Tactical Command | View topic

Page 2 of 2

[ 26 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Knight Feedback

Killed by Death

Post subject: Knight Feedback

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:12 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:47 pm
Posts: 387

I've just been doing a 3000 pts list in order to try out some knights.

Although I haven't played the actual game yet I can already say that I think it should be two errants and lancers households pr paladin household.

Keep crusader and castellan at one per paladin hold.

Here's the list I made... it lacks everything in upgrades, but I had to give up SOMETHING!:

1 Warlord
1 Reaver
1 Paladin Household
1 Paladin Household
1 Paladin Household
1 Crusader Household
1 Lancer Household

Low on activations... not really flexible.. no airsupport.. well - the list goes on! But I just wanted to have a lot of knights in it and with 50% in titans and loads of paladins there's not much to give from in a 3000 pts game.

_________________
If you suddenly find that I make any sense.... look out of your window for armageddon!

Top

Killed by Death

Post subject: Knight Feedback

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:07 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:47 pm
Posts: 387

Well now we've played the game.

My opponent had never played orks before, but that didn't stop him.

He had no trouble breaking my knights and ignoring my titans.
Frankly as soon as the knights were broken they had a really hard time to come back... I mean - when they rally they are at 2 bms... needing just to come under fire to break again.

Needles to say the battle was quick and not very inspiring.

I understand that I haven't taken the best list. But with limited points and a lot better options I don't really get the idea of knights.

6 russ are easily a lot better and only 100 pts more expensive. The fill the same role as paladins and with the current setup all you'll get most of the time is paladins.

I think the 1 paladin = 1 other knight household rule is not very good.

But to be honest I think the best thing that could happen was to do knights all over again and drop the whole WE thing. I mean= place the model next to a stompa!

Stompas don't get power fields either!

And a last but no less interesting (for me) thought: For 1500 pts I got 15 knihgts... now on average that's 100 pts each... that will never lead to very epic battles with loads of machines battling it out!

I say make them more like stompas and AV (note: not identical) and less like they are now.

_________________
If you suddenly find that I make any sense.... look out of your window for armageddon!

Top

Grimshawl

Post subject: Knight Feedback

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:00 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:11 pm
Posts: 208
Location: Newark Ohio

when the knights were first being worked out I argued constantly for them to be more like stompas, AVs like you say but I failed to get my point across and here we are today with them as they are, small formations of relatively expensive and easily broken knights saddled with restrictions, dropping the WE and the void sheilds in favor of a lesser knight sheild and lowering their price somewhat would help, but thats just my opinion. Grim

_________________
who are we to bring down the stars
http://lostandfoundohio

Top

gillyfish

Post subject: Knight Feedback

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:18 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:34 pm
Posts: 6

Okay, bearing in mind the above discussion, do you think something like the following could work?

Keep the knights as War Engines, but remove the void shield. Instead of the void shield give them a rule for a 'knight shield'; this would work a little like 'And they shall know no fear' rule - in this case each shield allows the knights to ignore one blast marker on their formation. So a unit of three knights would not be broken or suppressed until it had received more than three balst markers. The downside of this is that the knights themselves are more vulnerable to enemy fire as it is only the blast markers that are ignored, not the fire dirceted at them. In addition, you could re-introduce the directional shields of 2nd edn by saying that knight shields do not count in a crossfire - even the big machines are going to worry when shot in the back!

What do you think? Does the increased vulnerability prevent this from being viable, or do you think the increased resilience to blast markers would help? I confess that I haven't tried out my knights yet and I'm just going on what has been said in this discussion already.

I await your thoughts!

Top

Killed by Death

Post subject: Knight Feedback

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:12 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:47 pm
Posts: 387

I played against a guy who suggested giving the knights "ATSKNF". I think it's a good idea. However I still think they need to be downgraded somewhat and made cheaper, so that you can field more. And still - why WE? Stompa compared to knight... One big question mark!

_________________
If you suddenly find that I make any sense.... look out of your window for armageddon!

Top

dysartes

Post subject: Knight Feedback

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:14 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:16 pm
Posts: 908

KbD> To be honest with you, I think they got the Stompas wrong, as opposed to us getting the Knights wrong.

Having Knights as WE gets us the benefits of being WE - "barging" into combat, use of FF instead of CC in combat, etc - as well as the downsides - blocking each others LoS, etc.

_________________
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

Killed by Death

Post subject: Knight Feedback

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:48 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:47 pm
Posts: 387

Quote (dysartes @ 26 2005 Aug.,14:14)

Your point is fair enough, and yes - I think I actually agree that stompas should be allowed to use FF in any case - all ork machines should!

But I'm a great fan of consistency. Land raiders, Stompas... they're AV. (there are probably more examples of big things that aren't WE but I'm too lazy to look through all the lists!)

I think the main point is to consider the models. The knights do not even look as bulky as stompas!

More to the point I guess I'm really talking mostly about Paladins. I guess crusaders and other types of knights could very well be WE. But with the "core" feel of paladins I think it would look really good to have them AV and more pr formation. Give it a workhorse feel. Also - both paladins and errants and barons have already got splendid CC value and will only benefit very little from being WE.

So - Paladins = AV... and more to a formation in my opinion.
(Consider the players too! Most people have got hoooordes of these plastic kits! Very subjective I admit)

_________________
If you suddenly find that I make any sense.... look out of your window for armageddon!

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Knight Feedback

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:21 pm

Brood Brother

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

I don't mind if they stay WE, but we'd go a long way to fix them if

1) remove the paladin dependancy - at least reduce it... In order to take any knight formations in the army besides paladins, there must be at least 1 paladin formation in the army.

2) give kights 2 DC instead of 1 each

3) lose void shield all together

4) adjust price as necessary.

Gains:

A) Keep WE bonus' on the models as that's part of the designer's vision

B) 6 wounds to a base formation instead of 3 means they don't break as easy initially or after rally

C) we have the option to add them to 'titan' formations if we want to explore that option - which I recommend.

D) Weapon systems don't need augmented as we are only increasing resilience of the formation to blast markers and losing void shields, not number of shots for the points in question.

E) there isn't a massive deterrent to the use of knights as you don't have to end up with a horde of paladins just to play the knights you really would prefer playing.

Just my thoughts.

_________________
Rob

Top

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: Knight Feedback

Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:53 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

Do I have to re post everything again? Or can I assume you've got it?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Knight Feedback

Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:36 pm

Brood Brother

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

TRC =

_________________
Rob

Top

dysartes

Post subject: Knight Feedback

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:29 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:16 pm
Posts: 908

Tactica - Some good ideas there - I still feel there should be some Paladin dependency to the army (as you said yourself, they need a "workhorse" feel), and I think you may just have hit the nail on the head.

On 2DC> I'm considering it, as an option; the other, that my-housemate-who-is-too-good-at-modelling suggesting (and as did someone earlie) was ATSKNF - undecided yet as to which, but don't forget a DC boost will increase their CC/FF abilities by one standard attack.

On the Void Shield> Probably going on Paladins, and maybe on barons, but probably staying on the Heavy Knights. The Void Shield would be replaced a Knight Shield, which would work in a similar way to a holofield - but not as well. ie, No benefit in CC or when crossfired. The Knight Shield would also replace the Inv. Save on the Errants and lancers. Once this is implemented, I will be giving the option to add 3 Knights Paladin to a Paladin formation, in the same way that Lancers and Errants.

On Prices> The Paladins, Errants and Lancers will be looked at in terms of cost before the final version is sorted. I can't promise anything, though I'll be aiming for slightly overcosted rather than slightly udnercosted where possible.

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 2 of 2

[ 26 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:

Knight Feedback

Who is online