Switch Theme:

Including ForgeWorld Knights into 'Imperial Knights Renegade'  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest







I'm about to start doing bat-reps on my fledgling YouTube channel and i wanted to give my opponents a choice of all my knights; but only GW variants and their weapons are useable 'out of the box'.
I had a bit of a think about the weapons and equipment that the FW ones have and came up with some preliminary weapon and equipment stats which i was hoping others may be able to critique before i start experimenting with them on camera.

The first issue was the way the weapon stats are different in this game (heavy stubber, rapid fire battlecannon, etc)
The second was because there are no points values, the loadouts are costed as the same despite some being waaaay superior to others
The third is there are a few weapons which clearly could not pen a knight armour but are still doing damage in this game (heavy flamer, ironstorm missile pod)
Fourth is the optional weapons the GW knights are featured with in the normal game being included into the estimation of damage output

So given those issues, here are all the FW knight weapon profiles i came up with (i don't count the Acastus Porphyrion, the Armiger/Helliger or the upcoming Castellan/Valiant as they would cause an imbalance i can't 'rules' my way around)

FW Knights do NOT get to take additional Carapace Weapons


Magaera
Lightning cannon R20" AP-1 Dam D3
Phased-Plasma Fusil R18" AP0 Dam 2
Hekaton Seige Claw R4" AP-3 Dam D3+1 (no scatter)
Rad-Cleanser R10" AP0 Dam 0 (an unsaved hit from this weapon negates enemy ion sheild rotation)

Styrix
Volkite Cheirovile R20" AP-1 Dam D3
Graviton Gun R12" AP-1 Dam 2
Hekaton Seige Claw R4" AP-3 Dam D3+1 (no scatter)
Rad-Cleanser R10" AP0 Dam 0 (an unsaved hit from this weapon negates enemy ion sheild rotation)

Atrapos
Atrapos Lascutter firing R8" AP-1 Dam D3
Atrapos Lascutter CC R6" AP-3 Dam D3+2
Graviton Singularity Cannon R20" AP-D3 Dam D6+1 (rolling a 1 negates the shot and causes D3 damage to the firing weapon - opponent selects which area of the weapon to inflict the damage on)

Lancer
Cerastus Shock Lance firing R15" AP-1 Dam 2
Cerastus Shock Lance CC R8" AP -3 Dam 2D3 (no scatter)
Ion Gauntlet Sheild (this grants the bearer their ion sheild save against Melee weapons - this includes any modifiers)

Castigator
Castigator Pattern Bolt Cannon R20" AP0 Dam D3+1
Tempest Warblade R8" AP-3 Dam 3 (no scatter)

Acheron
Acheron Flame Cannon R15" AP0 Dam D6
Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter R18" AP0 Dam 2
Reaper Chain Fist R6" AP-2 Dam D3+1 (no scatter)

I'd like to know what the other peeps think of what i have so far and the reasons why.

I'm going to come up with some other rules regarding the FW Knights movement, charge, damage areas etc; but for now i'm keeping focused on getting the weapon profiles right.

Thanks in advance for any input!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/23 15:41:12


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..  
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 SirDonlad wrote:
I'm about to start doing bat-reps on my fledgling YouTube channel and i wanted to give my opponents a choice of all my knights; but only GW variants and their weapons are useable 'out of the box'.
I had a bit of a think about the weapons and equipment that the FW ones have and came up with some preliminary weapon and equipment stats which i was hoping others may be able to critique before i start experimenting with them on camera.

The first issue was the way the weapon stats are different in this game (heavy stubber, rapid fire battlecannon, etc)
The second was because there are no points values, the loadouts are costed as the same despite some being waaaay superior to others
The third is there are a few weapons which clearly could not pen a knight armour but are still doing damage in this game (heavy flamer, ironstorm missile pod)
Fourth is the optional weapons the GW knights are featured with in the normal game being included into the estimation of damage output

So given those issues, here are all the FW knight weapon profiles i came up with (i don't count the Acastus Porphyrion, the Armiger/Helliger or the upcoming Castellan/Valiant as they would cause an imbalance i can't 'rules' my way around)

FW Knights do NOT get to take additional Carapace Weapons


Magaera
Lightning cannon R20" AP-1 Dam D3
Phased-Plasma Fusil R18" AP0 Dam 2
Hekaton Seige Claw R4" AP-3 Dam D3+1 (no scatter)
Rad-Cleanser R10" AP0 Dam 0 (an unsaved hit from this weapon negates enemy ion sheild rotation)

Styrix
Volkite Cheirovile R20" AP-1 Dam D3
Graviton Gun R12" AP-1 Dam 2
Hekaton Seige Claw R4" AP-3 Dam D3+1 (no scatter)
Rad-Cleanser R10" AP0 Dam 0 (an unsaved hit from this weapon negates enemy ion sheild rotation)

Atrapos
Atrapos Lascutter firing R8" AP-1 Dam D3
Atrapos Lascutter CC R6" AP-3 Dam D3+2
Graviton Singularity Cannon R20" AP-D3 Dam D6+1 (rolling a 1 negates the shot and causes D3 damage to the firing weapon - opponent selects which area of the weapon to inflict the damage on)

Lancer
Cerastus Shock Lance firing R15" AP-1 Dam 2
Cerastus Shock Lance CC R8" AP -3 Dam 2D3 (no scatter)
Ion Gauntlet Sheild (this grants the bearer their ion sheild save against Melee weapons - this includes any modifiers)

Castigator
Castigator Pattern Bolt Cannon R20" AP0 Dam D3+1
Tempest Warblade R8" AP-3 Dam 3 (no scatter)

Acheron
Acheron Flame Cannon R15" AP0 Dam D6
Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter R18" AP0 Dam 2
Reaper Chain Fist R6" AP-2 Dam D3+1 (no scatter)

I'd like to know what the other peeps think of what i have so far and the reasons why.

I'm going to come up with some other rules regarding the FW Knights movement, charge, damage areas etc; but for now i'm keeping focused on getting the weapon profiles right.

Thanks in advance for any input!


Imperial Knights: Renegade is just a mini-game. My advise would be to improve first the basic rules before you come up with new weapon types.

Here are a few things that imo needs to be addressed first:

1. Hit Locations
The game comes only with Hit Locations for the Front . So you also need Hit Locations for the Side & Rear otherwise there is no incentive in outmaneuvering your opponent.

2. Close Combat
Close Combat is too powerful when compared to ranged attacks. You never deviate from a hit location when in melee and all close combat attacks have such a high AP that armour becomes meaningless. There should also be WS mechanic in the game and a chance for the target to evade/dodge attacks. Oppoents with cc weapons should be able to parry attacks.

3. Endurance
Improve armour saves and/or add a few HP to the locations to lengthen the lifespan of an IK.

4. Interactions with scenery
In all Giant Robot movies stuff like busses, lamp posts or even whole ships are used as clubs or thrown at adversaries. Sadly such things are missing completely from the game. Although bull-rushing/shoving opponents into buildings for added damage or even leveling buildings should also be possible.

5. More adversaries
Up to now only the IK (base game), Wraithknight (WD) and a big Tau suit (WD) have rules for the game. I would also appreciate rules for the Stompa (because I own one) and for the Morkanaut (that would be an incentive for me to buy one).
I nearly forgot to mention Tyranids. I can´t understand why GW hasn´t made a giant gribbly akin to a Kaiju to battle the likes of an IK.

6. More scenarios
There are only three scenarios in the core game. That´s just a pity.

Finally I have to say that the second part of Pacific Rim was fun to watch despite Boyega. It motivated me to start working on my second IK. Up to now the legs have been assembled and the base has been covered with sand and stones.



   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest







Thank you!

Yeah, i agree - it's essentially a half-thought through sub-game to justify the box set.
I had way more fun playing it than i'd expected, especially since most people in my area have a knight kicking around somewhere and it was quite quick to pick up and get going.

Addressing the points you made...

1. yes, absolutely! this was to be part of my plan for going forward, introducing pairs of knights vs pairs of knights or maybe even a pack of Armigers vs a single knight maybe?
I think linking damage areas (like the sides, rear and front of the arms and legs locations) will make sense and won't over-complicate things.
Perhaps the hit points should vary to account for the lack of armour panels on the back..
At the end of the day, the expanded targeting sheets (F,S+R) idea is necessary in order to have more than a pair of knights involved per game - it's handy for now to keep it as a one-on-one situation for my testing the weaponry since the knights are always assumed to be facing each other at the point of shooting etc; but hunting in packs would be a thing too i recon.
edit: i was thinking about how the mechanic for when you qualify for shooting at a certain facing works and it started getting reeealy complicated! i'll ponder it further but the more i consider how to do that, the more like 'Adeptus Titanicus' it starts becoming!

2. I get the feeling that the CC was made more potent to account for the knight types portrayed in the box - the renegade one being almost completely dedicated to CC and they had to level the playing field
I'll look into the notion of giving sword-type CC weapons a 'parry' ability attempt, but i don't want to screw over a player who has their knight set up as a Gallant for fluff reasons (or for the lulz?).
I used scatter as a nerfing aspect for the Atrapos Las-Cutter in my "first draft"

3. i did consider porting over 'blessed autosimulacra' for the Magaera, Styrix and Atrapos, giving a hit point back in an owning player chosen location but refrained for fear of making the Atrapos too good - which locations would you consider giving an extra hit point? (or two?)

4. yeah man, part of my plan going forward was to include the 'Hurl' rule for the thunderstrike gauntlet - i felt like the D6 damage made it's output really random, often failing to destroy a location with 2 hit points left so i liked the idea of the CC knight being able to turn its CC phase into a ranged attack given appropriate scenery. I have a literal trump-wall of munitorum armoured containers as well as other GW terrain which bloody well should have some interaction potential!

5. YES. can't believe i didn't think of this!

6. Absolutely - they are a basic start for those with only the box set but absolutely need some expanded missions that aren't just "destroy the renegade" which is fun, but you are absolutely right; it will need a bit more depth.

Thanks very much for the feedback dude!!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/25 17:53:40


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..  
   
Made in us
Androgynous Daemon Prince of Slaanesh





Norwalk, Connecticut

It would be great to have monstrous creatures join. I have a bunch of greater daemons that would love to duke it out with the knights. Tzeentch daemons at range, Nurgle daemons with WAY more hit boxes, but slower, bloodthirsters with insane combat output, KoS with speed and a truckton of attacks, although not as strong as the BT. The game needs MORE stuff in it. It’s like playing Battletech with two huge robots. Make teams; even amount of models per side, play test, and make it fun!!

Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.

Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.


Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.  
   
Made in gb
Mysterious Techpriest







Aye, fun is, was and shall continue to be the point for me.
Yes, greater deamons as a knight-level enemy makes sense - consider them added to the growing list of fun things to get added!

Armiger/Helliger
wraithlords
Heirodules?
Trygon/Trygon-prime/mawlock
hive tyrant
Gorkanaut/Morkanaut
Mega-dred
squiggoth?
Deamon princes
Greater deamons
Riptide battlesuit
Baby carri- Nemesis dreadknight


I recon that the Armiger will be a good starting point for playtesting 'lesser' machines and creatures - the reduced size would make aimed shots or at least standard shots kinda nessecary in order to hit them with their reduced stature.
Thinking an Armiger would get destroyed after losing three locations - some location grid height relevance may be nessecary for their CC attacks too
Also got to make them nippy, perhaps the same movement as a wraithknight

I was thinking over the whole side and rear profiles thing again - the 40k vehicle 'quartering' for armour facing slows down the pace of a game when dealing with rounded or oval bases; no clear cornering like a proper tank. Could you get away with only having front and rear targeting grids i wonder?
I wouldn't want to stipulate people to mark the bases of their stuff, but i'm not sure how to get round the 'determining facings slowdown' without defining where they start and end before the game starts on each models base...


I got myself copies of the extra WD extra profiles yesterday; having a friend over soon who has wraithknights (three i think) for some playtesting

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..  
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






Just as the Armiger should have fewer hit locations, I would suggest that the larger Forge World Cerastus chassis should have more; it is significantly larger than the plastic Knight kit.

As for facings, the game is designed to be a duel, not a melee - the models always finish their move actions by turning to face the foe. Manoeuvre is to open and close the range, or to gain cover, rather than to outflank the enemy.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Just as the Armiger should have fewer hit locations, I would suggest that the larger Forge World Cerastus chassis should have more; it is significantly larger than the plastic Knight kit.

As for facings, the game is designed to be a duel, not a melee - the models always finish their move actions by turning to face the foe. Manoeuvre is to open and close the range, or to gain cover, rather than to outflank the enemy.


And that´s why the game is boring as hell with no real replay value. I prefer to have something more akin to Battletech with GW miniatures. If GW doesn´t provide you with complex rules, you´ ll have to be creative on your own.
Anyway, my second IK is nearly finished. Just the three weapons and a few details need to be painted. When it is done I am going to have a few play tests. Two valiant knights will be squaring off against an Ork Stompa.

   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest







AndrewGPaul wrote:Just as the Armiger should have fewer hit locations, I would suggest that the larger Forge World Cerastus chassis should have more; it is significantly larger than the plastic Knight kit.

As for facings, the game is designed to be a duel, not a melee - the models always finish their move actions by turning to face the foe. Manoeuvre is to open and close the range, or to gain cover, rather than to outflank the enemy.


Yeah, that was my thinking regarding the Cerastus chassis - i did some quick and crappy layouts on some images i got from the interwebz and the Cerastus lends itself to having an extra hit location on each leg where the 'hips' are.
i really enjoyed the game partly because of its simplicity so i think i'm keeping that system expressly for one-on-one duels - i'm still thinking about getting round the whole facings thing..

Strg Alt wrote:And that´s why the game is boring as hell with no real replay value. I prefer to have something more akin to Battletech with GW miniatures. If GW doesn´t provide you with complex rules, you´ ll have to be creative on your own.
Anyway, my second IK is nearly finished. Just the three weapons and a few details need to be painted. When it is done I am going to have a few play tests. Two valiant knights will be squaring off against an Ork Stompa.


I have to disagree on the 'no real replay value' thing dude, i've had a blast challenging people to duels with whatever loadout they fancy - but at the same time it felt a bit odd that a household would only send one knight to hunt down a renegade.

I still think there is huge value in one-on-one for a basic tournament at an FLGS - i had an idea about 'prestige trials' within a household where the pilots determine their place and display their prowess and honours for the civil populus, much like jousting tournaments of olde england. Set in an arena with interact-able scenery (the crates/thunderstrike gauntlet idea) to the braying roar of an expectant crowd...

I can see a situation where a pair of knights go to hunt down a renegade knight, but when they find it, it has two daemon princes with it - that's the kind of scenario i'm aiming for with my expansion ideas.
It would afford a lot more 'missions' etc, i really think it needs to be done! (i'm going to give it my best shot)
I've been learning how to do the glow around the hit location divider lines last night in G.I.M.P. to make new targeting sheets that look all proper and GW-ey.

A question to those into the multi-facings idea - Would the classic GW facings determination add unnecessary complication?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/03 16:13:54


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..  
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






2nd edition Epic had something similar to this game; each titan had a targeting grid with three aspects - front, side, rear. You could simply come up with rear and side grids for the Knights in IK:R.

Alternatively, there's something like the old 1st edition vehicle targeting grids; they were all side elevations (or front views for dreadnoughts and monstrous creatures), with a line down them - shots from the front could only target locations in front of the line, rear shots behind the line. You could simply say that the front/rear locations are identical (or have something like a hit to the head, stubber/meltagun and tilting shield counts as a reactor hit if from the rear. For the side arcs, say you can only choose a target point that's to the left or right of the centre line. If there's an odd number of columns in the targeting grid, then either say no side shots can target the centre column, or all can.
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest







 AndrewGPaul wrote:
2nd edition Epic had something similar to this game; each titan had a targeting grid with three aspects - front, side, rear. You could simply come up with rear and side grids for the Knights in IK:R.

Alternatively, there's something like the old 1st edition vehicle targeting grids; they were all side elevations (or front views for dreadnoughts and monstrous creatures), with a line down them - shots from the front could only target locations in front of the line, rear shots behind the line. You could simply say that the front/rear locations are identical (or have something like a hit to the head, stubber/meltagun and tilting shield counts as a reactor hit if from the rear. For the side arcs, say you can only choose a target point that's to the left or right of the centre line. If there's an odd number of columns in the targeting grid, then either say no side shots can target the centre column, or all can.


Great feedback dude, really gave me food for thought.

I'm leaning toward having a front and rear template i think.
I like the idea of adding a line to the front/rear profiles and placing them side-by-side to make the side profile.


Here's what i was pondering...

When 1v1 the models are turned to face each other just like the standard game.

When more than 1v1 (1v2, 2v2, etc) go through the activation phase as normal - if you have the same action to perform as your opponent roll off, the winner picking a model in their control to perform the action. While both players still have a model performing the same action, continue to roll off in this manner.

At the start of an action phase a model is engaging in, you turn the model toward an enemy model you intend to target with it.

To determine armour facing - determine a line that runs through the two main weapon mounts where they attach to the body of the targeted model; if your models base is also under this line when extended, your model hits the side facing. If your models base is over this extended line to the targets rear then you use the rear facing, if your models base is not under or is not past this line you use the front facing.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..  
   
 
Forum Index » Other 40K/30K Universe Games
Go to: