The new codex is due out soon, but my group has a games day this weekend and we don't want to pass up the chance to get a couple of games in. Here's the list will be playing with.

I went with the PDF/Defense theme, as discussed. Basically it meant dropping the titans and adding the infantry platoon back in.

I capped the Knight formations at 6, if people want bigger formations we can test for it. The core is a Paladin/Errant formation which can get you one support knight (crusader/castallen/lancer/warden) and one levy. I took a rough guess on cost for the Knights, they'll likely need adjusting. With the SR being higher than the Siegemasters though I thought a price bump was warranted on some of their formations. However, 25 seemed too high. I ended doing it, and giving the AA/arty/field arty/tractor a CC value of 6+ to compensate, and gave the tractor a heavy bolter instead of a stubber.

On the stats for the Paladin, I went with the third option we talked about (CC4+ with a EA(+1) MW for the chainsword). The errant has the same stat line with weapon swaps. The Power Lance just upgrades the Shock Lance to MW for the Baron/Lancer. The Custodians I made slower with better armour and FF. I also brought the Quake Cannon back in line with what it did in SM/TL (I did keep the BP on it though, it's had it for so long in EA I figure people wouldn't go for it).

I didn't include the Gardien, as most people were against it. For the Wardens, I kept the separate stat lines (and added one for you Glyn). If one becomes the black sheep we'll just drop the option.

Hopefully we'll get some pictures on Saturday for a battle report or two, otherwise just a recap.

Typos

Thermal Cannon on the Errant should be range 30cm, not 15cm.
Sentinel should be LV, not INF.
AA Gun Battery should be 125 points, not 175.
Howitzer Battery should be 175 points, not 125.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Cool! Looks interesting!

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Perhaps Knight should get a Knight Shield save against the formation is assaults but not from any supporting fire? This would logically fit with the Knight Shield having a limited direction focused on what they are attacking at the time.

I'm not that keen on infantry on the list but am particularly surprised to see siege defenses like trenches, razorwire, ect. Planetary defense doesn't necessarily equal siege warfare, planets can be defended in any number or styles and siege defences doesn't seem to fit with the Knight Worlds chivalrous feudal inspired methods of making war.

The Warden models are smaller than the other Knights so it seems odd and inappropriate for them to have tougher armour. The old background have them as retired old knights, training, motivating and giving advice to their younger members. I would prefer to see a Warden be an upgrade to the basic knight formation with leader and inspiring (and potential AA) at the trade-off of lesser speed. They were described as being slow but heavily armed yet your stats have them poorly armed and short-ranged compared to other knights.

I would recommend making the Rough Riders 150 for 6 as normal, if the cost of the Knights means a lower activation count than normal then fine, that counterbalances their advantages. Adding in artificially cheapened / reduced support formations to boost activations is poor list design.

Why Mole Mortars? They haven't been included in 40k since Rogue Trader. I would rather leave them just for the Squat list, but if you do want to include them both Mole Mortars should have the same stats not wildly different ones.

Quick question: what's the reasoning behind lancers moving out of core?
Errants and lancers were both core since 1.0.


Agree with Glyn on siege defences, unnecessary. I look forward to seeing infantry amongst the knightly hosts though

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

I moved Lancers to support mainly because of the FS MW in FF and the speed of 30cm. From the numbers people had in their collections no one would be fielding an army of just them. And if they wanted to see my first point.

As to the defenses, I thought they fit thematically (a Knight World PDF is going to be on the defensive, protecting their farms and dino herds).

Glyn, the no save on support fire makes sense. We'll see how things shake out after a couple of games.

I threw the Mole Mortar in because I had the plastic models for it along with the Thudd Gun. I had forgotten they were in the Squat list already and just grabbed the stats from looking at SM/TL.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Makes sense on the lancers. Look forward to seeing your test reports.

From list and way power lance rule is worded it looks like lancers do not get a MW CC attack unless the charge?
Fair enough on it being FS only if it charges, but is it intended to only get MW on charge?
Errants get a FF MW and a CC TK all the time and better CC value. Lancers get +5cm move but otherwise look a bit disadvantaged here?

I see the farm defence point, but knights as a unit are pretty aggressive and fortifications are impassable to them. Adding fortifications just for the new inf units seems to dilute the focus a bit … makes sense for the guns though. But then it's easy for people to choose not to use them i suppose. Although at the same time people could just add generic fortifications in if they feel like playing a dino farm defence scenario.


Trying to persuade a friend who has been commenting favourably on the new 40k knights into a game for the weekend, not overly hopeful though!

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

Didn't think about that. We'll see how the games go. If Lancers don't fair too well we can remove the special rule from the Power Lance and just leave it on the Shock Lance.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

The Wardens were also huge compared to the original paladins and lancers in the same generation they were produced in. I can only speculate what they would have looked like if they were reproduced in the second generation of metals by GW. That said, within the realm of proxies, the existing Warden proxies are much larger and thicker than comparable Knight proxies, so I'd say the reasoning for heavier armor in line with Custodians (Crusaders/Castellans) is justified.



As for the Lancers, we'll get a test in tomorrow and see how that plays out. I'll be taking a closer look at the list tonight when I'm done with work for the day, in preparation for getting useful playtest data out of it tomorrow.

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

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

Perhaps condensing the options here might be good. There's a lot of flexibility in formation sizes but I don't think that all are equal in utility.

In all likelihood we'll see the base three knights and 5 knights. Three is cheap and pretty functional since they can take 6BM before breaking so the small formation size isn't as much of an issue. 6 knights is really expensive and doesn't gain a whole lot over taking 5. Dropping that extra knight in three household formations nets you enough points for a couple of support levys or even an extra knight formation.

Perhaps add a "reinforced household" option to each that adds +2 or 3 units to the formation for a single point cost?

_________________
-Vaaish

@rasta - they'd come to 225 (175 + 50) for 12 and a command, not 275.

Got three games in with the Knights today, I'll have a battle report for one of them up this week sometime.

DS played my Marines for the first game, he had 6 small Knight formations (3 each) and 12 activations if memory served. The marines took it 4-0 in the 3rd turn with everything but BTS. The small formations and the marines taking advantage of lots of crossfire saw three formations broken at the end of the first/start of the second turn.

In DS's second game he played Ruth's Black Legion I believe he won in points in the fourth.

Amriger showed up for the afternoon and played Ed's Iron Warriors as well. I believe the Iron Warriors won it in the fourth in objectives.

I also found a typo, the Thermal Cannon on the Errant was meant to be 30cm like it has been.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Typo: sentinel is listed as INF


I was thinking of taking 3 strong formations as well at around 12 activations/3k, eager to see the reports on that. No proper game for me this weekend (will be easter now ), might do a 2k solo mess about just to get a feel for the DC2ness of new list.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

Glad to see this list coming along a getting some polish to make it nice and presentable. I didn't see it until just now otherwise I probably would have looked at using this for my last game. May I suggest you and PFE100 chat so and not to have 2 divergent lists...

Anyhow, looking over this I like the fact the battlecannon has gone back to 75cm, but makes me wonder if they still need the 25cm movement on the knights as much now that the weapon range is greater. Any thoughts to copy the 40k trend of a rapid fire battle cannon? 2x AT4+/AP4+ or perhaps just AT3+/AP3+?

They also have heavy stubbers on the knights - though you could just put these down for the units "small arms" attacks.

The 2DC WE across the board I like, accounting for it might be interesting but I will allow some DC juggling within the units to soak up extra hits as I can now move undamaged guys to the front and so on.

Like the quake cannon change, I feel the Castellan/Crusaders secondary weapons are a little under powered given their "size" on the model but lests run with them for now.

Can we put some further clarification onto the knight shield so that it covers off it if can be used in CC, against barrages and when broken? - I think this is necessary because of the "fluff". New 40k rules don't allow it a shield save in CC and I think not allowing it against barrages might be something to consider down the track if it is too powerful.

NO TITANS???
I see PFE100 dropped them back to the standard options in his list, yours they're gone altogether.. is it not weird that a close Ad Mech ally doesn't have access to any titans?

Within the army list can you make the Warden weapon configurations a little clearer, perhaps separate them by a line space?

Finally the Lancer, I've always found this guy sucked in this edition of epic but with 2DC he might be ok. I think he still has a shock lance though so did you miss that or is it an intentional omission? Also, as i've said before, I think this guy should be FF4+ as he's better equipped for FF than either the errant or the paladin. I'd happily see the power lance loose First strike for a better chance to hit and personally think its a lot harder to justify a FS FF attack than the FS CC attack that the shock lance gives.

Hopefully have a battle report on this shortly.

Orton, take a look at the stats thread, your paladin points/questions were discussed there.

On the Knight shield, if you can use armor saves while in CC, if you're broken and against barrages we don't need an extra sentence saying that for the shield. Explaining the exceptions is the easiest/least confusing way. The rule is also nearly identical to holofield, so isn't entirely new to people.

The Lancer/Baron Shock Lance was rolled into the stats of the Power Lance.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17