I'm just going to go in a higly summarised form here, because there's a lot of posts to get through, and it's going to be wall-of-text enough as it is.
Quote:
GlynG - Various class speed issues.
The original designs were only supposed to be 5cm difference (Lancers and Baron 25cm, Errant and Paladin 20cm). That converts to 30cm and 25cm respectively at the NetEA level. I could probably change those without too much difficulty, and I'm definatly considering a bump in speed to the Baron and Paladins. The two tend to only be seen in the same way as Tactical Marines + Supreme Commander in a Marine list. The issue I have with the Errants, is based on performance. I'll discuss this in the next bit.
Quote:
GlynG - Errants role change from Titan Hunter specialist to CC specialist.
This was a change I inherited, and I was kinda hoping E&C would have chimed it. The original Errants were released in a ruleset based on, if not reliant on, Titan Class WarEngines. So not having a formation that could contend with them would have been the gaming equivalent of malpractice. I can't speak for those who changed them (Dysartes and E&C), but I do think that a change to a more generalised CC formation was a good one. Errants aren't the only formation to have changed conceptually across the range, as the former Titan-dominated game has changed into the game now known as Epic Armageddon.
The changes you suggested would be problematic (with the FF needing a special rule), and I respectfully disagree that they would stay even close to compatible, costwise. As it stands, taking Errants is borderline, the benefits of FF being so much more useful than CC, that making the Errants slower, especially much slower, would require a significant change in cost and/or ability. That's not to say I'm locked in on this, but when playing around with the core units, you've got to be careful not to put fluff over balance. I still might up the Power Fist to Tank Killer if I drop the speed to 25cm, but I'm not sure that's a good enough tradeoff. As Muppet points out, the difference between 30cm and 25cm isn't a small matter. Countercharge and inability to make base contact, could be severe issues.
I'd like people's opinions on how Errants have fared as they are now, and whether replacing them with Lancers would have been a better option.
Quote:
GlynG - Typographical error in Knight Shield
Will be fixed.
Quote:
dptdexys - Indomitable syntax issues.
Yes, it should be reworded. Probably better to use "Assault" or "when resolving 1.12.8 Loser Withdraws", as an Engage Action could perhaps be interpreted incorrectly. The reason for the wording was making sure I had uniformity with the existing wording of the rule. I'll get on consolidating this.
It should probably categorically state what happens if a broken Indomitable unit loses an Assault. It's my opinion that the broken formation is wiped out, but that might not be the intent of the rule.
Quote:
admiral_tee - Knight Shield query.
Carlos got it exact as to interpretation. The other issue, regarding the Front90, it was probably determined that keeping the fluid approach of the new Epic rules was more important than the older static systems. In most circumstances it's considered that formations respond to at least a lesser degree to the actions of the enemy. So a formation of TK wielding speedsters, with no other enemies nearby can't just fly around behind the Knights, and let fly, the Knights will adapt the shield to face them. If there is a crossfire, that confusion opens up the opportunity. The reason for the CC exclusion is the uniformity (Shields don't work in CC), and CAF used to be a combination of CC and FF.
Quote:
admiral_tee - KnightShield vs VoidShield and DC2
These are inherited, but things I don't have an issue with. Castellans and Crusaders have kept their DC2 both because 3 unit formations are inherently weak for suppression purposes, and because going beyond 4+RA usually requires an exceptional reason. I could probably drop the VoidShield for a KnightShield, and drop the costs of these formations (and it's definately not completely out of consideration), but most people seem to like them as they are, and I don't see a reason to change them, for now.
Just a quick explanation of my design philosopy regarding the Knights. I'm not driven to make the Knights list a direct translation of the Titan Legions rules any more than I do of making them a direct translation of the dinosaur herder Space Marine rules, the NetEpic rules, or gods-forbid a new 40K Apocraplypse (and with that Grey Knight wankmobile, I wouldn't put it past them if they thought they could make a buck). What I'm looking to create, is a balanced army list, that has the general "feel" of a Knight list, has enough tactical options to allow some creativity in design, and is fun to play (both with, and against). I'm not otherwise locked into a single way of thinking, and I do give consideration to any and all opinions voiced. A lot of the unit stats and design protocols were inherited from the previous designers, but anything that hasn't been changed as of v1.2 is something that I don't currently have an issue with. Units may change, and as I've intimated above, there are certain things I'm considering. But until I've got a better understanding on the capacities of the current list, both within my own meta-game, and with the NetEA community as a whole, wholesale changes would be a little premature, IMO.
Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion