I know, I know. Having only just got my desktop back on Monday (been running off the laptop), I've been lax.
Going back to my departure, I figure I'll just stream of conciousness things. Very long, please bear with me.
carlos wrote:
Trebuchets are too good at 125. I'd pay 150 for them.
A holdover from the previous list. I reduced range, and they look OK on paper, but practical experience has shown them to be hard to judge. I've fired them once in three games, as they almost always get airbombed. No save + LV (no cover save + AP vulnerability) makes them toast. But we'll see where that goes.
carlos wrote:
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?
Ironically, the size jump was put in place to soften the ability of the army to popcorn formations. Initially they were 6 for 150, but issues with non-blister multiples brought about the ability to take 8 (with the corresponding loss of Scout).
carlos wrote:
Wouldn't mind if the paladins lost their recently acquired heavy bolter.
That's from the unpublished test list, that I'm scrapping for the moment. But they didn't 'acquire' the HB. It was a downgrade from the previously equipped AC. It was an attempt to soften them to fit the newer pricing model.
carlos wrote:
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?
I am considering redoing this aspect. There seems to be a psychological issue with facing 4+RA. Two possibilities I've got in mind, are a variation on the Holofield (3+ against all attacks), or Tau Deflector (5+ Inv Save). The latter seems a bit better, as it allows some variation on the front end. Certain units could have 5+, 4+ or even 3+ (for the toughest units), but doesn't get around the psychological aspect of a 'reroll'.
carlos wrote:
Extra note for Morgan for when he comes back: there ARE knights who are weak in assaults, but I didn't take any (Wardens, Castellans, Crusaders). Even with that, there should be more specialization among the DC1 knights which means playing around with:
- save (this is not a leman russ list so you can have 4+ RA and 5+ RA since there's different hulls)
- ff and cc values (think carefully about any 3+)
- attacks in assaults (even the paladin has 3 which seems excessive)
- moves (20 to 30 range)
- special abilities like infiltrator. If defilers, Tyranid WEs and so on can have it, why not some knights?
I'm currently revising the list to incorporate ATSKNF (discussed later). Which means a huge price increase unless I reshuffle priorities. That'll probably result in changes to armour (discussed above) and changes to CC and FF assault characteristics. But the one thing I'm not considering at the moment, is Infiltrator. The reasoning behind that decision is relatively simple. Even with a speed of 20, that's a 55cm engagement range. I already get complaints about 45cm, on the 'fast Knights'. Increasing the assault range of Knights, just seems like a bad idea. Also, it's yet another ability for units that already have three or more abilities already.
Dwarf Supreme wrote:
- Dave and I have been saying for two years that Errants and Lancers are too fast. I say (and Dave would probably agree) drop them to 25 and give them Infiltrator
- I'm still trying to figure out why Castellans and Crusaders were ever given void shields
- Errants seem too good in CC. Maybe drop one of the extra attacks
- I understand wanting to keep the list focused on Knights, but only 1 support formation per core formation makes it tight for choosing support
Infiltrator thing discussed in the point above.
Void Shields may (probably will) be dropped in the reshuffle. Mainly because from a scale perspective, I'm not sure warrants it, and because I think I'll be dropping them (and Wardens) down to DC1. With ATSKNF, most of the reasons for needing 2DC become unnecessary (suppression/breakage).
Errants will be revised but even with a TK powerfist (the scrapped 1.3), I still considered them inferior to Lancers.
The support ratio, it seems paradoxial. I have some people saying it allows for too much abuse, and I have other people wanting to allow more. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. The most common argument I've heard locally is that Support are used to boost activation count. I don't see that as a bug, but a feature. I've never considered low activation count to be a weakness of the Knights list. Nor do I see it as one going into the future. There are already several intrinsic flaws in the list, and I'm happy with those (no deep strikes, 2+ Initiative on an assault driven army, relative limitation on force choices, relatively low formation size). Handicapping activation count isn't one I'm considering for the now.
admiral_tee wrote:
Re Crastellans: then up the Quake Cannon to 3BP from the 2BP it is now.
I don't have a problem with the Quake Cannons being 2BP. 3BP is a significant firepower shift, and I'm not sure that's necessary. Also, I feel the height disadvantage of a Crastellan makes it inferior in direct comparison. Additionally, given a Quake Cannon isn't even fieldable on a Warhound, giving a Knight an equivalent weapon (plus a significant secondary weapon) seems a bit over the top.
madd0ct0r wrote:
(Alternate weak version of ATSKNF) Would work OK. Thoughts on it? I think it'll make the army break normally, but when it's broken it'll handle itself better, and it'll bounce back slightly quicker. And it'll be harder to suppress.
Problem with that is it doesn't address the problems I see as inherent. All this would do, for the most part, is make formations more expensive than they currently are, but not addressing the problems therein. Suppression has never really been an issue, and as I'm in the process of wanting to make the Knight formations inherently smaller (returning to a 3 unit formation as base, ~275-300pts), not adjusting the ability of the formation to resist breaking would cause it to fall over.
Though I haven't answered each post individually, I think I've answered all the issues raised. If you don't feel I responded adequately to your post, please point this out, and I'll respond.
At it's core, the next iteration for testing (if it doesn't work, we can return to modification of the current version), is a relatively complete revamp of the list as a whole. Basic concepts include (but aren't limited to) ATSKNF* being predominant among the Knights, changes to the armour system, a revamp of the assault characteristics, and an attempt to more streamline the list with less unit rules and hopefully a less complicated approach.
* No, it's not going to be called ATSKNF, so the purists can get off my back.
But it's going to incorporate the rules from within it, so it'll make explaining the ability to an opponent relatively easy.
I should have a prototype version up in the next week or so, and feedback from that will help me generate a more complete playtest version. All voices will be heard, but not all will be implemented.
Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion
