After seeing Matt-shadowlord's breakdowns in the Tau Hammerhead thread, I went ahead and did something similar for the Paladins for myself.
I'm not sure what to make of it.
Basically, if you compare Paladins to other "heavily armored" units like Land Raiders (325 for 4 models) or half a Leman Russ company (650 for 10, so roughly 325 for 5), then 3 Knight Paladins using 5+RA and 2DC are roughly as survivable as either (the Leman Russ are tougher overall, but can be suppressed/broken more easily, the Land Raiders are basically almost identical defensively with ATSKNF). But both formations output way more firepower at range (more than 4x more for Russes, upto 3x more for Raiders, if everyone gets to fire everything). The Russes not only have more battlecannons, but Lascannons and double Heavy Bolters. The Raiders have, of course, double twin-Lascannons and Twin Heavy Bolter.
You can likewise compare to similar numbers of points of SM Dreads and Ork Stompas/MegaDreads. The comparison likewise not very kind to these Paladin stats. The Paladin suffers less in comparison for firepower, but more in durability, per point, compared to either, and only really clearly wins in speed.
People complain a lot about killing Leman Russes, but I rarely see any complaints about their offensive power, and Land Raiders had their points reduced to 325 because they just weren't viable above that. If we're looking at 3-4 Paladins in the 300 points range, depending on stats (my last proposal in the other thread was 325 for 3), we're coming up pretty short. Obviously the Paladin's superior CC ability during an Assault has to be factored, but I'm wondering if maybe including the Heavy Stubbers as actual ranged weapons and keeping 2 battlecannon shots isn't out of the question. Not even from a fluff/rules perspective, but strictly from a gameplay balance one. A formation of 3 with 2 shot battlecannons and some AP6 Heavy Stubbers would still have less overall output at most ranges than either 5 Leman Russes or 4 Land Raiders, and even at 2DC, 5+RA is not any harder to kill.
(If anyone wants to see the exact maths on the above, re: toughness and firepower, I can provide, but it's a lot more text for an already long post)
I'm wondering if we haven't lost the forest for the trees, strictly trying to keep up with the SM/TL, 1.3 or 1.4 stats and points.
Has anyone during their playtesting of the 1.3 or 1.4 lists found that Knights had "too much" or even "enough" firepower to really do anything reliable at range? How about the opposite? Did you have trouble getting enough firepower on units to soften them up before an assault?
Quote:
People should weigh in on the DC, should it be an AV, DC1 or DC2?
AV is definitely out, IMO. Paladins are big, tough, powerful and should not be barged and should be able to barge. They are tall and bulky and should block LOS. They should take more units to tie up in Assault and tie up more units in return. They should not lose access to the terrain types they currently have access to.
1DC with 4+RA and ATSKNF could be done, but in the end, I don't think it's any better a representation of how the Paladin should behave on the table top, and is worse in some ways. Paladins should be crit-able, for instance, and should have to fear Titan Killer weapons. Likewise, other models of similar size are mostly 2DC War Engines (Riptides, Trygons, Eldar Knights, etc), with the only real counterpoint being the Stompa, which is a bit odd (due to the change between SM/TL and modern 40k era, where a "Stompa" should really be 4DC, and the existing Epic unit which is really more MegaDread sized at 40k scale, at which point it does belong being an AV).
I now firmly prefer the 2DC 5+RA version. As much as my initial desire to not have to track separate damage counters made me kneejerk deny it, I think it's a better solution overall. It matches the background, 40k rules, and model sizes better, and allows more flexibility in other rules design areas, including not having to use ATSKNF/Might of the Omnissah if we don't want to.
Quote:
On movement, I think 25cm works. It keeps the current stats (one less change) and everyone seems to agree upon it.
25cm speed seems fine. It's fast, but Knights need to close if they want to bring their superior assault capabilities to bear. By 40k stats you can justify either 20 or 25cm, and based on my reasoning
here, I think 25 is fairly reasonable.
Quote:
For the Battlecannon, we've got three different takes, so the middle ground (just a regular battlecannon) is going to be the best compromise. The rapid-fire battlecannon can be saved for the Baron (maybe that tech isn't readily available at the Knight World this list is representing) as the current list as it as 2 shots, and so does SM/TL.
On the Heavy Stubbers, I think these can be filed under the Knights FF ability, same goes with the SM/TL bolters that were on the Paladin.
See above for my potential concerns on offensive power. As I said, I'd like to make sure we're not so caught up in what came before that we make a unit that's not good on the battlefield. I think that regular battlecannon (75cm 4+/4+) alone and no stubbers makes this a very very weak option compared to its AV tank peers and even most AV Walkers. And that's not even getting into the relative offensive power of lighter armored but more mobile options like Falcons, Hammerheads, etc. or the fact that a Knight is supposed to fall between a Scout Titan and an armored vehicle on the scale of such things.
Quote:
Finally, on the shock lance. I'd like to get it around even though it's gone from the current 40k rules. It used to be a 15cm shot right before combat in SM/TL. I think a FF EA(+1), FS attack represents that well.
I'm fine with FF EA(+1) First Strike, especially if we go to FF5+ on 2DC. Mechanically it works. I'm a bit indifferent as my personal bias tends to be towards matching the new 40k rules, but I also think it's appropriate given the background. The other option is to do to it what is being proposed to the heavy stubbers. Just fold it into the general FF stat instead. Keep it at FF4+ for 2DC and label it 'Shock Lance (small arms)' in the stat line. People who love the old fluff will see and be happy, people who care about the new fluff won't see anything that affects the rules and will be equally happy.
Quote:
For CC, I think 4+ is fine for an AV/DC1 but too good for a 2DC WE. It's not twice as good as a Dreadnought in 40k. However, a EA(+1) MW at CC5+ isn't all that amazing. If we went DC2, what about just giving MW to all the CC dice, with no extra attacks? 2@CC5+, MW seems pretty scary to Marines.
For the close combat specs, I will say that in 40k with the Super Heavy Walker rules, a Paladin is much more than twice as good as a basic Dreadnought in close combat. It's got 50% more attack base to begin with, its weapons cause every hit to be at least instant penetrations (as opposed to needing to roll) and almost always extra Hull Point damage and instant explode/death results. As a SHW, it also gets a special Stomp attack which does d3 extra penetrating hits on vehicles or S6 AP4 templates on infantry units, plus a few other minor bonuses relative to the Dread. A regular Dreadnought on the charge would be quite lucky to destroy a Land Raider (as it can't do enough HP to kill it outright, it would need an explode result on the damage table, a 1 in 6 shot per penetrating hit) . A Paladin on the charge would expect to kill the Land Raider, fairly easily, and be a little shocked if it didn't (It would have to miss all 4 attacks, or roll a 1 on the Destroyer weapon table for every attack that did hit, otherwise the Land Raider is guaranteed to be exploded, and even if every hit rolled a 1 on the table, the followup stomp would still in theory finish off the remaining hull points). If a Paladin charged a squadron of non-superheavy vehicles in 40k, it could reasonably expect to kill 2 of them, and maybe even a third in a single melee phase.
If we do intend to stay the single shot or even twin-linked Battlecannon and no stubber course for firepower, then the Paladin really needs to be able to make that up in CC assault, otherwise it becomes a completely inferior unit to a Leman Russ or Land Raider in every way. This is a unit literally designed to carve up enemy War Engines. You already have to cross the table under fire, successfully Engage, and
then make it in to base to base, and only then do you get to apply your tank-sized giant chainsword. If that's your only significant damage output, then you better make it count when you get there. 2DC@CC4+, MW would be the absolute minimum I'd want to see, or 2DC@CC4+ and an EA(+1) with TK(1). Errants could go up to d3 on their TK attack, to represent the gauntlet.
If we instead were to say Paladin's should be more firepower-oriented than CC, and increase ranged firepower on their battlecannons, so that assault was not a Paladin formations's only reliable damage output, then I could see scaling back to 2DC@CC5+, MW. But they need decent damage output in at least one area.
Quote:
And the same goes for FF. 4+ is pushing it for a 1DC/AV given it's armament in comparison to an EA Russ, at 2DC I think it's too much and FF5+ is a better fit.
If we go to FF5+, then the Stubbers should almost certain get a separate actual AP6 ranged attack and the Shock Lance should give that EA(+1), FS attack. If we keep the Stubbers and Shock Lance as just FF boosters and no extra attacks, then we can roll that all up and call it 4+.
In total, this is the initial proposal:
Code:
Knight Paladin WE 25cm 5+ 5+ 5+
Battle Cannon 75cm AP4+/AT4+
Chainsword (bc) MW
Shock Lance (bc) EA(+1), FS
DC2, Knight Shield, Reinforced Armour, Walker
Assuming we use the '4+ holofield-style save, no CC no Crossfire' for Knight sheild, you have a unit that is only slightly more durable overall than a Leman Russ or Ork Stompa and about the same as a Land Raider (2DC, but more vulnerable to crits, in crossfire, in cc, plus worse armor
even when the shield usable and no ATSKNF), with less damage output per hull at range (half or less inside 45cm, 1/3rd or less inside 30cm), but a bit better in FF (3@5+ is about 2x as effective per hull as a Russ/Raider/Stompa 1@4+), with good but not amazing CC ability (About equal to Stompa 1@CC4+ and 1@CC4+MW).
I'd have trouble costing this much more than the 60 or 70 points that marks the area between a Russ and Raider/Stompa, and maybe even lower depending on if the rest of the list comes close to having cheap ranged fire power to balance this out.
If we're happy with a formation that functions mostly like heavy tanks and walkers and starts at something like 4 for 250 or 275, and scales up to the classic household of 7 for another 175 (425-450 total), then these stats are probably okay.
My personal bias is towards something where Knights are mini-Titans and not slightly bigger MBTs. We have several lists that do heavy AV units as their primary schtick. Ulani/Minervan and Scions of Iron in the Imperial space, and even Steel Legion can easily run this way. The AMTL list obviously focuses mostly on Battle Titans, with lots of DC and shields per unit. The Knightworld list offers the possibility of something in between those, which is fairly unique. And for that, these stats are not adequate, especially on the offensive side.