Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

KnightWorld v1.2

 Post subject: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:36 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:50 am
Posts: 835
OK, here tis. Not a whole lot of changes for now, here's the extract from the Change Log.

V1.2
– Weapon Errors corrected (Paladin Autocannon, Sentinel Multilaser)
– Naming Conventions changed (Baron Lance, Sentinel CC Weapon, Lancer Power Lance)
– Increased Firepower for Castellan Gatling AutoCannon and dropped cost nominally.
– Added option for Warden in Squire/Aspirant formations.
– Removed Marauder Bombers, added Lightning Formation.
– Added Indomitable Rule to Army list page, and as a special ability to Paladins, Errants and Lancers.

Any issues or concerns or general griping (about this list), feel free to voice your comments here.

Edit: Added the PDF I'd forgotten. Yes, I'm stupid. Moving on...

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion


Attachments:
Knightworld1_2.pdf [116.33 KiB]
Downloaded 569 times
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:50 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5432
Location: Bristol
Why does the Errant still have move 30cm? :( It's not meant to be a fast Knight at all! - it's original Titan Legions rules had it the exact same speed as a Palladin. Look at the models for a Lancer, Errant and Palladin and it's obvious that the Lancer is built for speed, while the other two are fairly ponderous.

I brought this up ages ago and E&C admitted it was a mistake, which he would change when he next updated the list, but I haven't checked the list in yonks and you took over in the meant time. I would suggest knocking it's speed down to 20cm and upgrading it's power gauntlet attack to Titan Killer (or alternatively dropping it's points to 60-65 or so). The current movement really misrepresents the unit and I wouldn't be happy using it like that after knowing and using them in TL.

Is there a reason only some Knights have (Gryphonne Pattern) while others are blank? Perhaps they should all be that?

I like the idea of adding the Warden to the sentinels, though is it a good idea to add it to the scouting ones where it can then garrison?

Otherwise the list looks good though :) Excellent to see the Castellan getting a boost compared to the Crusader and a points drop! I wonder how viable an all-Knight army would be?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 2:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:50 am
Posts: 835
GlynG wrote:
Why does the Errant still have move 30cm? :( It's not meant to be a fast Knight at all! - it's original Titan Legions rules had it the exact same speed as a Palladin. Look at the models for a Lancer, Errant and Palladin and it's obvious that the Lancer is built for speed, while the other two are fairly ponderous.
Kind of. Looking at the relative masses of the two miniatures, the Lancer is carrying a substantial amount of weight, not just that great honkin' lance, but also with regards the torso as well. And remember, this is the scale where Eldar Guardians are as slow as Marine Dreadnoughts (I wanna see one of them in a 100m sprint!). So some fudging is permissible.

GlynG wrote:
I brought this up ages ago and E&C admitted it was a mistake, which he would change when he next updated the list, but I haven't checked the list in yonks and you took over in the meant time. I would suggest knocking it's speed down to 20cm and upgrading it's power gauntlet attack to Titan Killer (or alternatively dropping it's points to 60-65 or so). The current movement really misrepresents the unit and I wouldn't be happy using it like that after knowing and using them in TL.
It'd see the cost plummet, given it's a CC based formation. That's the only reason I've held it at 30cm. Any net drop in speed would require a huge reshuffling of statistics to make them viable, or a redefining of the role. None of that is off the table, but this release wasn't intended to be the one that changed the overall character of the list that much. But it's still something I've got my eye on.

GlynG wrote:
Is there a reason only some Knights have (Gryphonne Pattern) while others are blank? Perhaps they should all be that?
There's a very good reason. Gimme a couple of days, and I'm sure I can think of one. Yeah, it's basically just been grandfathered in.

GlynG wrote:
I like the idea of adding the Warden to the sentinels, though is it a good idea to add it to the scouting ones where it can then garrison?
I don't see it as a problem, given the other restrictions, but if it even looks at being an issue of concern, I'll correct it.

GlynG wrote:
Otherwise the list looks good though :) Excellent to see the Castellan getting a boost compared to the Crusader and a points drop! I wonder how viable an all-Knight army would be?
That's what I'm working towards. One where Titan allies are an option, not really a requirement.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 2:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5432
Location: Bristol
Morgan Vening wrote:
Kind of. Looking at the relative masses of the two miniatures, the Lancer is carrying a substantial amount of weight, not just that great honkin' lance, but also with regards the torso as well…So some fudging is permissible.

Well yes, clearly the Lancer is heavy, but it’s also very long-legged and blatantly designed for speed and carrying that weight and it's in a running pose. The Errant shares the same leg design and static pose as the Palladin and should move the same. If you gave one each of the three models to someone who didn’t play the game and asked them to divide them into ones they thought were 'fast' and 'slow' I strongly suspect the Lancer would get labelled fast and the other two slow. Fudging the unit to be fast rather than slow distorts the unit from what it should be and its unnecessary.

Morgan Vening wrote:
It'd see the cost plummet, given it's a CC based formation. That's the only reason I've held it at 30cm. Any net drop in speed would require a huge reshuffling of statistics to make them viable, or a redefining of the role.

Huh? Why are you thinking of the Errant per se as a close combat formation? It’s meant to be a specialised titan hunter that’s deadly at both short ranged shooting and close combat, but lacking the range/firepower and general all-round abilities of the Palladin or the speed of the Lancer.

The original rules for the Knight Errant in Titan Legions had a special rule for its Power Gauntlet giving it +2 to the D6 damage roll on titan damage charts i.e. it was especially good at damaging them. Titan Killer would be entirely appropriate for it given its previous rules and role and the Power Gauntlet is of a roughly similar size to a Subjugator’s claw which has Titan Killer.

Not counting the shock-lance (which is represented by its own attack) the only weapon the Knight Errant has is its Thermal Cannon and the normal fashion for representing a unit where it’s only weapon has MW is not for it to add an extra attack MW but for its base attack to be MW – as with a SM Land Speeder. I think you should change the Errant to 4+ FF but make the Thermal Cannon give its base attack MW, without adding an extra attack. You’d want to stick a note in its unit notes that’s a variant of the one the Land Speeder gets: “The thermal cannon can shoot and be used to confer the macro-weapon ability to the unit's firefight value, but not its shock lance attack”. Under your current rules it averages 0.3 MW hits and 0.6 normal hits in FF, after the change it would still average the same overall of 1 hit, but the proportion of MW would be higher; 0.5 MW and 0.5 normal. This would fit its role better.

With the suggested changes to titan killer CC and base MW 4+FF I definitely think it would still make a good choice at 20cm for 75points compared to the others. It’d be more specialised and slow, but it would be excellent at close range vs elite things with good armour. Take for example the possibility of getting charged by teleporting terminators – 3 Lancers would kill on average 0.75 Terminators, 3 Palladins would kill on average 1.125 Terminators, while 3 Errants with my proposed stats would kill on average 2.5 Terminators. Were 3 Errants to close combat an enemy Gargant, say, they could cause on average 2.5 points of damage to it, compared to only 1.125 for Palladins or 1.5 damage for fire-fighting lancers (or less/none if it had powerfields).

Also, I just noticed the Baron is only speed 20cm. It used to be the same speed as the Lancers. So that it can keep up with them could it not have 30cm move? Or at least a mid-point of 25cm?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:16 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5787
Location: UK
I'd be inclined to agree that the lancer looks like it should be faster, regardless of body mass. You could always go to 25 as a halfway house – slower than the lancer and built on the same frame as the paladin, but with souped up engines to get it into close combat faster than a regular paladin.

If it got TK this could also help to separate the currently slightly muddled lancer/errant CC/FF stats and define a clearer role.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:47 am
Posts: 1434
Location: State College
another issue with the 30cm speed is the 10cm counter-charge - it makes it almost impossible to clip a fm containing Errants


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5432
Location: Bristol
Minor grammar mistake in the Knight Shield special rule by the way; "which may only be used if the Knight is hit by a weapon with the Titan-Killer". Either add 'special rule' to the end or delete the 'the' before 'Titan-Killer'.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:51 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1964
Location: South Yorkshire
Quote:
SPECIAL RULE : Indomitable
All units that are Indomitable may make their normal armour saves (including any re-rolls that may apply) against hackdown hits due to losing close combat or hits caused by suffering Blast Markers when broken. Note that Indomitable units are still destroyed outright if they are within 15cm of enemy at the end of a Withdrawal move.


Should the rule refer to losing an Engage action instead of losing Close Combat.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11126
Location: Canton, CT, USA
Next chance I get, I'll take this list for a test drive.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:37 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:46 am
Posts: 158
Hi all,

Been lurking for a short while, and I have a query regarding the reasoning behind the ruling of the Knight Shield.

Why does it only work against TK weapons, and not MW?
In the ye'old epic of Space Marine/Titan Legion the 4+ invulnerable save worked on all attacks, but only from the front 90d.
Wouldnt it be easy, and perhaps more fitting, to make the Knight Shield work on MW and TK attacks, in close combat/FF/ranged?

Cheers,

Tee


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:03 pm
Posts: 1081
Location: London, UK
admiral_tee wrote:
Hi all,

Been lurking for a short while, and I have a query regarding the reasoning behind the ruling of the Knight Shield.

Why does it only work against TK weapons, and not MW?
In the ye'old epic of Space Marine/Titan Legion the 4+ invulnerable save worked on all attacks, but only from the front 90d.
Wouldnt it be easy, and perhaps more fitting, to make the Knight Shield work on MW and TK attacks, in close combat/FF/ranged?

Cheers,

Tee


This is not an invulnerable save but rather the chance to actually have a save versus TK weapons. To recap the rules for normal units (without reinforced armour):
Normal attack - you get your save
MW attack - you don't get a save
TK attack - you don't get a save
For units with reinforced armour like most knights:
normal - you get save + reroll
MW - you get a single save
TK - you get no save

The knightshield allows the knights to roll their normal save against it as opposed to not having a save at all.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:56 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:46 am
Posts: 158
carlos wrote:
This is not an invulnerable save but rather the chance to actually have a save versus TK weapons. To recap the rules for normal units (without reinforced armour):
Normal attack - you get your save
MW attack - you don't get a save
TK attack - you don't get a save
For units with reinforced armour like most knights:
normal - you get save + reroll
MW - you get a single save
TK - you get no save

The knightshield allows the knights to roll their normal save against it as opposed to not having a save at all.


Ahh, ok. I see where the advantage lies.
Thanks for the clarification.

Tee


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:46 am
Posts: 158
Hi

A couple of extra questions:
1- Why is there a difference between some knights having a shield versus a void shield? IIRC all the knights had a shield in Titan Legions.
2- I can understand the Baron have DC2, perhaps due to the 2+ save the unit had in Titan Legions, and that you probably need a kick ass supreme commander, it fits with knight theme.
However, why do the Castellan and Crusader also have DC2? Wouldn't it be better if they had a better armour save with a knight shield?

Tee


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:40 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:50 am
Posts: 835
Apologies for the delay in responding, just haven't had the time to sit down and respond to everything. Should be more on top of things now.

Here's the last outstanding issue from the KnightWorld 1.1 thread, which I've now locked.

Onyx wrote:
Well WE's can use either CC or FF with their initial attacks (split as the WE player chooses - Errant has only 1 attack though).
The only question is what happens with all the extra attacks.
If the Errant is hitting an enemy formation that is only in base contact, you wouldn't be able to get the extra FF attacks (obvious).
Similarly, if the Errant is in a FF engagement, there would be no extra CC attacks (obvious).

My only question is whether extra CC attacks can be added when the Errant used it's initial FF attack and vice versa (can extra FF attack be added when the Errant performed a CC attack)?

My initial reaction is that a 1DC WE can only add the extra attacks that are granted by it's initial attack (ie either CC or FF).

I do understand where you might get this interpretation. But I don't think that's the way it's supposed to work, and isn't how I've been playtesting the Knights in the past. By that reasoning, a Reaver Titan with a Close Combat arm would be required to put a point of it's DC into CC to be able to make use of the CCArm's +3EA, even if it wasn't necessary (3xCC3+MW should clear a single unit in base contact, for example).

It's very similar conceptually to the "within" debate. You seem to be defining +1EA as "An additional CC (or FF) attack, only in addition to a CC (or FF) attack used normally.". I am defining it as "An additional CC (or FF) attack, regardless of how normal attacks are assigned.". My reasoning for that is how to interpret +1EA First Strike. So I can only use a special ability, if I commit to using that same range (CC or FF) in the normal strikes. Which is counter to the standard rule that allows a non-WarEngine that kills a model in CC with First Strike to be able to change to FF in the normal strikes section.

Both arguments are valid, and a ruling on the matter would be nice. It would mean recosting/redesigning the core Knights, because Paladins lose a third of their combat potential, and Errants suffer a significant drop as well.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: KnightWorld v1.2
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:50 am
Posts: 835
I'm just going to go in a higly summarised form here, because there's a lot of posts to get through, and it's going to be wall-of-text enough as it is.

Quote:
GlynG - Various class speed issues.

The original designs were only supposed to be 5cm difference (Lancers and Baron 25cm, Errant and Paladin 20cm). That converts to 30cm and 25cm respectively at the NetEA level. I could probably change those without too much difficulty, and I'm definatly considering a bump in speed to the Baron and Paladins. The two tend to only be seen in the same way as Tactical Marines + Supreme Commander in a Marine list. The issue I have with the Errants, is based on performance. I'll discuss this in the next bit.

Quote:
GlynG - Errants role change from Titan Hunter specialist to CC specialist.

This was a change I inherited, and I was kinda hoping E&C would have chimed it. The original Errants were released in a ruleset based on, if not reliant on, Titan Class WarEngines. So not having a formation that could contend with them would have been the gaming equivalent of malpractice. I can't speak for those who changed them (Dysartes and E&C), but I do think that a change to a more generalised CC formation was a good one. Errants aren't the only formation to have changed conceptually across the range, as the former Titan-dominated game has changed into the game now known as Epic Armageddon.

The changes you suggested would be problematic (with the FF needing a special rule), and I respectfully disagree that they would stay even close to compatible, costwise. As it stands, taking Errants is borderline, the benefits of FF being so much more useful than CC, that making the Errants slower, especially much slower, would require a significant change in cost and/or ability. That's not to say I'm locked in on this, but when playing around with the core units, you've got to be careful not to put fluff over balance. I still might up the Power Fist to Tank Killer if I drop the speed to 25cm, but I'm not sure that's a good enough tradeoff. As Muppet points out, the difference between 30cm and 25cm isn't a small matter. Countercharge and inability to make base contact, could be severe issues.

I'd like people's opinions on how Errants have fared as they are now, and whether replacing them with Lancers would have been a better option.

Quote:
GlynG - Typographical error in Knight Shield

Will be fixed.

Quote:
dptdexys - Indomitable syntax issues.

Yes, it should be reworded. Probably better to use "Assault" or "when resolving 1.12.8 Loser Withdraws", as an Engage Action could perhaps be interpreted incorrectly. The reason for the wording was making sure I had uniformity with the existing wording of the rule. I'll get on consolidating this.

It should probably categorically state what happens if a broken Indomitable unit loses an Assault. It's my opinion that the broken formation is wiped out, but that might not be the intent of the rule.

Quote:
admiral_tee - Knight Shield query.

Carlos got it exact as to interpretation. The other issue, regarding the Front90, it was probably determined that keeping the fluid approach of the new Epic rules was more important than the older static systems. In most circumstances it's considered that formations respond to at least a lesser degree to the actions of the enemy. So a formation of TK wielding speedsters, with no other enemies nearby can't just fly around behind the Knights, and let fly, the Knights will adapt the shield to face them. If there is a crossfire, that confusion opens up the opportunity. The reason for the CC exclusion is the uniformity (Shields don't work in CC), and CAF used to be a combination of CC and FF.

Quote:
admiral_tee - KnightShield vs VoidShield and DC2

These are inherited, but things I don't have an issue with. Castellans and Crusaders have kept their DC2 both because 3 unit formations are inherently weak for suppression purposes, and because going beyond 4+RA usually requires an exceptional reason. I could probably drop the VoidShield for a KnightShield, and drop the costs of these formations (and it's definately not completely out of consideration), but most people seem to like them as they are, and I don't see a reason to change them, for now.

Just a quick explanation of my design philosopy regarding the Knights. I'm not driven to make the Knights list a direct translation of the Titan Legions rules any more than I do of making them a direct translation of the dinosaur herder Space Marine rules, the NetEpic rules, or gods-forbid a new 40K Apocraplypse (and with that Grey Knight wankmobile, I wouldn't put it past them if they thought they could make a buck). What I'm looking to create, is a balanced army list, that has the general "feel" of a Knight list, has enough tactical options to allow some creativity in design, and is fun to play (both with, and against). I'm not otherwise locked into a single way of thinking, and I do give consideration to any and all opinions voiced. A lot of the unit stats and design protocols were inherited from the previous designers, but anything that hasn't been changed as of v1.2 is something that I don't currently have an issue with. Units may change, and as I've intimated above, there are certain things I'm considering. But until I've got a better understanding on the capacities of the current list, both within my own meta-game, and with the NetEA community as a whole, wholesale changes would be a little premature, IMO.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron

Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net