Re: [Epic] Knight units in E40K

From: Sutherland <charles_at_...>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 23:36:05 -0500

At 11:04 PM 4/18/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Sutherland <charles_at_...> writes:
>> Hey there,
>>
>> Just picked up the titan legions box(it was on sale for $35). I
would
>> like to get some opinions on whether the knights should be SHVs or more
>> like ork stompas? In the titan legions book they are classified as SHVs.
>
> IMHO, these things should fall in between the Battle
>Fortress/Engine of Vaul/Imperial SHV class, and the Scout Titan class
>(Warhound, Revenant, Subjugator, Questor). The larger ones
>(Castellan, Crusader, Baron) are about as heavily armed as the
>Warhound. An unmodifiable 2+ save from the front makes them more
>durable (again IMHO) than the standard 1+ save superheavies.
>
> Ooh! Hey, I've got a little bit of time at the moment
>(watching a movie)
>
> Doing a straight averaging of the two units for the
>Crusader/Castellan (merge the two, they're similar)...
>
>Speed 15cm, Armour 6, Void Shields 1, Damage Capacity 4, Assault 8,
>
>Weapon Fire Arc Range Firepower Notes
>Quake Cannon Left 60cm (1) Mega-Cannon
>Weapon Batteries Right 45cm 4
>(Lascannon/Autocannon)
>
>Use the Warhound Scout Titan damage tables for Critical and
>Catastrophic damage.
>
>I'd like it if we could come to a consensus (yeah right) on the
>Knights and Squats and come up with an official Epic ML version of the
>house rules (to be ignored by the minority of the list that disagrees
>with them).
>
>Perhaps make them cost 160 points, to be fielded like the Imperial
>Super Heavy Tank Company, with a limit of 1-3 instead of 1-4. Choose
>up to 2 "squads" of 1-3 Knights. Optionally, can field a Baron, which
>must be the HQ.
>
>Mark
>
Sounds good. A little heavier/bigger than the impression I got from the
legions rules. They definitely are below warhounds. They only had one
partial shield, one gun, and one damage to kill. Have to see what some
others think of it.

                                                        Thanks
                                                        That Chuk Guy

>
Received on Sat Apr 19 1997 - 04:36:05 UTC