Played tonight against zombo's Tyranids. I was expecting to play against SM so had to do a quick re-fit of the list for this very different opponent:
6 Paladins + Baron 525 BTS
5 Paladins 275
Warhound (Inferno) 300
5 Errants 375
5 Errants 375
4 Lancers 300
3 Trebuchets 125
3 Trebuchets 125
2 Thunderbolts 150
2 Thunderbolts 150
Warhound (VMBs) 300
We had to wrap things up after the 3rd turn even though I was only up 1-0 (TSNP). Some notes:
- Trebuchets are too good at 125. I'd pay 150 for them. More than that not really. There's also a limit on how many how could field given that they desperately need to be screened. In our game some lictors came around and dismantled 1 fm w/ ease (of course!) but then were killed easily by paladins themselves.
- This was my first time facing another assault army, and often the nids had no easy assaults to make. The combination of shock lance (5+ First Strike) and the fact the knights have no weak points in assaults is pretty tough. Even the paladins are 4 across the board w/ shock lance and +1EA MW in cc. Then Lancers get 3+ FF (which they can almost always use being WE) and have an extra MW FF attack. Errants are the worst culprits here and we weren't sure what kind of nid fms could tackle them effectively.
- Still felt no need to take Seneschals or the infantry.
- If I knew I was facing nids I'd have brought some sentinels. I'm not sure why they're in such big fms in this list? They come in 4 in normal IG. Six or eight plus the warden is a really big FM. Why can't they come in 4s here?
- To go back to the start I think the 3 types of DC1 knights need some kind of identity, strengths and weaknesses. Looking at the model range in these pictures (
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v738/ ... nights.jpg and
http://www.galactic-intrigue.com/epicol ... ights.html) it's hard not to try and use that to differentiate the knights more. For example, have the lancer earn its speed of 30cm by having a 5+ RA and a FF of 4+ (3+ should be really rare). This would imply a point reduction or bulk discount of some kind. The Errant should likely be the same speed as the paladin (looking at the model). Then that reduces the power of its 30cm MW4+ gun and close capabilities. The TK cc attack is excessive and so is the 3+. I see them more as upgraded paladins: better gun but similar capabilities. All of this might be heresy of course.
- Baron used its re-roll every turn and threw its weight around in assaults as he should. His 3+ in cc and ff felt good for the points cost, and I think not having any other DC1 knights share a 3+ in assaults would help keep the baron special.
- Wouldn't mind if the paladins lost their recently acquired heavy bolter.
- In a list w/ so many special rules, I've used my knight shield once so far in all these games. Is it worth keeping or is it just part of the RA? Shock lance works okay, it's easy to remember but knights are pretty good in assaults already. No opinion on Indomitable as once again the knights rarely break.
- Disrupt, whether on manticores, valkyries or biovores is the knight's worst enemy.
- At the end of turn 2 and 3 I had perfect lines of knights holding the middle of the battlefield, either sustaining or assaulting here and there and pushing back the endless nids (they spawn a lot!). It felt right but as I said there weren't any soft spots for the nids to get their claws in and there should be. My choice of warhound weaponry didn't help the nids either!
Nah. Believe me when I say I have absolutely no interest in the Knights. I was given the challenge so I thought I would ask on the forum where people know what they are playing. Already Carlos has provided invaluable insight. I am merely asking what-if questions. It will probably all amount to nothing, however I think an outsider's view (questions) to a list is also quite useful as it is a step outside the inside where the view 'may' be limited. 
