Resolute is no more a new special rule than ATSKNF really; it's a rule that's in several other lists. Whichever was chosen would have to be repeated in the army list anyway, and resolute is just a better fit, both rules and game wise and in the fact that ATSKNF should remain a marine-only thing.

Morgan

Just go with the ideas you have - I know you have them

You have played the list quite a few times and found the need for a special rule. It is not like you started with a special rule and then are trying to prove it's relevance at the front of everyone telling you it is not needed. You have shown (from what I understand) they need something to remain competitive.

Ignore the moaning regards to the special rules and bring forward what you believe would work and then leave it up to a few playtests to determine what the results are. Worrying about what people keep saying about special rules - especially when they have no intention of playing the list - is going nowhere.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

really frogbear, why does almost everything you say have to be a dig at someone? "Worrying about what people keep saying about special rules - especially when they have no intention of playing the list - is going nowhere." just doesn't add anything to the discussion. There are some interesting ideas and suggestions floating around and I'm sure Morgan is weighing them all up.

I am not having a dig - I guess forums do not convey my true demeanor in these instances.

I know for a fact that Morgan has ideas that he has sat on for literally months purely because of the perception out there that "another special rule is not needed". Instead of beating the guy down whenever he tries to make the list work, I say support him in his ideas and let's see where they lead.

If they are not viable, playtests will show this. I find Morgan to be very grounded in his ideas and views and I think he has a lot to offer any list. The fact that people keep beating his ideas down (alterior motives?) on this list and the Dvergatal just 'rub me up the wrong way'.

I am only being honest - something more people should be.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

The special ability you're thinking of is Indomitable (Hena's Death Guard). It was initially Stubborn, but that was changed, probably because it was initially a Squat ability. Resolute was the name I gave to the Dvergatal special ability because Stubborn had already been appropriated. Resolute has apparently been appropriated too (one of the Tyranid lists, I think).

Anyways, that's probably the best option, given the existing framework, though it's not much different to adding in a different special rule, due to lack of integration within the NetEA. But I'll probably go with this one for now, even though the definition of "hackdown hits" still needs to be spelled out.

Anyone playtesting who wants to try this out, should use the following special rule for Paladins, Errants, Lancers, Crusaders, Castellans, Wardens or Barons.

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.

Morgan Vening

Ok, now i seem to get it. You can use either FF or CC if your in base to base but not (2) ff shots and (2)CC attacks.. its either both of one or split of them both. Still nasty though.. I'm going to use the double BM to destroy a knight when broken for the time being. After seeing the effects of the acronym in a more full view. I've only been able to use space marines twice and now i understand even more how the rule works.

thank you Morgan. Hmm... 4+ roll plus a reinforced save. i think that will keep them from dying so quick if they lose an assault but keep them coming back for more when they rally......"Once more into the breech my friends,,"

Willing to try that one. Since you're changing the PDF, might as well include the suggested change to the Castellan, no? Count me in as somebody who thinks they need something else to compete against the same-priced Crusader.

_________________

Hey its good to see the knight thread alive again.

I'd support the proposed rule and change to castellans for the next version.

I promise to provide a bat rep someday when my oponent and I are actually in the same location for longer than a couple of days.

Good work MV.

I'm not sure anyone is "moaning" about special rules. I don't think every list needs a special rule to separate it out from other lists. However, an army with such small formations needs something, and what I proposed (selective ATSKNF) is actually a more forceful (or extreme, depending on your point of view) solution. Part of the attraction for me is that it already exists, with no new rule needed. Resolute/stubborn/bloodimindedness/whateverItIsThisMonth will make it harder for small broken knight formations to be BM-ed to death, but it still won't prevent the FM to be easily broken in the first place.

We do have a knight player in our area; I was giving DS crap ('cause it's fun to do) but he's a willing fellow when it comes to playtesting.

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

see?

I don't think anyone's beating Morgan down here, just lots of people offering suggestions - either appropriating or adapting an existing special rule or making a new one up. I really don't see much whinging and moaning about "another special rule", certainly not enough to go off on one about it. Morgan's a sensible chap, is open to new ideas and isn't afraid to put forward his own if he thinks that's what's needed - all positive attributes in my opinion. So, let's keep the thread positive and upbeat, eh?

but should they be harder to break? They're just guys in big robot suits, albeit with a puffed up sense of medieval chivalry. Astartes have all kinds of weirdly named organs added to them so they can't actually fear stuff (hence the And They Shall Know No Acronyms, oops, Fear special rule). Making them harder to kill when broken and helping them get back in the fight seems more in keeping with this "chivalry" nonsense than them not running away so easily.

IMO, yes. You say, "they're just guys in big robot suits," and I say, "but they're guys in big robot suits!" - potayto, potahto

I think the Big Robot Suit (BRS - we need another acronym) makes the knight functionally equivalent to half-squad of space marines for morale purposes: all that armor, a void (knight) shield, choppy MW, and a strong sense of confidence. But that's just my take from my reading of various fluff and may be completely overblown. I think that the conversation has moved beyond my suggestion anyway, but it's fun to talk about.

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

If I come up with a list, the special rule will be "And they Shall Know No Acronyms"

That's just awesome, Matt

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

true, you could look at it both ways. I've only read one book with Knights in (one of the Horus Heresy ones) and they seemed tough, but not "I've got nothing between the ears that says FEAR" tough like Astartes.

Anyway, at least you don't say parstah instead of pasta, that was one thing about the aussie accent that used to peeve me off (that and ASI). Or ending every sentence with Eh! like NZ north islanders. Or the entire American abomination of a language

Right, that should get this thread thoroughly off topic!