Re: [Epic] Knight units in E40K
At 11:01 PM 4/18/97 EST, you wrote:
>At 09:25 PM 4/18/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>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.
>>
>> The stats would be easy if it is like a stompa. Exactly the same in fact I
>>believe. Maybe give them different wpns for the different types of
>>knights. What about the shield effect. Maybe a 4+ save only in the front
>>90 degrees, or is this getting to complicated for E40K?
>> As SHV's you could just give them 2 DC instead of the shield. I like the
>>stompa comparison the best though. Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS).
>>
>> Comments please
>> Eldar Knights? (I dont have the rules on those)
>>
>> That Chuk Guy
>
>
>I was thinking about that myself. I too have the TL box set, and
>was wondering about how to incorporate the knights. At least for
>ones that were included in the box. They're Knight Paladins, right?
>Here were my ideas:
>
>Unit Speed Range FP Assault Armor Special
>
>Knight
>Paladin 25cm? 45cm 3 4/8 5+ Save
>
>The Assualt of 4/8 would mimic the use of the lances in TL,
>ie if it charged into combat, it would have an assault value of 8,
>but if got charged by another unit, it wuold only have an
>assault value of 4. The save I justify simply by the fact
>that though the save was only to the front in Tl, it was 2+.
>Now, it is simply spread out to cover the entire unit, but at a
>serious reduction in power. I gave it a FP of 3 because I
>think it has similar armament when compared to a Leman Russ
>MBT. This is a faily powerful unit, so I think it should have
>a point cost to reflect this. I was thinking in the 50 to 70
>range. Also, I think that these should have an entire detachment
>section to themselves (all Knights, that is).
>
>How does that sound?
>
>Elias
>
this is more in line with what i thought the knights should be.
60 pts would be about right i think.
>
>
Received on Sat Apr 19 1997 - 04:42:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:21 UTC