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

Knight Feedback
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=5280		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  dysartes [ Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Knight Feedback
With the Knights, I've gathered that a number of people are unhappy. Part of this is due to the void shield, and how this means the heavier Knights have to be costed.

If we ignore that part, how do those of you who have used them think of the weapons loadout? If we can sort the "Knight Shield" issue (and I'm working on it), will people be happy with the weapons they currently carry?
Author:  Tactica [ Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Knight Feedback
The few times I tried to take them, I found that

1) They were expensive for a 3 blast marker formation of individual models. At least the ordinatus has to come under fire 3 times before it breaks (which isn't very much BTW for how expensive that thing is!)

So buying 3 of them is bad enough, but the prospect of increasing the formation size is really cost prohibitive to me.

2) In order to get the knights I wanted, I had to buy even more paladins. Blah... that made the knights I wanted REALLY expensive. I really couldn't justify increasing either formation's size after that either. So I took 1 3 man formation of lance and 3 man formation of paladin both times I tried them.

3) If the 3 man knight formation comes under fire once and actually loses one model, the formation breaks! My opponent caught on to this in two seperate games (and seperate opponents) ironically both of them approached nights the same. Use planes, knock down a void shield and kill one, formation is broke. Eeek! These formations became useless once the opponent figured that out.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the void shield issue, however, I can suggest a really simple fix. In fact, we adopted 'the below fix' a couple times since I've played the aforementioned two games. That was mainly for campaign purposes but it seemed to work quite well.

1) Eliminate the requirement for paladins to be purchased.
2) Give each knight 2 wounds instead of one.

** Don't change the cost or any stats as they seem over priced at present.

At 3 models and 6 wounds, the knights actually stuck around for a bit and were not broken as soon as they came under fire losing one model. The 1 void shield is handy, but by no means game breaking. We find that it just makes the opponent figure out what kind of junk shots he's going to put onto the formation before he turns around and fires the heavy guns into them.

The AMTL has lost both times since trying these changes, but that was for other problems and campaign related circumstances. The knights were at least viable formations at the current cost and with 2 wounds while not being forced to buy paladins first. It made the formations much less restrictive and more flexible in army construction. We found that to be a good thing.
Author:  Blarg D Impaler [ Fri Aug 12, 2005 5:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Knight Feedback
3) If the 3 man knight formation comes under fire once and actually loses one model, the formation breaks! My opponent caught on to this in two seperate games (and seperate opponents) ironically both of them approached nights the same. Use planes, knock down a void shield and kill one, formation is broke. Eeek! These formations became useless once the opponent figured that out.
<<<--->>>

Umm, maybe I'm reading the rules wrong, but I think the knights are more resilient than what you just described.  Based upon the rules and the Q&A stuff in the back of the rulebook we played it that with a unit of 3 knights, each with a void shield, that you needed to do at least 3 hits, knocking down the 3 void shields, before you can start forcing armor saves, and therefore inflicting blast markers for taking fire.  In the game I've used 3x Paladin formations they went up against a LRuss company and survived just fine.  Only when the Stormtroopers caught me in a crossfire...

I would like to throw my hat in as a proponent of knights just the way they are, except that the requirement to field Paladins before other types is silly and unnecessary.
Author:  Tactica [ Fri Aug 12, 2005 8:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Knight Feedback
Blarg,

I don't know if your group is playing them wrong or not.

In our game, it wasn't even that severe of a formation that was firing on the knights. It only takes 4 hits to break the foramtion from a single firing formation.

A foramtion (of eldar fliers in our case) fires on 3 knights and places one blast marker for coming under fire, then does 4 AT hits. AMTL Player fails his armor save twice and lose one knight - poof, the formation breaks.


In your scenerio - the formation of 3 knights comes under fire by the leman co you described after the lemans move once to get extra range. The knights receive 1 blast marker for coming under fire

The lemans then get 3 of 10 lascannon hits and 6 of 10 battle/vanquisher cannon hits.

You allocate 9 hits across your three knights, 1 each first and it knocks down shields, 1 each again for the first hits that need saved, and 1 each again for the second set of hits that need saved.

You roll well and only lose 1 knight. You receive a second blast marker. Formation breaks.

We found it very easy to break knight formations with a single activation time and time again.
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Knight Feedback
A foramtion (of eldar fliers in our case) fires on 3 knights and places one blast marker for coming under fire, then does 4 AT hits. AMTL Player fails his armor save twice and lose one knight - poof, the formation breaks.


That's the nature of the beast.  It's a 250 point armor formation.  _All_ 250 point armor formations are seriously beaten up by 2 failed 4+ saves and 3 other hits.

Preds, Big Blitz, Vultures, Stompamob, even a Warhound would all virtually always be broken or even completely wiped out by that.

What kind of performance would you expect from 250 points?
Author:  Tactica [ Sat Aug 13, 2005 12:05 am ]
Post subject:  Knight Feedback
NH,

I'm sorry that I'll have to respectfully disagree.

1) The knights can break to FOUR (4) AT hits, not 5. They come under fire for the first blast marker, knock down all three shields for no blast markers and absorbing the first three of four shots, then the remaining hit fails to be saved or RA saved - bam, 1 wound on the formation - and they break.

2) When Lancers require you buy Paladins first, Lancers themselves don't just cost 250 points... there is some overhead to them considering you have to buy the paladins first. there's an argument to be made that 250 points is not the realized cost for the formation of Lancers to be on the field.

3) You said,

_All_ 250 point armor formations are seriously beaten up by 2 failed 4+ saves and 3 other hits


"_All_" is pretty inclusive. Although you are quoting a total of 5 hits and not 4 like I said the knights can break from, the 5 number or 4 number is irrelivent - its the 2 failed saves and one formation firing on them that's key. So in regards to your _ALL_ statement above as compared to 2 failed saves...

Steel Legion Shadowsword, 3 DC with RA = 200 points. comes under fire and Fails two saves (RA) so takes one wound, 2 blast markers total. Formation doesn't break and can still activate.

BL Decimator DC 3 with RA = 225 points, fails two saves (RA), takes one DC damage. Came under fire, therefore has 2 blast markers. Decimator is 25 points cheaper than the knights, and it wouldn't be broken. Formation doesn't break, and it can still activate.

OGM - 1 supa stompa mob DC 4 with RA = 250 points, one blast marker for coming under fire, 2 failed saves (RA) = 1 actual loss of DC, therefore 2 blast markers total. Formation doesn't break and it can still activate.

OGM - Big Fortress Mob, 2 Battle Fortresses @ 3 DC each = 250 points. Comes under fire and fails two saves for a total of 3 blast markers, 6 hits in the formation - formation doesn't break and they can still activate.

SwordWind - 1 EoV Void Spinner or Storm Serpent @ 250 points, comes under fire, fails 2 saves (RA) and takes 1 loss of DC, 2 blast markers total but has 3 DC to start. Formation doesn't break and they can still activate.

So out of the first four lists I opened, I found 5 armored formations that could all fail 2 armor saves - with reinforced armor in some cases and no reinforced armor in other cases. All were war engine formations like the knights. None of these would have broken from failing two saves.

The knights fail the two saves (RA) from 4 AT (3 were absorbed by the void shields) yet they will break. The Decimator and shadowsword are even cheaper, and the decimator has an unbelievable amount of shots and is fearless!
Author:  dysartes [ Sat Aug 13, 2005 8:56 am ]
Post subject:  Knight Feedback
Tactica> There's a reason why the Decimator is so good in this comparision - it is far to cheap for its armament and abilities.

Anyway, let me clarify what my intent was here - I understand peoples issues with formation size, defensive capability and cost, but what I was after was feedback on their offensive power with, if you want to, internal and external comparisions to equivalent units.

Basically, I know we need to look at the defensive abilities, but I need to know if people think I should be looking at the offensive capabilities as well.
Author:  Jaldon [ Sun Aug 14, 2005 4:33 am ]
Post subject:  Knight Feedback
Dysartas

Did you get the proposed KT list I sent you with new data, formation, etc?

If not let me know and I'll send you another copy.

Jaldon :oo
Author:  Tactica [ Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Knight Feedback
Dysartes,

In the few games we've played with AMTL now, the role of the knights really seems to be support of the titans, i.e. staying close tot hem to support the titan if combat ensues. We were not impressed with the paladins, but the lancers FF value was helpful on 1 particular occasion. In sheer offensive FP for the overall unit effectiveness - the 6 lemans are far more valueable in our games. More models equal more dice in combat and more wounds to be absorbed before they break. A leman is a good all purpose unit. We didn't find that there was enough difference flexability with most of the knights. The lemans are just a good all around formation that can be quite flexible in a list that is quite demanding of how its played due to the huge investment in titans.
Author:  dysartes [ Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Knight Feedback
Jaldon - Sorry for the delay in responding, but yes I did get your idea.

I'm looking at it, and working out what I can incorporate into my current plan :)
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Knight Feedback
Tactica:

1) I didn't say I counted it as 5 hits.  4 hits, with 2 failed armor saves.  I suppose I should have said "any remaining" hits as indefinite rather than 3.

2) That's an army org argument and only has a slight effect on the relative value of a particular unit.

3) "_All_" is pretty inclusive.


Yep.  Because there are _no_ existing armor formations that will not probably be broken, if not outright destroyed, by equal firepower and failed saves.  In fact, many of them would likely be broken bu 4 hits even without assuming 2 failed saves.

All your counter-examples are WEs, which are tougher per point but carry less firepower than non-WE armor units.  Even with that consideration, though, they will still be largely broken or destroyed.

You ignored the non-failed indeterminate hits which the Knights soaked on shields and you ignored critical hits.  Your examples:

Steel Legion Shadowsword, 3 DC with RA = 200 points. comes under fire and Fails two saves (RA) so takes one wound, 2 blast markers total. Formation doesn't break and can still activate.

With the extra 3 "undetermined" hits, there's actually a 60% chance that it takes a second point of damage and breaks, not counting the potential effects of criticals.  Overall, the chance of it breaking or dying is about 70%.

Decimator is identical.

Supastompa:  OGBM units are under development and the Supastompa in the core list has been recommended to ERC for a points increase precisely because it is too cheap.

OGM - Big Fortress Mob, 2 Battle Fortresses @ 3 DC each = 250 points. Comes under fire and fails two saves for a total of 3 blast markers, 6 hits in the formation - formation doesn't break and they can still activate.

4 hits would be allocated 3 on one fortress and 1 on the other.  Assuming 2 failed saves, the chances are that there would be one more failed from the other 2 hits.  That's 3 DC damage.  Even spreading out the assumed-failed saves so as to favor the forts, there is a 25% chance the first one dies just on failed saves.  There is also a ~30% chance that one of the two gets a critical.  So, even favoring the Fortresses, they have more than a 50% chance of being reduced below half and broken.

SwordWind - 1 EoV Void Spinner or Storm Serpent @ 250 points, comes under fire, fails 2 saves (RA) and takes 1 loss of DC, 2 blast markers total but has 3 DC to start. Formation doesn't break and they can still activate.

...but the other 3 hits have a 70% chance of causing an additional point of damage, breaking it.  With the additional possibility of criticals, the probability of broken and/or destroyed outright is about 80%.

====

For the record, I ran a bunch of numbers with the average damage it should take to break the knights in a single salvo without bad saves - 7, 3 for shields and 4 for a 4+RA failure.  The results are about the same, i.e. any armor formation and nearly any WE formation in the 250-point range is likely broken and/or destroyed.
Author:  Tactica [ Mon Aug 15, 2005 11:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Knight Feedback
NH,

1) fair enough, I missed your original point. Sorry for the confusion. Anyway...

2) That's an army org argument and only has a slight effect on the relative value of a particular unit.

If paladins prerequisite is so _slight effect_ in order to purchase lances, what do you need to buy in order to take a Decimator by comparison?

Want to trade?

If I want to take a shadowsword, at least my prerequisite is what I'm already buying anyway... i.e. IG companies... in the AMTL list, titans (50% titans) are my prerequisite... now if I want lancers, I also have to buy paladins as another prerequisite. Blah... first, I might not want paladins, second paladins don't help me fulfill my main list requirement - so its an added level of prerequisite that makes the lancers MORE costly than just buying a shadowsword. As written, I don't like paladins as they have the same problems the lancers have and for the role I wanted the knights to play in my strategy, the lancer was all I really wanted. That's a pretty big _slight effect_ by comparison.

3) you quote armored vehicle formations to compare to the WE formation we are discussing. LOL - yes, I used all WE formations as comparison because - wait for it - all the knights are also WE!

It makes no sense to compare an equivilent priced armored vehicle formations to a WE formation if we are talking apples to apples... Especially when I think the knights should go to 3 models per formation (same) but have 2 DC each (an upgrade of +1DC each), with points adjustment if necessary, and elimination of paladin purchase requirements.

Now, you went at length to explain averages... that's all well and good, but I wasn't arguing probability of damage. I concede your math assuming perfect conditions (see below). Averages assuming perfect conditions for all of a unit's defense to be accounted for wasn't the original point at all though.

As I originally stated, the formation failed to save a single RA save. The War Engine formation broke from taking one unsaved wound. That's what I expect from a light vehicle formation, not a WE formation in the AMTL list. That - in itself - is a problem to me.

Your math assumes all your knight models are in range and LOS or it assumes all of your knight models are in the open or all are in cover so that all of my shots are going on all of your models. As the player activating my formation before I fire, it so happens that I might move to only put some or one of your models into range. So ruling out actual play situations, terrain, etc - your math is relivent.

However, the same situation I brought up can happen with fewer hits on your knights formation - again, if the table situation is right for me to exploit. As an opponent, I can even try to manouvre to exploit the knights weakness if I know about it.

1 unsaved wound can happen if I get _all_ of my formation in range of only _one_ of your knights... or you have only one knight sticking out of the corner of LOS blocking terrain, or if you have two in cover and the third that's not and I opt to only fire at units out of cover...

So in any of the above situations where I can pick on 1 and not all 3 of your knights - I do 2 hits to the knights formation. Now, my hits can only be allocated to what's in range and LOS. The one knight. The one knight now absorbs one hit from void shield, then takes one hit and fails his RA... pop, formation breaks.

Now, if this situation is operating as designed - fine. Good times... But for me, this formation has a large weakness. One that will keep me from fielding it.

AMTL isn't a list I play that much (campaign games only), so I have no skin in this one way or the other. On the other hand, I like balanced lists and a balanced play environment. The knights - IMHO - could stand a defensive face lift.



Author:  nealhunt [ Tue Aug 16, 2005 2:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Knight Feedback
3) you quote armored vehicle formations to compare to the WE formation we are discussing. LOL - yes, I used all WE formations as comparison because - wait for it - all the knights are also WE!


They are WEs in name only (DC1).  That was done to get them a couple of minor benefits for flavor reasons - specifically, LoS and barging to bring their screening and assault functions in line with the background.

Functionally, they are armor units.
Author:  ortron [ Tue Aug 16, 2005 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Knight Feedback
Sorry but i don't see the problem with the knights.

For 84pts each they're awesome. 2 guns, voidshield, extra FF and CC attacks. Their better than landradiers and the like which cost more..

all small armour forces have the same problems as knights and its something they need to plan for. If someone blows away a knight.. so what.. thats at least4AT shots that missed a titan.

Sorry but i think your perception of what they should be and their current points/rules don't see eye to eye.

my 2 cents
ORTRON
Author:  Tactica [ Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Knight Feedback
Quote (nealhunt @ 16 2005 Aug.,14:15)
3) you quote armored vehicle formations to compare to the WE formation we are discussing. LOL - yes, I used all WE formations as comparison because - wait for it - all the knights are also WE!


They are WEs in name only (DC1). ?That was done to get them a couple of minor benefits for flavor reasons - specifically, LoS and barging to bring their screening and assault functions in line with the background.

Functionally, they are armor units.

NH,

Pardon my tongue in cheek response to follow, please note I mean it in a :p manner.

1) Functionally, WE's get to move through certain terrain types that vehicles don't.

2) Functionally, WE's get void shields where vehicles don't.

3) Functionally, WE's can through their close combat attacks to base to base or to FF to models not in base to base - regardless of being in base to base with the enemy or not.

So yes, I would agree knights are functionally armored vehicles... but different.  :l

On the other hand, they are exactly like WE's with 1 DC... functionally.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/