3 games, squats, eldar and the orks..

You were comparing Cru/Cast to a Reaver. My point was a Reaver won't lose fire power over the period of the game until it's destroyed, and it won't take hack down hits.



I want to see more games before anything is changed. The Castellans haven't dominated our games yet. Until they do I can't agree that they need to be smaller formations. I also can't see reducing their numbers because that's how they were fielded in SM/TL. By that logic Errant and Lancer formations should only be 3 strong as well.



Sorry, I just don't agree. IG Regimental HQs cost 100 points more than a Mech Coy, with the only difference between the two being SC. A Baron costing 75 points more for SC plus all the stat bumps and Fearless is a steal in comparison.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Because an army of them would be overpowered. What kind of list are you trying to build that you can't with Lancers in support?



And I've got three games from my group and no complaints on Lancers. Either way, 3 games isn't nearly enough to be able to point to a unit and say it needs to be changed.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

G'day Dave,

Don't take my observation as attack, just my thoughts. Anyhow the comparison I would make is that on the charge, the paladin can generate 2x4+CC attacks + 1x4+ MW CC and 1x5+ FS FF and the errant is similar, whilst the lancer is only getting the three attacks on a 5+. The lancer certainly benefits from the added speed but when your likely to be continually outnumbered the extra attacks and better chances to hit from the other two are much better in my book than a 5cm speed boost.

If, and this is just an idea, the shock lances became a FS CC attack rather than FF(representing the lance discharging into enemies just before impact into CC) and the power lance became a constant MW FF (representing a massive short ranged EMP attack) that might balance them somewhat. Why? Well part of it is the feel I get from the models and background the other is its usefulness in the rules. Lancers then can look to get past enemies, harass from the flanks, attempt to setup crossfire etc. they also become more useful at supporting the main line of paladins, lending 3 FF attacks, one of which is MW.

The errants and paladins then make their money up close shocking and smashing the enemy with their feet, shock lances and swords/fists etc.

Glad you liked my idea on the shield vs supporting fire. I think it would help balance the results some against cheap enemy trash. Whilst the intent/feel of the knights is still maintained through the benefits of engaging - positioning, shock lance and activation bonus.

Note I've played 10+ games with lancers over the last few versions and always felt they under performed in comparison so this is not just a new thought. I'll keep trialling them as I'm sure some of this is due to how I use them.

Keep up the good work and thanks for the responses.

As a majority of people (currently 63%) want titans available in the Knight list please can you re-instate them in the next version Dave?

They've been available as allies to be used with the Knight list for many years with no problems. For you to make such a radical change to a long established list should really have a majority of support from the community but the opposite is the case. Saying there'll be a future list with titans isn't appropriate and needlessly splits playtests.

Just standard allied titans is fine, no need for full customisation. As a compromise I would suggest Warhounds only be available in pairs though, so that if titans are taken they will probably be the BTS.

I agree with GlynG I think you should let them back Dave.



This is a good way to do it

I'm more concerned with what the majority of playtesters are after, rather than the majority of people. I spelled my thoughts out on the poll here:

viewtopic.php?p=512423#p512423

I'm not concerned about splitting the playtests, I'd rather have thematic lists than a kitchen sink. We'll get them approved when we get them approved.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Hey Dave how are the playtesters in your group using lancers? obviously my thoughts are already listed but I hope to get another game mid week so therefore I'm keen to see why you think they're good?

The class system is alive and well. Keep those sweaty masses in their place.
LOL.

Only three games to date, we might get a few more in on the 30th but my mid-week gaming time has been taken up by painting fro Adepticon until April. In those games, they were ran in units of three. In general we though were pretty easy to break, next time I'm going to ask to guys to do at least units of 4 and see how those go.

At this point, I think they're on par with Paladins/Errants. If the games show that they aren't we'll see what we can do. Admittedly though, I didn't pic up what Apoc pointed out: their Shock Lance can't be used in support.

I've been reading through the new codex, and came across this bit referencing the other suits:



That meshes pretty well from the SM/TL paragraphs of the Lancer. What are people's thoughts about giving them Scout?

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

That reads like scout or infiltrator (but infiltrator would be too powerful). Also reads in support of lancers staying out of the core selection. Scout lancers would be good in an all knight themed list, though as it is there are already RR and sentinels, not sure more scouts are needed.

I must look out the new codex, forgot to follow it up after initially gawping at the picture leaks!

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

A minor follow-up:

I was one of the games Dave's referring to, and while I put a unit of 6 lancers on the table, they took Ordinatus Medrenguard fire on turn one (mostly because they were reasonably positioned to reach out and touch it), and the results were pretty much as expected. So unfortunately I can't really offer any good analysis off of that. They did come back in Turn 4 finally and shoot up a Vindicator squadron, but the big issue there was the level of threat my opponent perceived in me fielding a max-size Lancer formation after seeing what it had done under previous lists.

Generally, I'm of the belief that Knight formations have to be 4-5 strong to soak fire and maintain effectiveness.


Regarding putting Scout on Lancers. That would vastly expand unit coherency for a formation, and give Knights the ability to ZoC-lock with 2DC war engines. That would allow the player to ZoC lock a formation on one turn and get some shots in, with an extremely high likelihood of getting the Engage move the next turn even if the target formation attempts to flee.

This could make Lancers very effective even in small formations (and probably make them even bigger targets for anticipatory fire). They'd be competing with Sentinels and Rough Riders as Scout formations, but would blow them away even at 300pts for 3.

I like it at first pass, but I'm still mentally playing through the potential ramifications. I might try to get a small game in with it and see what difference it makes.

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

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

@Apoc - Ya, infiltrator on WE is pretty broken. Being able to barge what you want and pull that with you away from support/FF is gamey.

On multiple scouts, 3 per army is a lot, yes. If the Lancers got it I think we'd have to drop one of the others.

@Armiger - I'd be reluctant to actually ZoC enemy formations with Lancers. Given the army's low SR it's unlikely to get to go first against many opponents. More than likely Lancers ZoCing an enemy will be engaged as they won't get their FS, MW, and would have a crappier save.

I suggested it more to allow them to garrison - ie representing it "scouting out the enemy defenses".

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Dare I say if that idea goes ahead (and I really like it, it fits well with the fluff) then drop the RR? I never saw much fluff reasoning behind having then in the Knight World list in the first place. Infantry, sure, you need someone to man the trenches, but horses? Isn't their job kinda covered by big stompy mech suits?

Also, despite my earlier comments regarding Knights not being a core formation, if the more recent fluff places them as ridden by nobles and being rare and hard to make, then actually, they should stay in the support section. Epic armies are all about fluff for me

_________________
Worship the immortal Emperor, for without Him we are nothing.