Hi!

First at all, thanks for the job Matt!

Some comments and ideas to follow.

Gorgons: ok

Infantry: I do not agree 100%. Reducing the CC value is fine, but when you try to compare them agains the regular IG infantry…I have made a spreadsheet comparing the cost to get impacts in CC, FF and shooting:


Hit points means units really in this case and "P to CC" means "points needed to get 1 impact in CC"…the same for the rest (the number is the range).

So, clearly, DKOK Inf is much cheaper for engagements, but are extremely expensive for shooting (as wanted really). My point is that being cheap in engagements is fine as far as they are able to engage…which being infantry, without save…is quite difficult. It is only in combination with the Gorgons when they become overpowered in my opinion.

Also, consider that the shooting part, IMO, more than killing allows you to BM the enemies to prepare for assaults.

So I think a point drop would not inbalance the army if it is compensated with an even higher increase at the Gorgons (which again are the ones making them really good).

Death Rider: I would also keep them as core to allow more flexibility.

Grenadiers: if they are to be core then they should be limited in number (1 each 1.500 or similar). Although I think they are better as support.
It is funny that is you compare the Grenadiers with the regular Storm Trooper they are almost identical and indeed the Storm Trooper are cheaper:



Again…is the Gorgon the only difference making them so good?

Engineers:
I have made the same comparision, but this time comparing Engineers and Grenadiers:



IMO the Engineers will not be selected for the army much…in addition to being more expensive at shooting (although with 15 cm more in range) they lose Scout in exchange of Tunneler (which limit the use mainly to turn 3 and 4).
Either we think on something different for the Engineers or they will not fight much I am afraid…:(
Improving their CC stats and giving them MW at very short range (15)?

Mortars: with 30 cm they seemed to me very useful (although only in 1 game). I supose 45 will be also fine, but 30 cm "forces" you to keep moving them to the centre to shoot properly.

Quad Launchers: I imagine this launchers as massive numbers rockets hitting the enemy. Probably they will cause more a distraction than real damage…maybe making them AP5+ but with Disrupt? It will be a different weapon I think with a very different role in the army.

Macharius: I have also compared them, this time against Leman Russ



They seem better than Leman Russ except in AT shoots. Why do you think they are a worse choice?

Medusa: if I read correctly they are now 60 cm, Disrupt, 1 BP vs MW4+. Am I right? Or have I been reading the old list wrong?

I will try to play some games.


Thanks for the effort!

_________________
Gwydion

Why changing the mortars and Quad Launchers/Thudd guns?? they already have consolidated stats in Epic (mortars: 30cm IF, and Thudds: 45cm AP4+/AT6+ IF )

_________________
Epic Armageddon in Spanish (from Spain): http://www.box.net/shared/3u5vr8a370

Konig Armoured Regiment FanList: https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 41#p581941

Hi,

@lord-bruno: I would leave the mortars as they, no problem. The Quad Launchers...the point I think is that for the same value they dont seem very attractive...but maybe there are other uses that I am not considering.

_________________
Gwydion

A revision is coming soon, which will disallow that upgrade. At the moment this change means removing the option to add a 3rd gorgon to a formation, but not the option to add 10 additional infantry stands.



Hi Glynn, thanks for your input. Artillery will go back in, as can Hellhounds. As uncompetitive options I mainly wanted to see if there was anyone who actually wanted them; there's no reason to remove them apart from the fact some people were asking why DKOK have so many options, and they are sort of duds in the list. If people have models and want to use them they are welcome to, since options like this don't actually contribute much to a list's power level.

Riders are going back into Core as several posters have requested. As the Rider version without scout is one of the lesser used options I don't think that increasing its cost would boost its popularity, even if it did improve it slightly. I am firmly of the opinion this is one time Maths don't show the full picture, because a 12 strong formation is less likely to use CC in all attacks, and certainly less likely to use CC in all attacks after first strike casualties are removed.
In other words, a 12 formation with FS and EA at 325 would be less appealing than a 12 strong formation with just FS at 250.
(And neither are anywhere near as appealing as two 6 strong formations with scout).
Would you agree?



I'd rather have them use Trojans (a similar transport from the same list which already has 20cm move) than add an additional special rule, or simply leave it as is. I can see your point but we don't stop empty deathstrikes chugging across the board to take an objective just because it's not thematic to 40k



Thanks for your input and showing your maths Gwydion. Quick question -did you do your calcuations assuming 21 stands in an Kreig formation, rather than 19+1 commander?

Thanks. Expect an updated file soon.

Hi Matt, yes, you are right...I added one more, sorry. I will correct them and repost the numbers.

Thanks

_________________
Gwydion

Keen for the update, sounds like some good ideas going around. Doing the Emperor's work Matt.

This thread has gotten me excited again to paint the army I've purchased! Good to see it going forward!

Your proposed changes seem in the right direction, but would like to add some thoughts even though I'm only an owner of the army and not yet a player of it.



I agree with Onyx on this. The trojans should have a cost. They're a big boost with their three extra "wounds". I would price them at 25 pts at least.

For ex earthshaker platforms with gun emplacements could be 175 pts. + option Exchange emplacements for trojans at + 25 pts.


I dislike the big difference between Deathriders and regular guard rough riders when it comes to CC attack. From the fluff I get a feeling they should probably be better than regular rough riders. If the (EA +1) like steel legion riders is to good then perhaps give them CC 3+ instead? Not all that important really and probably a disliked option and probably not worth extra playtesting needed though. It just annoys me.

Please lower cost of Machariuses as requested by others as well. They could probably use it.

How far are we off a revision?

_________________
Epic hobby blog
http://fuddshobby.blogspot.com.au/
https://www.facebook.com/FuddsEpicHobby/

I made a battle report using this version of the list last week. Matts updatting of the revision list seems good. I like the idea of Death Riders at 300pts but statted as rough riders. My concern after the battle report is mainly the Silo.

The battle report: viewtopic.php?f=84&t=29544

My thinking on the list going by that battle:

Analysis:
The Battle was primarily played to test the experimental new DKOK list which I think changes a bit too much.

1. First the Deathstrike silo – It almost won the battle single handedly for the DKOK this time killing the Revenants before they could even act. In this battle the elder could do nothing to prevent it. But normally the Eldar would have won initiative but still been really hard pressed to break, to say nothing of kill, the Silo. I think that the big problem might not the armour but DC 3. If dropped to DC 2 most armies could supress it with artillery and air by retaining when they win initiative.

More importantly I really think that either “slow firing” or “fires one missle per turn” is totally necessary, everyone knows that Deathstrikes can win battles and in such a hard package the opponent needs a couple of turn to have a reasonable chance to lessen the damage they take from it.

2. I definitely think that Death riders should go up in price and be able to fire fight and get a normal CC attack (and go up in cost but maybe just to 300). Primarily because it´s silly to have different statlines on the same models in different lists. But also since they really should be able to (fluff-wise with laspistols and lots of special weapons). In this battle they couldn’t do much of anything at all because the opponent had the majority of the army in silly skimmers skimmering about.

3. The crit on Gorgons. I don´t really like the new crit since it makes the troops less likely to remain in their super heavy transports (they almost never will in fact and didn´t in this battle). But I guess that’s a general problem with all transports in Epic (and why air assaults are so very much better –marching isn’t an option). I would even consider immobilised + 1 extra DC in damage a more interesting crit.

Also those wratih troops are zogging rock hard to crack! (The rest of the eldars are squishy though)

Not far at all, it's due soon.

Deathstrike x2 as others have said is to much, even if single shot. I echo as others have said

Feel the best is either DC 2 single per turn, or DC3 slow firing. Personal preference for slow firing. Unless well protected, it will only get a total of 2 shots off a game, maybe 3 if for some reason it was left alone.

Hey Guys! I just came across this thread. I've been playing NetEpic for a few years now and JUST started playing a DKoK army. I'm loving them, still feeling them out for sure. I had no idea they were such a controversial army... I personally haven't seen them as cheesy or overpowered, maybe I'm not playing them right

My typical list has been...

-Mech HQ
.Gorgons w/ mortars
.Tank Squadron (3 Leman Russ)

-Infantry Co. (garrison in trenches)
.Fire support

-Death Riders Co.

-Death Riders Scouts

-Light Support (mortars w/ centaurs)

-Shadowsword

-Shadowsword

-3 Bombards

-Deathstrike Silo

-Trenches

-Thunderbolts

-Marauder

I've been playing a lot of friendly games against LaTD, Orks and Necrons and am playing them through a league with a bigger mix of armies. My two cents so far...

I find in about 50% of my games I never get to use my Gorgon Siege Mortars because I'm too busy moving up the unit and assaulting. If people have issues with them...maybe limit them instead of upping their price? Maybe only every other unit of infantry can be in gorgons? DKoK should be forward in trenches anyways! right?

I have no issues with 30cm heavy mortars, its a nice deterrent/area denial range.

Macharious tanks seem fine as is, theyre in about half of my lists and they always do great.

I think a single shot silo would be useless. As is it shoots slow, and mine has died in every assault its ever been in. At least regular IG can take both shots turn 1..

I like the CC5+, it seems fluffy and a fair compromise for the complete lack of shooting. I often find myself missing my Steel Legion auto canons

NEW REVISION: V1.1

Synopsis of Changes:

Core:
There have been Six changes to the Gorgon formations so far. It might sound a lot, but changes to this core unit are at the heart of the list revision, and the main reason this list is being reworked.
1) Gorgons upgrade price increased by 50pts.
2) Gorgon Siege Mortars price increased by 50pts.
3) Gorgon Critical Hit made harsher: "The Gorgon is Immobilised and D6 infantry inside the Gorgon take a hit."
4) The Infantry carried have been reduced from CC5+ to CC6+
5) The Fire Support upgrade has been reduced from CC5+ to CC6+
6) The 'May Have A Gorgon' option has been removed from the Infantry Company Upgrade; it is no longer possible to upgrade to a 30 infantry 3 Gorgon mega-formation.



Death Riders

Death Rider Company back in Core. No longer 0-1 per 1500pts.
1) The 0-1 unnecessary restriction is removed (1 per 3000pt was rarely seen),
2) DR are more appealing now that other core formations are more expensive, less good in CC, have worse crits and cost more to turn into a shooting formation.
3) The DR change from FF6 to FF5.
Notes: As they are an iconic Krieg formation, I gave a lot of thought to how to get the Death Riders to be more internally competitive and a better option without becoming over powered. For a bit of background, they were added to this list at a time people were considering Rough Riders changing from Extra Attack FS to just FS, and unlike the other Guard armies they never got their normal attack back (in other words, they have half the CC attacks of any other Rough Rider),

After reading some of the Krieg source material about how they were armed with Special Weapons, I decided rather than just give them the additional normal attack, I'd like to try them with 'Special Weapons' in their profile. This means small arms rather than a ranged attack, but at 5+ instead of 6+.
The formation may increase from 250 to 275, but in the meantime I hope to see them playtested. Note however they have half the attacks of other RR and the core formation loses the Scout rule, so 250 might turn out to be appropriate. I'd love to see people field large amounts of Death Riders - they may die fast but they're such a great fun unit.
"There is no more stirring sight in war than the charge of massed cavalry'


Support:

Grenadiers moved back from Core to Support.

Engineer Formation price reduced to 250pts in hopes it will now be occasionally used.

Macharius Tank Formation - Reduced from 350 to 300 to make it competitive with a six Leman Russ formation. This might end up at 325. Upgrade option to add a Macharius reduced from 125 to 100 for the same reason.

Quad launchers / Heavy Mortars: Range reduced back to 30cm. Price changed from 200 to 175 in hopes of making them a competitive option through cost instead of range improvement.

Death Strike
Big changes here, again because this is a unit I believe requires it.
1) Armour regains Reinforced, because
2) Damage Capacity drops from 3 to 2. This is a big deal when it comes to breaking a formation, and its breakability is likely to have even more of an impact than the fact it is now easier to kill than previously.
3) FF drops from 4+ to 5+ (this might actually not be necessary now because DC2 means it lost an attack already)
4) Weapons change:
[] 2x Death Strike Missiles (rather than 1)
[] Single Shot (rather than Slow Firing)
[] Special Rule: "T-minus five minutes to launch...and counting": Deathstrike Missiles are Single Shot, and the Deathstrike Silo may never fire more than one missile in turn 1.
Notes: The idea here is a Death Strike launcher that is much easier to break than the old Krieg one. The Special Rule is inspired by the Death Strike in 40k, and makes this deliver much less of a turn 1 punch than Steel Legion equivalent as part of the payment for it being more resilient (the rest of the payment being its immobility and predictable deployment).
The thematic sounding "T-minus five minutes to launch...and counting" rule basically means even if the opponent is unable to break it (now requiring only 2BM), it can only launch a single missile in turn 1.
Should the opponent manage to break it, and even keep it broken in turn 2, if it does manage to regroup in turn 3 it can fire them both just as a normal Death Strike formation would. I think that is a good balance of pros and cons, and could make for a more exciting game.


And that's where the list is now - frankly I'm a lot happier with it.

As always, comments, constructive criticism and PLAYTESTS are welcome. Thanks!

Seems like mostly good changes, but...

I'd rather see the cavalry become better in CC than shooting (FF). From knowing the importance of FF in epic, then your suggestion probably makes them more competitive though.

It seems to me rather unessesary to come up with a new rule for the silos firing. When slow firing is equally fitting from a fluff perspective. If not more actually, rearming a big silos launch pad should take a lot of time.