In terms of whether it has 2DC or 1? From other 2DCs I usually just put a small die on the base if it has 2DC, if it is knocked down to 1 I remove the die.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

It'll likely go to 25cm, at the least. 30cm would be where there starts to be questions of cost, and being a unique model, with a fairly important ability (SC), it's always hard to get costing right. I'd probably spend 300pts on a Baron, just because of how important and iconic it is, but that doesn't mean 300pts represents it's value, as some of that gets absorbed into other aspects.

Very interested to see what you take, and how they both perform. One of the biggest tasks I think I have in the progress of the lists, is balancing the three 'core' Knights. I'd LIKE to keep them all at the same pointcost, but like most things, that's not immutable, should one prove to just be inferior/superior.

It's good in theory, and again, I'm not dismissing it completely, but the same argument was used for Void/Power Fields. There was a lot of resistance from others, and I still think there may be a better way. Also, it gets back to the Crastellan argument, of "Do the miniatures really deserve to be DC2?".

There's definitely a ways to go with list progression, but I'm glad people are taking it up and playing, and I'm thrilled to have informative feedback. I don't want the list to be just about where I see strengths and weaknesses of the list, and that my meta-game isn't the only yardstick to be measured by.

Keep the reports/comments/critiques coming. I'll see about getting v1.2 out some time this weekend. Nothing drastic, just some of the updates and corrections and a couple of trials for now.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion

I think the major obstacle for most people is quantity of Knights.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Thanks for all the work on this. Any amends to the list going through soon-ish? Will be using them Thursday and perhaps Monday too.

_________________

Expect it up inside 30 hours. I'll put it together at work tonight (my job is very taxing, not), then I'll revise it tomorrow before sleep, and post it.

Don't expect any groundbreaking changes. This will be a minor update.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion

I still don't understand why the size of a mini has to dictate the number of DCs.

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

It doesn't HAVE to, and is the reason I'm not looking to change them. But it should be a factor, I think, when trying to keep to the GW universe. Unless it's exceptional, mass/displacement of a War Engine tends to reflect it's DC.

Just to be clear, the second sentence of mine you quoted isn't meant to refer solely to the first sentence, but to the list as a whole. There are likely to be some significant changes further on, but not necessarily to do with DC changes.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion

I knew that, but thanks for the clarification anyway.

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

FINALLY had a game with the knights... so far i really like the new rule that has been stated.. though my units were small it did help save them from instantly dieing from continual ork fighter bombers. We played 3000 of orks vs a combined, 1500, knights and 1500 guard. I took three paladins with a baron, 3 errants, 3 lancers and 3 castellians (against orks, i liked the extra shots. but wished it could have been three shots of bolter fire instead of two).

From what i can tell, it was aggrivating to watch my knights get blast markers from the fighters and landers, but then pass the armor saves once they were broken. i still lost both my lancers due to fighters continually pressing them, but my lone errant valiantly assaulted a great ork Gargant by his lonesome self, scoring 3 out of four hits though only one got throug before he failed two of his nine attacks back at him. what a save,, then POOOF..... Though my baron and two remaining paladins went toe to toe with it and knocked it down two four hits and a crit. Of course even with blast markers on it, i still lost the resolution(i had a blast marker my self). They ran, but pass the "hit" armor save. we all had a good laugh as they ran behind a building to recover and prepare another audacious charge.

Like i said.. so far i like it.. it helps save them from annihilation from annoyance units when you have small formations. But i need to play it some more here in the Houston area at 3000 points. Oh, question... if i have a formation of 3 errants , how many total attacks do i do in close combat. or do i get both the close combat extra attacks and the two fire fight attacks.. i want to make sure before i make a halfwit out of my self in a game. from what i understand, it would be 12 attacks. but if its only six then i played it wrong.

just housekeeping. but the version 1.2 list is here:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20845

WEs can use both close and firefight even if base-to-base w/ an enemy. So you get 1 first strike attack, 1 regular attack on account of being DC1 (this can use either FF or CC stat), 1 MW attack using FF value, 1 MW attack using CC value.

_________________

iiick..... wow.. they are rude in combat..but nice.

edit - Ignore me... not sure if I was right!

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

I'm basing that interpretation on this:
3.3.2 Close Combat and Firefight Attacks
Instead of rolling a single hit dice for each war engine in an assault, roll a number of hit dice equal to the war engine’s starting damage capacity. You may choose to split these between close combat rolls and firefight rolls as you see fit, but close combat rolls will only hit enemy units in base contact, while firefight rolls will only hit units within 15cm that are not in base contact.

So this seems to imply that even if a WE is in base-to-base it can still use its firefight value if it so wishes (and has valid targets for it). Couldn't find anything in the FAQ about it either and I see no reason for that unit not to use both extra attacks against different targets. Another clue is that if the Errant didn't have these many attacks it'd be fairly underpowered compared to the Paladin whose juicy Firefight stat and extra attacks make it a supreme supporting fire provider and as we all know Firefight is better than Base contact as it's so much easier to achieve.

_________________