Page 1 of 2

[ 26 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2  Next

Knight Feedback
dysartes	Post subject: Knight Feedback Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:20 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:16 pm Posts: 908	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? _________________ The forgotten Champion - AMTL, baby! Dysartes.com - Resources for the Modern Wargamer - Last updated: December 2004 - Next Update: In Progress Sentinels are just young titans that haven't grown up yet!
Top

Tactica	Post subject: Knight Feedback Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:45 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	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. _________________ Rob
Top

Blarg D Impaler	Post subject: Knight Feedback Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 5:19 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm Posts: 356 Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA	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. _________________ I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...
Top

Tactica	Post subject: Knight Feedback Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 8:47 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	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. _________________ Rob
Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Knight Feedback Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:26 pm

Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA

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? _________________ Neal

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Knight Feedback Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 12:05 am

Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241

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! _________________ Rob

Top

dysartes	Post subject: Knight Feedback Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 8:56 am
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:16 pm Posts: 908	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. _________________ The forgotten Champion - AMTL, baby! Dysartes.com - Resources for the Modern Wargamer - Last updated: December 2004 - Next Update: In Progress Sentinels are just young titans that haven't grown up yet!
Top

Jaldon	Post subject: Knight Feedback Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 4:33 am
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:38 am Posts: 720 Location: Utah, pick a Pacific Island the other half of the year.	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 _________________ Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.
Top

Tactica	Post subject: Knight Feedback Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:08 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	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. _________________ Rob
Top

dysartes	Post subject: Knight Feedback Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:45 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:16 pm Posts: 908	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 _________________ The forgotten Champion - AMTL, baby! Dysartes.com - Resources for the Modern Wargamer - Last updated: December 2004 - Next Update: In Progress Sentinels are just young titans that haven't grown up yet!
Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Knight Feedback Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:28 pm

Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA

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.