Vaaish wrote:
Ok, so further thoughts:
Nobles: This is a weird formation. 5 knights is pretty heavy. I'd go with the standard 3 and allow upgrades to add the schenshal and additional knights. It's also potentially very unbalanced as I don't think every configuration is of equal value. I'd start with a base (paladin) and then allow additional knights to be added and individuals to be upgraded to alternate loadouts for an appropriate cost.
Nobles are 4 in a formation. The Seneschal is a character upgrade. Think 4 makes them a bit beefier, and giving them a character makes up for lack of flexibility.
I'd rather make changes so that the configurations are of (roughly) equal value than mess around with small differences in points. And in modern fluff, they're all just configurations of a single platform, so making the Paladin standard isn't really motivated anyway.
Vaaish wrote:
Armiger: FYI we 're renaming the AMTL forge knights to this with no stat change. Just keep that in mind.
Sounds a bit odd to rename the forge knight to something it isn't? Why create a conflict with current GW stuff?
Vaaish wrote:
Cerastus: This has the same issue as the Nobles. Castigators and Ascherons are probably worth more than lancers.
Yeah, the Lancer might be worth less as is. Might make the shield even better.
Vaaish wrote:
Skitarii: doesn't match the current Skitarii formation, probably should. Knights probably wouldn't have access to skitarii on their own.
According to House Raven fluff, they're extremely close to Mechanicus. So I think this way of including them works. Swapping the Gorgon for a Tiraros might work, looks pretty cool. Can make them the same as Skitarii.
Quote:
Avengers: stats don't match Skitarii list.
Thought they did? I'll check it again.
Quote:
Ark Mechanicus: Knights probably wouldn't have access to this.
Yeah, you might be correct. Not the most important formation in the list, might as well drop it completely.