Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Knightworld - Knight Shield Options
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18481		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Morgan Vening [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 1:04 am ]
Post subject:  Knightworld - Knight Shield Options
OK, I'm immersing myself in the background of the Mechanicus/Forge Worlds. And I'll work towards a new revision shortly. But for the meantime, I'm interested in ideas related to the implementation of Knight Shields.

So far, the options I've seen here and spoken with locally, are...

1) Holofield 4+ (existing), countered by CC and Crossfire.

2) Individual Power Fields (handled just like a Warhound Pack would)

3) Group Power Fields (varied implementations)

4) Cover Mod (always counts as being in cover, doesn't stack if in cover)

5) Invulnerable Save

I'm not interested in discussing relative power (yet), that'll be factored in to cost, so both weak and strong options are welcome. Just curious what the other Knight players like, are ambivalent about, and loathe. I have some ideas towards direction, but the Knight Shield is really, the defining "special rule" of the Knightworld list, and don't want to miss the opportunity to start in the best direction.

Morgan Vening
- Knightworld Sub-Champion
Author:  Spectrar Ghost [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 1:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Knight Shield Options
I personally prefer (2). The main objection seems not to be the balance, but the bookkeeping. How it's more effort than a Titan Legion, or Minervans with Demolishers/Executioners, I can't understand. Each Knight has an Ork-style (non-regenerating) power field. Pro - It uses an existing mechanic without modification; KISS. Con - can be manipulated by a maneuverable opponent to hit unshielded Knights through the hit mechanics.

Most Knightworld lists (3k) seem to have in the neighborhood of two dozen Knights. That's two dozen powerfields to keep track of, without any need to check regeneration, etc. A 3k Titan Legion list will usually have at least that many Voids, which do regenerate, as well as DC markers, Slow Firing Plasma, etc.

Just keep the existing and balanced mechanic.
Author:  Dave [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Knight Shield Options
I'm for just using invulnerable saves to represent the shield.
Author:  frogbear [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Knight Shield Options
Morgan

With me it would also depend on the numbers in the formations.

If they go from being formations of 3 to 4 units, then that is a weakness that is being 'plugged' so I would (without ever playing the list), be in favour of less impact and would go with either (4) or (5).

Then again, I see no reason why they could not adopt both (4) and (5) as the one rule. That would be my preferred over all other options.
Author:  Onyx [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Knight Shield Options
Dave wrote:
I'm for just using invulnerable saves to represent the shield.

+1
Author:  The Red Sorcerer [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Knight Shield Options
+1 for the invulnerable save option.

Knight Shields have always worked distinctly differently from voids in the background, so using the void/power field rules to represent them doesn't sit right with me. An invulnerable save seems far more true to the background, and avoids issues with bookkeeping as well.

I also like having it cancelled by crossfire - I'm pretty sure the background always presented Knight Shields as offering protection to the front, but not the rear.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Knight Shield Options
Quote:
Most Knightworld lists (3k) seem to have in the neighborhood of two dozen Knights. That's two dozen powerfields to keep track of, without any need to check regeneration, etc. A 3k Titan Legion list will usually have at least that many Voids, which do regenerate, as well as DC markers, Slow Firing Plasma, etc.

For me, the problem is not the total ammount of shields on the table, but the total ammount of shield "stacks".

In a typical AMTL army you can keep 5-6 shield stacks in your head easily... the same cannot be said for having 20+ "stacks" of shields in a Knightworld army, I think.
Author:  Spectrar Ghost [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Knight Shield Options
See, my group always uses counters to represent downed shields, so memory isn't an issue. Looks like Invuls are in the majority anyway, though...
Author:  Morgan Vening [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 1:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Knight Shield Options
Spectrar Ghost wrote:
See, my group always uses counters to represent downed shields, so memory isn't an issue. Looks like Invuls are in the majority anyway, though...


Just to be fair, I'm not looking for a 'majority' position. Else I would have used a poll. That's not to say I won't side with the majority. I'm wanting to see the breadth of argument for or against each position.

As Power Fields would only be singular, and non-regenerating (unlike Void), a bead/counter/marker behind each unit isn't an insurmountable bookkeeping problem. Anything with a larger capacity (Castellan/Crusader) would have Void, rather than multiple Power.

At the moment, everything's still up for consideration, as is any other suggestions people might have.

Morgan Vening
- Knightworld Sub-Champion
Author:  nealhunt [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Knight Shield Options
The fixed save, lost by crossfire and CC is probably the most true to the old-school mechanics. I don't think it's any more challenging to than holofield rules and it retains the advantage of not needing to track individually which shields are up or down.

A simple Inv Save would be functional.

For the reasons others already posted, I think that tracking lots of shields on individual units is a poor idea.
Author:  Mc Haggis [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Knight Shield Options
1) We could try that
2) Takes a lot of micromanaging which knights in a unit still have their shields and then positioning them to take the bulk of the fire.
3) Works at the moment, but not with the crossfire rule.
4) Not really feeling the cover modifier, it doesn’t seem ‘Imperial’ enough.
5) Could work see point 1, but I don’t think 6+ would be good enough, maybe 5+ and ignored in crossfires.
Author:  Markconz [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Knight Shield Options
nealhunt wrote:
The fixed save, lost by crossfire and CC is probably the most true to the old-school mechanics. I don't think it's any more challenging to than holofield rules and it retains the advantage of not needing to track individually which shields are up or down.

A simple Inv Save would be functional.

For the reasons others already posted, I think that tracking lots of shields on individual units is a poor idea.


This echoes my thoughts also.
Author:  Ares [ Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Knight Shield Options
Number one, I think. Number five alone is too weak, two and three are kinda fiddly and number four just doesn't feel right.
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Knight Shield Options
nealhunt wrote:
The fixed save, lost by crossfire and CC is probably the most true to the old-school mechanics. I don't think it's any more challenging to than holofield rules and it retains the advantage of not needing to track individually which shields are up or down.


This is my preference.
Author:  Morgan Vening [ Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Knight Shield Options
nealhunt wrote:
The fixed save, lost by crossfire and CC is probably the most true to the old-school mechanics. I don't think it's any more challenging to than holofield rules and it retains the advantage of not needing to track individually which shields are up or down.

A simple Inv Save would be functional.

For the reasons others already posted, I think that tracking lots of shields on individual units is a poor idea.
The only issue with the existing save, is it's often a non-factor. It doesn't change the dynamic of AT/MW/Lance, and given the way the current NetEpic rules are written*, it was unmodified by such things (It had a fixed save to attacks from the front). However, giving it a variation of Living Metal/Particle Shielding is out of the question. I knew this'd be the hardest part to get done, but it'll get done, unless it kills me. :)

* I'm still going through source material, and am awaiting the older versions of rules, to check for differences.

Ares wrote:
Number one, I think. Number five alone is too weak, two and three are kinda fiddly and number four just doesn't feel right.
Actually, in most situations, number 5 is superior.

Chance of survival
Weap..Opt1..Opt5
.AT....75%..~79%
.MW....50%..~58%
.La....50%..~58%
.TK....50%..~17%
TKCC....0%..~17%

There aren't a lot of TK weapons in the game, and a good portion of those are CC, and the circumstances of most knights means dealing with Crossfire, so I was looking for a slight uptweak that would be relevant more often, without the need to have to re-cost everything from scratch.

I've finally got several days off in a row, so there'll be a playtest release before Saturday.

Morgan Vening
- Knightworld Sub-Champion
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/