Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Knight World special rules

 Post subject: Re: Knight World special rules
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 8:49 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
I'm not a fan of 2DC knights given the majority of the army will consist of them. In the nid list it is just a few units so not as bad. I'd prefer to avoid book-keeping and unsightly damage tokens wherever possible, Might of Ominssiah is more elegant in doing this.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World special rules
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 9:52 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:21 pm
Posts: 71
Location: Seattle, WA
tl;dr version
  • Knight Shields are fine, just use Eldar Holofield for the proper wording and the crossfire exception.
  • Bravery is not necessary but if kept, +1 to any engage is fine for simplicity
  • 2DC is a big change and invalidates a lot of testing and a bit of pain on the actual table, but it is conceptually simpler and probably also closer to how new Knight rules for 40k would work.
  • Work should procede, with the proviso that if new GW rules do come out, we may have to throw some of it away.

In no particular order.

2DC Knights
I sit the fence. By my personal reckoning, Knights are precisely the sort of units which should be 2DC. Much like the Tau Riptide and the new Eldar Wraithknight, they are big and bulky enough to warrant being more than just 1DC, and given GW's current rules for such large units, it's almost certain they will have substantially more Wounds/Hullpoints than something like a Leman Russ or Land Raider, but not so many as a Baneblade or Renevant Titan.

But I do agree with Markconz that book keeping for so many different war engines is kind of a pain, and would kind of prefer not to. It is conceptually simpler than ATSKNF/Might, but actually more complicated on the table between keeping wound markers vs blast markers and rolling criticals for every hit. I do like that it would give them a little extra resilience against non-BM damage, but I don't have a good feel for how much this would change their overall effectiveness. The potential tipping factor for me is simply that if they did go to 2DC, the list would definitely be back to Experimental and not simply Development, as that's a pretty big change to core list mechanics.

Bravery
I'd be fine with just making it +1 to engage actions. The times when formation size would not matter are small enough that it's worth the simplicity. That said, I'd also be fine with just dropping the rule entirely. The 1.3 list does not have it, and while flavorful, it's clearly not inherently necessary.

Knight Shields
I think the existing Knight Shield rule is the right idea, but needs some cleaning up. I'd probably steal wording from Eldar Holofields, which is the closest equivalent, and add the appropriate wording to prevent it from being used against Crossfire attacks. I would also approve of dropping the need to make a separate save for each point of damage, just for simplicity's sake.

New GW Knight Rules
As for GW's potential impending release of new Knights, this is a tough one for me.

On one hand, the rumors are at best rather vague, and GW's notorious for not finishing supposed projects or not releasing/delaying ones that that are done in order to better fit their business needs. Which means that it could be months to "never" for actual release of official Knights. I would hate to sit around just waiting because the internet phone-game says "in a month or two now" for years on end. Just like no one is proposing that all work on previous versions of Epic stop, just because there's a possibility that GW is doing a new game in a box set that might be called Epic.

The flip side is that I am the sort who REALLY REALLY REALLY hates it when two sets of rules that supposedly represent the same thing get drastically out of sync. If new Knight models, fluff and rules did come out tomorrow, I'd want the Epic lists changed to match them as soon as possible given the available resources to make changes and test them. For better or worse, it is GW's universe, and if they change the fluff and general mechanics, then a game that purports to live in that universe should not be picking and choosing and selectively ignoring newer information just because it's inconvenient. Especially when the previous versions of those rules or stories are literally decades old and no longer quite fit in with current canon.

In the past you had to give at least some lip service to the available models, but between the rise of third party 6mm manufacturers, the growing quality and availability of 3d sculpting and printing, and the fact that GW has washed their hands of supporting epic miniatures in any way, you pretty much can't use that as an excuse to not keep Epic rules up to date with 40k fluff. If people want models for an army, they'll find (or make) appropriate proxies. And EA in particular has a fairly long history of using old models to "count as" for newer unit rules, so it goes both ways and the argument that it invalidates people's collections is likewise pretty weak.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World special rules
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:37 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5679
Location: UK
Armiger84 wrote:
Barons already operate with two wounds. We're only talking about two wounds here, not half a dozen. Could easily do what I do and just put a small marker on the miniature's base when the first wound is lost. Travels with the individual war engine and pretty much resolves wound tracking in about 5 seconds. Going to DC2 certainly won't slow down the dice rolls any, if you're playing it right.


We are talking about half a dozen wounds if you go by formation terms. Barons are 2DC, that's fine, you have one baron and not many castellans *edit, castellans are DC1, sorry!* – a small part of the army. Most of the knights are not DC2. Keeping track of a couple of special units is less work than the whole army.

I can see that knights could be DC2 fluff wise, but so could land raiders – E:A does not handle really big AVs very elegantly, they get stuck between RA4+ AV and weak DC2 WE status, so this is always going to be awkward. But with knights they've been DC1 for ages, change to DC2 seems unwarranted and i'm really not sure it is a simpler option. At the very least if half the people think it is simpler one way, and half the other (a tiebreaker) then keeping them the way they have been for years will cause less confusion … and bring less need to re-stat and re-point and re-balance everything.

What about AV knights with no DC? (not saying it's the solution, but might as well discuss going down as well as up)

ATSKNF causing confusion because it makes them seem like marines … that's like saying walker should only be given to stuff with legs – it's the rule effect that matters not the tag SG slapped on it.

Dave, have you played with/against the list as it stands at present? could we get a run down of your thoughts on it? it would be a useful overview for those of us who have dipped in and out of it over the years! I've certainly not kept up to date on all the changes.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs


Last edited by Apocolocyntosis on Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World special rules
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:27 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11119
Location: Canton, CT, USA
Dave wrote:
Bravery

Knights are initiative 2+, this rules gives them a +1 to engage if they're outnumbered. Again, simplicity here. Why count when the majority of the time the Knights ARE going to be outnumbered. Just a flat +1 to engage.

What about rallying? Should they have a +1 to rally because of their mindset as well? Courage under fire?

A flat +1 to engage sounds good to me, as does a +1 for rally. Knights are used to being outnumbered. I'd even go as far as being outnumbered not count against them for close combat resolution, but that might make them too powerful in engagements.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World special rules
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:49 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:55 pm
Posts: 180
Location: Boston, MA
Apocolocyntosis wrote:
But with knights they've been DC1 for ages, change to DC2 seems unwarranted and i'm really not sure it is a simpler option. At the very least if half the people think it is simpler one way, and half the other (a tiebreaker) then keeping them the way they have been for years will cause less confusion … and bring less need to re-stat and re-point and re-balance everything.


I can understand the power of "but we've always played it this way, it's clunky, but it's THE WAY, so let's keep it that way." That said, we have rules for war engines. We have Knights that are war engines and, based on the rules constructions people sort of want them to function like DC2 war engines, but want them to be DC1 war engines, so we're applying a second set of rules that make them DC1 war engines that play like DC2 war engines. I still have a problem with calling that "simpler" than just making them DC2.

Edit: Also, it's not the same as saying "Walker" should only belong to things with legs. I totally understand why "Walker" is useful for vehicles meant to just plow through terrain like it's not even there. I just feel like making it a DC1 war engine with +1 CC MW attack and rules that let it act like a DC2 war engine is, well, putting way too much effort into what could simply be a DC2 war engine with 2 attacks and some cost balancing regarding whether or not to keep the "MW" part of the CC attack that, shockingly enough acts like a DC2 war engine.

I'm also not convinced that 3-strong or 4-strong formations of DC2 war engines are really going to be THAT much more time-consuming and bookkeeping-intensive to play with. I guess "more tokens" could be a valid complaint, but I'm the kind of guy who leaves order dice next to activated formations to track actions and used to play a LOT of Battlefleet Gothic, so I guess I might be more comfortable with game markers and multi-wound models than some folks. If I can, I'll get a game in tomorrow night testing the current list with DC2 instead of "not-quite-ATSKNF" just to see if it really is that clunkier. I'd love to hear back from one of the opponents trying the same and seeing how it actually goes down in practice instead of theory.

_________________
My General Modelling Blog: http://armiger84.blogspot.com/

My Battlefleet Gothic Project Log: http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5318.0


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World special rules
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:29 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5679
Location: UK
Point on walker was for ATSKNF being applied to non-marines making them seem marine-like, not DC1 vs DC2 in general.

One other detail on DC2 vs DC1 power is formation degradation. It is possible (though unlikely) for a formation of 4 DC2s to take 4 unsaved hits and lose no units (though they still break, and are lucky on crits). Any knights that take only 1 hit will be moved to the back of the formation by the controller in the next move so hits are taken on healthy knights. In addition, taking fire from different angles over the game applies hits relative to the direction, again meaning damage can spread without kills. This is unlikely to happen in a full 4 hits on 4 = no kills, but may still occur to some extent given the number of DC2 knight formations in any one game.

2DC also increases unit cohesion range. This is not much per mini, but a lot multiplied over most of an army.


Eager to see a DC2 test – but you will need to down stat or up point them as well, the extra DC brings more benefits than an additional DC (+1 attacks, more barge, need to change save or RA), it's not a simple swap out in testing terms. DC2 > ATSKNF.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs


Last edited by Apocolocyntosis on Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World special rules
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:02 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3322
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
I think DC 2 and ATSKNF is the way to go. I also like the "Bravery" idea about +1 for engagements and +1 to rally. I have opinion on the knight shield. Do they really need it? Can't just a Inv save represent the force field?

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World special rules
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:12 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5679
Location: UK
Quote:
I think DC 2 and ATSKNF is the way to go.


DC2 ATSKNF means 4BM to suppress each knight, 12BM to break a formation of 3 :spin

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World special rules
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:23 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6323
Location: Leicester UK
I used the marine fellblade with DC4 and ATSKNF.... it was ludicrously bent, hilariously so

I think going down the multiple DC + ATSKNF route lies madness....

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

[http://adam77.github.io/snapfire/war/]Army Forge[/url] List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World special rules
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:27 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 2:55 pm
Posts: 611
mordoten wrote:
I think DC 2 and ATSKNF is the way to go. I also like the "Bravery" idea about +1 for engagements and +1 to rally. I have opinion on the knight shield. Do they really need it? Can't just a Inv save represent the force field?



I also think it should take 4 BMs to suppress one Knight and that they should get all the benefits from multi DC war engine status and the engage benefit of halving their BMs in resolution.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World special rules
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:35 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6323
Location: Leicester UK
why not just have AV knights (after all, the fact that they have leg joints which are obvious targets means they're not kitted out to soak up firepower) and give them a special charge rule which allows them to barge.... 'knights may barge as a DC1 war engine'

after all, isn't that why they were originally DC1 war engines?

this helps clean up the LoS blocking issues you encounter, and means knights can't pick and choose between cc and ff

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

[http://adam77.github.io/snapfire/war/]Army Forge[/url] List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World special rules
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 12:19 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5679
Location: UK
If the aim is simplicity then ATSKNF RA AVs with +1 barge point, an inv knight shield and the modifications to brave would seem 'simple'.

ATSKNF and RA AV gives you something towards the blast marker and durability of DC2, without the power and LoS problems of WE. It depends on how many of the WE rules were wanted to represent the 'flavour' of knights.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World special rules
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:39 am
Posts: 1097
Location: Alleroed, Denmark
Apocolocyntosis wrote:
Im sure Knights have been used in at least one Danish tournament.


Indeed, Giant Fanatic 13, here:
http://sdahl.net/~sdahl/whepic/gf13/index.html
We didn't keep score all that meticulously, but as far as I remember, the Knights won their other two or three games; They lost to the Biel-Tan list, which had plenty of pop-up MW and AT shooting...

Another game, Knights vs Orks:
http://www.powerfist.dk/forum/index.php?topic=41683.0
Commentary in danish, but google translate can fix that for you, and provide unintentional light entertainment too.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Knight World special rules
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3322
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
Apocolocyntosis wrote:
Quote:
DC2 ATSKNF means 4BM to suppress each knight, 12BM to break a formation of 3 :spin


hmmm.... Guess i didn't think that through really well.... Then DC! is enough for each knight...

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net