Another +1 for this!

I've liked the harsher crit effect to represent open topped, but never been a fan of making them directly more vulnerable because each each gorgon popped takes about 10 more stands with it. Or becomes just one more transport that infantry sit outside between moves.

For your comparison with the Shadoswords/Baneblades in 40K, the Gorgon is tougher except for the open topped rule (hence the crit effect). It's AV 14 Side 14 Rear 10 with a Invulnerable Save 4++ front. It clocks in at 3 Structure points and in recent versions gained the 'It Will Not Die' rule. That doesn't mean we have to try follow the 40K statline to the letter, but should indicate why I've been trying to reduce its firepower, improve the crit and increase its cost to balance it rather than simply keep it at a low price with reduced stats.

What is likely to happen in revision 1.4 is the infantry all lose their CC5+, and instead a different way to make gorgon-less infantry formations more appealing and viable is implemented.
I have a few ideas for that, watch this space.

Reducing the Gorgons to 2DC would have the knock-on effect of making the formation way more vulnerable to direct assault - only four units in base contact required (per Gorgon) to lock all the Kriegers inside, rather than six. That's a potentially big change from the perspective of stuff like Terminators in Thunderhawks.

(That's assuming that the reduction wasn't already enough to motivate the infantry to pile out after every move, which makes this just another stupid non-assault transport. I really like the fact that the Gorgon is something most people actually carry their troops to the battle in, rather than a short-hop bus service between picnics like every other ground transport in the game.)

I'd argue the current critical effect is more generous than similar sized WE criticals that usually result in destruction?

Similarly getting assaulted whilst still in your vehicle is just poor planning or protection. The thing has one way in and one way out. It's a landing craft on tracks. A stormlord? Or leviathan on the other hand is an IFV where infantry can fight from with a level of protection yet still participate in a meaningful manner when the vehicle is assaulting or being assaulted.

Not so the gorgon, it may have good protection to get you to the assault but if you get caught inside whilst it gets attacked by post human psychos with melta bombs, chain fists and the odd flamer your shit out of luck. Better hope your standing towards the back and the other 49 plebs tie them out.

List wise do what you like, you asked for thoughts and that's what I think. I think it's
it's less survivable than a baneblade and I think it offers good protection from long range fire to the squishy bits inside but they need to get out to fight effectively in an assault.

Quick thoughts:

Gorgoms:
DKoK are a infantry assault army, I am against limiting the gorgon units to 2. I do not think further nerfing of the Gorgons is necessary but play testing will tell! (I will contribute soonish)

Heavy/Light artillery:
I will build mine soon but I don´t think the light art is ever worth it compared to the heavy AA option. Previously I thoght the Heavy art was under costed, after playing more I am not so sure, The mix of LV/AV and less mobility compared to SL might be enough. But the AA-options are probably still too cheap.

RR:
The core Rough Riders might need a boost or might not. 2x Rough Riders with scouts are obviously better (better ability and more activations). On the other hand the 12-formation is core and you have to take them if you go the 2 - gorgon formations route.

Death Strikes:
Please make the regular death strikes the same as the ones in SL-list. Everything else is very confusing both model-wise and stat-wise to the enemy.

Good work and the list is now probably more balanced than the EPIC-UK-variant!

Given that the problem with gorgons is the gamey way of putting the infantry behind it so you get the 4++ save, surely the answer is to tackle it head on - add a special rule that the infantry must take the hits if the troops disengage directly into assault ? At the end of the day it's a D-day landing craft on tracks - the grunts just had to take it. It's true to the Krieg fluff too!

I also agree the crit should be destroyed too.

Blip, mate I'm not sure I'm following your issue with AV vehicles out front? how is that any different to what other forces can do with mixed armour/infantry formations: Eg tactical marines and landraiders, guardians and wave serpents, standard guard with attached LR demolishers etc. If its a concern based on the model itself, eg: "how do they dismount to the rear when the access point is at the front?" well.. ok.. but individual access points have never really mattered at 6mm. Moving on..

I agree the gorgons are awesome in that they can tank so many hits, and it is even more obvious in the larger DKOK formations, but that is where the argument for a DC reduction helps with your issue/concern without requirement for a special rule/requirement for the infantry to soak up bullets for the gorgons.

As an example, 3 Gorgons and 30 stands assault an enemy formation. Assuming the DKOK player can arrange it such that the gorgons are the 3 closes to enemy forces even after counter charges etc, then:
1. At current 3DC, the gorgons will soak up the first 9hits with 4++ saves.
2. At proposed 2DC, they can only soak up 6 hits before the infantry are getting hit.

Given most infantry that ride in gorgons will have little to no save, that's effectively a +3 positive swing towards the enemy's Assault resolution, and would probably go some way towards easing an opponents fear of the DKOK gorgon lead infantry wave assaults.

I think I'd strongly oppose a rule to take his on the infantry first as any commander should be able to make effective use of strong armoured assets leading the assault. Epic rules, or real life, that's just a generally sound decision.

I think a change of the critical to "destroyed, all units inside 5cm takes hit on 6+" would be the easiest. Then there would be a viable tactic to employ against the DKoK for everyone else. Also it would give them a drawback when taking gorgon upgrades (and no, limited shooting capabilities is not enough of a drawback in a assault orientated game).

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

Just fyi, the 30 stand 3 gorgon option of the old list was removed from this one, and a 3rd gorgon can't be taken in the revised list.

Regarding the maths, in an ideal world every model in the unit would get to Fire Fight, all enemies would be in assault range, gorgons would always be at the front, and all hits would be taken on reinforced armour. In reality, this snippet from a recent game is more reflective of what the unit looks like on the charge; the unit is usually too large for everyone to get in range, the 2nd gorgon doesn't make it to the front unless the opponent was really accommodating, and some hits go on men and some on the vehicle.



That doesn't mean they aren't good at their assaults; they have only 1 job and they are great at it. It does mean the unit's performance is less likely to match their ideal mathhammer outcome than many smaller, faster ones.



Thanks for the suggestion, it's been made in the past but I honestly believe it would have a far worse affect on the performance of this unit than the usual 'Crit=Destroyed' result. The reason for that is the gorgons are infantry carriers that actually carry infantry in order to function, so this would be a "Crit=Destroyed Warengine + 10 infantry stands + hits on units within 5cm".

The drawback you are after still exists without it needing a crit to trigger it however. As one of the few units in the game that actually carries its infantry inside it, the formation has an almost unique vulnerability to antitank and lance, and especially to TK.
Snippet from the same game:



So it is still possible for a general with ranged anti-tank to usually large amounts of casualties, but I think the revision's crit is sufficient: "Critical = The Gorgon is Immobilised and D6 infantry inside the Gorgon take a hit. Further Criticals destroy the Gorgon."

Sure other APCs can do this - equally most other APCs aren't open topped landing craft!

IMHO 2DC would be far too easy to destroy with shooting. This argument seems to go round and round when a special rule for "boarding ramp" could solve it in one step, allow the unit to function as it should according to the fluff, keep it at a sensible points cost and stop the whole army being one dimensional. As I say, just my perspective.

(Ps. Someone should point out to GW rule writers that front-accessed APCs are a BAD idea, not a positive should give the unit a boost ! :-)

What??!! If you can't get out the front, how do you assault the galaxy-travelling hyperintelligent shade of the colour blue with your chainsword?

There is no room for Heresy on this board!

I agree that Crit=dead is too harsh. Those gaurdsmen have no armor so destroying the transport will get you alot of bonus casualties as is. You should at least have to work for the sucker rather than get it for free.

Certainly either reducing the armour to 5++ or making it DC 2 would seem reasonable. I know it doesn't match the 40k fluff but then again... I don't really give a flying shi!t about 40k fluff when I'm discussing Epic rules.

Crit = dead is too harsh, but it also seems to be the standard (or at least the most common option) for War Engine transports. If transport crits are made less deadly across the board, then making this one less deadly as well would be fine - as it is, I don't see why the Krieg Rolling Dumpster should get special treatment.

Crit = Dead is perfectly fine. The Orks have a similar problem (Battlefortress) and they ain't complaining.
Remember that the infantry in fact gets a "get-out-save" when their transport is destroyed, as long as the vehicle was not destroyed by a Macro or TK.

_________________
My blog - A man without a mountain of unpainted lead is no real man!

6+ save doesn't count for much in those numbers... The blast markers alone would be fatal.

Yes it's true that orks have the same issue.... Don't know what it's like in your area but I can count the number of battle fortresses I've seen on battlefields on no fingers...