BlackLegion wrote:
You got the AP and AT values on the Armiger Sentinels Multilaser backwards. It should be AP5+/AT6+ not AP6+/AT5+.
But nice that you go for the CC Sentinel idea
Can't really take a lot of credit for the CC Sentinel. Dave Susco's Deathworld Sentinels were the primary inspiration. And yeah, the switched AP/AT values are my fault. Cut and paste from the Ballista Cannon, and a "that looks right" without proper checking, and you get errors.
I'll probably change the CC weapon to a form of combat claw, rather than the current Chainsword, purely for fluff reasons. No statistical changes however. The Armiger name was a late change, due to the initial Squire Sentinel being problematic with Squires and Aspirants using the same vehicle, and the last incarnation (Knight Sentinel) being problematic with regards the rest of the naming conventions. By making it a claw/fist/etc, it fits the name Armiger much better (Squires assisting their lords with their armour).
dptdexys wrote:
The Paladins Autocannon has AP4+/AT6+, aren't they supposed to be AP5+/AT6+.
Still cannot believe the recoil dampener is being used as an autocannon (it was added as Dysartes was mistakenly told it was a weapon when he took over as AMTL champion), surely the Paladin doesn't need the extra shooting to balance.
This one isn't so much my error, as it is Ben's
. I copied and pasted from the proto V1.03, and that has it at AP4+/AT6+. The correct weaponry is correctly AP5+/AT6+. Both that and the Sentinel weapon will be corrected soon.
semajnollissor wrote:
I think the idea was that without the extra gun, the paladin was clearly inferior to the errants and lancers, which is bad because they all cost the same points.
Now it looks like the lancer may be the odd man out, as it has one less shooting attack than the paladin but has 10cm faster move. That may be a fair trade, I can't really tell.
Generally, though, each of the main knight types ought to have a clear role - it seems like the lancer and errant overlap in this case, and the errant has the advantage when it comes to weapon loads.
I think one knight ought to be better at shooting [paladin], one better at FF, and one better at CC. I just know that if they are all going to have the same point cost, the CC knight will have to have some awesome CC ability to overcome the inherrent FF advantage.
Regarding the Paladin weapon, it was left due to wanting to keep a more active ranged shot Knight. The big problem seems to be the diversity of models claimed to be "Knight Paladin" and "Knight Lancer". Balance, and relative merit, are what the playtesting will determine. As it stands, I'm still not sold on the Paladins being versatile enough. Lancers do the job IMO a lot better (double for a shot, engage for the kill). Paladins need to make base contact to be as good. Errants are another ball of wax.
They do do the roles listed when the CC and FF are taken into account, FF for the Lancer, CC for the Errant. I'm just not sure it's enough. I'm looking to be playing a lot with these and Paladins. Balancing these 3 against each other for selection purposes is one of my primary goals.
Mc Haggis wrote:
I don't think many people, if infact any, are going to feel like talking a unit of 9 knights, the current upgrade system for them feels a bit weird.
Lancers still trump Errants due to Errants strange weapon loadout.
The autocannon on the Paladins needs to be replaced with two heavy bolters, I think we should put this to a vote if it's contentious.
The ballista cannon on the Warden neesd to be merged with their multilasers, i don't feel like hunting down any rare oop models and hacking them apart to add a AA gun on their heads.
The upgrade system is more about allowing the mixing of various types, without making it purely cut and paste. My standard formations in 1.02 were 3 Lancers + 3 Errants. That's still permissible under this list. I just wanted to avoid the micromanagement aspect like currently happens in the Tau Recon formation. Keeping it to a fixed 3 on the upgrade made that less of a factor.
The Autocannon vs 2 Heavy Bolters, I just noticed in the older stats. I'll take it under advisement, but I'm not sure if it's a lateral shift or a vertical one. If it doesn't make them worse, I'll seriously consider the change.
As for the Warden Ballista Cannon, one reason for the addition of that variant was because there were three older Warden class miniatures. Personally, I thing the fatboy cannon version makes a decent Ballista Cannon variant. Tracked one being the BattleCannon one, and the fatboy rocket one being the Frag Launcher. Even if it were merged with the multilasers, then what do you do with the big ass cannon or rocket launcher it's already got? But the main reason was because it was a role I personally felt needed filling, and not fielding it doesn't take away anything from the list (the static AA and air allies are still available).
Personally, I don't own any official Warden miniatures, so I'd be looking at proxies myself. Anyone know of any?
Morgan Vening
- Knightworld Sub-Champion
.
