Fire Battlecannon   75cm   2xAP4+/AT4+
2x Heavy Stubber   30cm   AP6+
Reaper Chainsword   (base)   MW
Shock Lance   (15cm)   EA(+1) First Strike
DC2, Reinforced Armor, Knight Shield, Walker


That gives us equivalent total FF to the Macharius (3x5+ attacks, vs 2x4+, with the Macharius-Paladin getting 1 at First Strike). Total CC is 2 MW4+ attacks, which is still pretty strong and leaves room for the Errant's TK gauntlet, again per Dave's suggestion. The Macharius tank gets better long ranged firepower and better armor in most circumstances, offsetting the 2 good CC attacks and extra 10cm of speed. So the Macharius-Paladin should be right around the same points as a Macharius.

The Macharius comes in formations of 3 for 350 points, including an upgunned command variant. 3 baseline tanks for 325 would probably be reasonable. So the Macharius-Paladin would also be around 3 for 325, maybe pushing up to 350 or down to 300 depending on how you value the armor versus speed and ranged firepower vs CC capabilities.

Further upthread, Armiger84 mentioned that the Proposed version looked sort of like a "Super Ragnarok", which I thought was rather apt. This is the stat block for a Ragnarok from the Baran list.

Code:
Ragnarok Heavy Tank   AV   15cm   4+   6+   4+
Ragnarok Battlecannon 60cm AP4+/AT4+
2x Heavy Stubber 30cm AP6+
Reinforced Armour, Walker


This compares fairly well to the AV/DC1 version of the initial Proposal Dave has floated, in much the same way the Macharius does to the my version. Here's how the AV version of the "Super Ragnarok Paladin" would look, as I understand it, with the modification of going to FF and CC 5+, both of which Dave indicated were possibilities, due to the EA given by the chainsword and shock lance.

Code:
Super Ragnarok Paladin  AV 25cm  4+  5+  5+
Battle Cannon  75cm  AP4+/AT4+
Chainsword     (bc)  EA(+1), MW
Shock Lance    (bc)  EA(+1), FS
Reinforced Armour, Walker, Knight Shield


Unlike the the Macharius comparison, they have exactly the same basic toughness, barring the Knight Shield, which only matters against TK hits. A Rag has 2 extra secondary guns, but is slower, and has less Assault capability. Still, it's a pretty close comparison. Close enough that Super Ragnarok Paladins ought to be similar in price, maybe plus a few points, since unlike the Macharius version comparison, these two have exactly the same armor and the fairly weak guns don't fully offset the speed plus assault capability.

Ragnaroks come in formations of 6 for 300 points. That would mean a Super Ragnarok Paladin should be around 6 for 325.

In actuality, I'd probably actually suggest 7 Super Ragnarok Paladins (a full household) for 375, or starting from 4 for 250 and adding extras at 50 each, but 6 makes for a very nice comparison of formations

Conveniently, it looks like our two formations are both around 325 points, plus or minus 25. Also conveniently, 6 individual AV/DC1 vehicles is roughly equal to 3 DC2 War Engines (slightly in favor of the AV/DC1, due to crits), though the 4+RA on the Super Ragnaroks make them slightly tougher in most situations. Both formations output 6 battlecannon shots, and while the Macharius-Paladins get a few heavy stubber hits, it's not terribly many at 7+ when doubling, as pointed out.

By virtue of their EA, the Super Ragnaroks will actually be a bit superior in CC assaults, rolling 12 dice at 5+ to the 6 at 4+ for the Macharius-Paladins. However, the Macharius-Paladins will score slightly more total MW hits, if fewer overall. FF assaults are similarly slightly lopsided, as the Super Ragnaroks muster 6 First Strike, then 6 Normal attacks at 5+, while the Macharius-Paladins offer 3 First Strike and 6 Normal all at 5+.

Not an exact match, but all in all close enough.

This lead me to the very interesting question of:

"Would you rather play an army that fields Macharius as its mainline unit, or one that fields Ragnaroks as its mainline unit?"

That's really the quintessential boiling down of most of the debate right there. Should Knights be a force that's fairly small and elite, more like a miniature version of the the Titan Legions with 15-25 Knights as the backbone of the force, or should it operate more like a wave of fairly standard main battle tanks, such as the Minervans or Steel Legion, with potentially 40 or more knights?

I can live with either, but obviously (by now), my personal preference would be a Macharius-Paladin style list over a Super Ragnarok Paladin centered list. I can more or less get the latter in a Steel Legion or Minervan list, while almost no other list offers the option of the sort of unit composition that the former gives.

edited to fix stat block for Macharius-Paladin to be 5+ basic armor, not 4+


Last edited by DaR on Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World stats
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:12 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5733
Location: UK
I prefer AV knights. RA4+ with shield rules is still hard to kill.

However, based on points people raised in other thread, if we went for DC knights I would now prefer to see DC2 over DC1 WE.

I agree the basic knight should not have TK, regardless of 40k stats! saving it for variants give more options for diversity between the types.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World stats
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:22 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1486
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Dwarf Supreme wrote:
I prefer these stats. DC2 eliminates a special rule. I like keeping things simple.

Agree completly.

DaR wrote:
Code:
Macharius-Style Paladin   WE   25cm   4+   4+   5+
Rapid Fire Battlecannon   75cm   2xAP4+/AT4+
2x Heavy Stubber   30cm   AP6+
Reaper Chainsword   (base)   MW
Shock Lance   (15cm)   EA(+1) First Strike
DC2, Reinforced Armor, Knight Shield, Walker


I think the above stats are a nice start, except for the save I would rather see a 5+ save. I agree with DaR that just a regular battlecannon leaves the palladin kind of weak. I prefer the above stats or at least 3+/3+ for the battlecannon.

Apoc wrote:
I agree the basic knight should not have TK, regardless of 40k stats! saving it for variants give more options for diversity between the types.

Quote:
On the weapons, I'd rather stick with MW for the Chainsword. It will allow us to go to TK for the Errant's Powerfist as I think anything above that will be too scary. There's also nothing stopping people from converting a bigger chainsword arm and counting it as a TK weapon on the Errant.

Agreed, keep Chainsword as MW.

DaR wrote:
That's really the quintessential boiling down of most of the debate right there. Should Knights be a force that's fairly small and elite, more like a miniature version of the the Titan Legions with 15-25 Knights as the backbone of the force, or should it operate more like a wave of fairly standard main battle tanks, such as the Minervans or Steel Legion, with potentially 40 or more knights?

A very acute description of the issue at hand. I'd much prefer to play (with/against) the former.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World stats
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:35 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:21 pm
Posts: 71
Location: Seattle, WA
Borka wrote:
I think the above stats are a nice start, except for the save I would rather see a 5+ save. I agree with DaR that just a regular battlecannon leaves the palladin kind of weak. I prefer the above stats or at least 3+/3+ for the battlecannon.


Whoops. I had meant to reduce it 5+ in that block, as I mentioned the offsetting of costs with that.

I'll edit the original so others aren't confused.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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