I'd like to see 4+ armour, not reinforced, with the knightshield being a special rule that gives a 4+ invun save except in crossfire or when the formation has been assaulted. this way it's not tied up in RA, doesnt have a triple-save (which is a PITA when taken in numbers) and you can give the lighter knights 5+ instead of 4+ for their regular armour.

I am also in favour of DC2 engines. Originally I was dubious, and I am still a little leary of the bookkeeping, but in the end I realised that if the slaanesh knights were DC2 I might have actually assembled my army of them by now...

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

The current rule, which I think most of us seem okay with, is not a triple save, but rather a replacement of the main save, similar in nature to the Eldar Holofield save. You take it instead of your normal save, and it can't be modified by Sniper, or ignored by Lance/Macro/Titan Killer or similar effects. Instead of rolling your initial 5+, you substitute the 4+ of the Knight Shield save. If that's a failure, then if it's hit that you would normally get your reroll aginst, you use your normal armor save (5+, in this case). So best case, it's slightly worse than 4+RA (you roll the 4+ Knight shield and then if that fails, your reroll is 5+ armor, instead of the 4+ on the Knight Shield again). In the crossfire or CC case, you have standard 5+ with reroll. In the case of a lance or macro weapon in CC or crossfire, you would only get your single 5+, with no reroll (as per Macro). And in the case of a TK weapon without shield, you'd just flat up take damage like anyone else hit by TK. Any which way you'd never roll more than twice, same as any other RA unit.

Your suggestion would be only slightly worse for normal attacks than 5+RA when working without a shield (50% saved vs 55% saved). TK weapons are obviously the same (Knight Shield or nothing).

However, the place were this really falls down in comparison is macro-weapon hits that can't be shielded. In that case you go from saving 33% on the 5+ to saving 0%.

If you wanted to use Invulnerable for some reason, what about a invulnerable save with conditional values?

Knight Shield: This unit gets an Invulnerable save. If the hits are not caused by an attack in a crossfire or by CC attacks, the save improves from 6+ to 4+.

Of course, this still means 2 rolls a lot of the time, one for normal armor, and then the invulnerable if you fail that.

Alright, 11 people have weighed in on the AV/1DC/2DC and we have:

AV - Apoc
1DC - Markco, Glyn
2DC - captPiett, DaR, DS, BL, Armiger84, mordoten, Borka, Jaggedtoothgrin

Since AV is out, Apoc said he'd be in favor of 2DC, that makes it 2-9 in favor of 2DC.



Not sure what I can do for you on this. I'd like to see some games from you and Markco, but I can't cater to a minority stance that's purely opinion.

--------

There's not much dissent on the Chainsword being MW instead of TK, taking the middle ground on the battlecannon, stubbers and bolters rolled in to FF, and the shock lance. We do have a little bit of debate on the the CC value. So what do people prefer:

2@5+ MW


2@5+ with a EA(+1), MW


2@4+ with a EA(+1), MW

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

@Dave

I'm torn between DC2 CC (MW) and DC2 CC (normal) + 1 MW. As for CC 4+ vs CC 5+, I'll worry about that once we reach a consensus on how to classify the baseline war engine attacks (since it'll make a bigger difference at that point).

Looking ahead to other Knight designs, could the Shock Lance go from CC to FF? This way Lancers and the Baron with a lance could take advantage of it while operating at engagement range.

As I write this, I realize putting it in FF range doesn't perfectly match the lore, insofar as the Knights tended to only discharge them in CC range so as not to fry nearby Knights. Keeping it to CC range would keep FF range knights from getting "extra" first strike attacks in, and would force Lancers into base contact (which would then lead to the clunky "this Knight's FFing the troops in base contact with THAT Knight..." etc. which gets a little whacky at the moment). Of course, having 3-7 Knights who can all discharge first strike firefight attacks, even if only 3 of them are actually in base contact... I could see how people might have a problem with that.

Just thinking out loud, as it were.

_________________
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/armiger84/?hl=en

My General Modelling Blog: http://armiger84.blogspot.com/

My bad on the shock lance, I meant FF, not CC. They were a 25cm shot that the knights got right before an assault. FF and FS in EA should replicate that well. Adding a special note that the knights only get to use them when charging (not when being assaulted) is simple enough to get the complete feeling from SM/TL.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Well, the majority has spoken of the DC issue.

Any of the combat values could be used, it really depends how expensive and powerful people want the knights to be and how much many less knights you want in your armies compared to how many you have been having. The Knights in the existing list are 4 for 300 and your proposed knights would be considerably better with +1DC, 75cm range battle cannons and FF shock lance instead, so probably 3 for > 300. To keep the cost getting too silly I'd suggest 2 CC5+ +1 MW would be fine. I'd prefer not base MW as it invalidates regular armour in CC and across an entire army this isn't fair to other armies paying out for higher armour.

What assault values to you have in mind for the Errants? 2DC base TK would be pretty powerful.

As someone who currently doesn't own knights but would like to build an army one day, a small model count (ie. more powerful individual knights) would be an advantage when it comes to obtaining models. I expect im not alone...

Im also hoping the DID warstriders come out looking DC2ish...

For the Errant, I figure we'd replace MW with TK to keep things consistent. Given that, perhaps either the second or third option.

Would people be opposed to CC 6+ on the Crusader/Castellan/Lancer if we went with CC 5+ for the Errant/Paladin/Baron?

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Opposite of my view as someone who has already spent a lot buying knights (bought at their peak a couple of years back )! I'd like to get to use them in reasonable numbers. At least there are viable proxies now.

2DC knights are already going to be a more expensive points wise, so i'm with glyn on stat-ing for points control on cost.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

If a Knight list isn't going to be mainly Knights, and in decent quantities, I don't see any point in the list

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

People should post what kind of list they'd like to field (knight number-wise) in the list thread:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=26894

Most of the numbers that people posted there should be able to be fielded in a 3k.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

What's your current rough geustimate on what the points for DC2 knights would be?
I realise the stats are not nailed down yet, but some vague idea to think around with.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

100 points a Knight would be a good ballpark.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17