On Sat, 19 Apr 1997, Mark A Shieh wrote:
> I'm willing to agree to the non-war engine status for the
> smaller Knights, but take a look at the stats on the larger ones.
> (Previously, I was only talking about these two. These are more
> heavily armored and armed than the Shadowsword, unlike the Stompa
> which is a poor match for a Shadowsword. (Demon Engines vary so
> widely it's hard to compare them.).
> The Shadowsword is a war engine, and has two weapon systems.
> While the support weaponry may not be as good as I suggested (4FP as
> an average of the SHV and Warhound), it is better than that of the
> Shadowsword.
> Also, if you take the stats I suggest, it is much easier to
> come to an agreeable points value.
I'm _strongly_ against making some Knights War Engines and some Knights
not. They are not really different in size. I'd like to see them all one
or another. I think size of the Knights doesn't allow for Damage
Capacity, which IMO is the deciding factor to make something a WE. SHW
(Super-Heavy Weapons) are not since LAnd Raiders, Spinners, and IMperial
Arty all have SHW but are not WE.
> > I'm against having any seperate rules for the lances. More time than I'd
> > like to remember we had fights in 2nd ed. whether the lances could be used
> > or not. Instead I reccomend a higher AV across the board.
>
> I agree, special rules seem to be against the feel of this
> game. How about, if you're in base-to-base contact, you charged. if
> you aren't, then you didn't charge and only add one to the combined
> assault of your detachment?
Are you saying they're Close Support? If you're not in base-to-base then
you don't use your AV at all. The way I understand what you said we're in
agreement... change the AV.
> > No normal vehicles or infantry have multiple weapon systems, so I am
> > loathe to give the support Knights a SHW and some general FP.
>
> The Shadowsword has two weapon systems. They're just as
> normal as any other SHV in the game.
I meant all units that _aren't_ War Engines have only one weapon system.
> > Now there were 6 types of Knights: Paladin, Errant, Lancer, Crusader,
> > Castellan, and Baron. If you break it down you have Tac Knights
> > (Paladin), Assault Knights (Errant, Lancer), Support Knights (Crusader,
> > Castellan), and Command Knights (Baron).
>
> Err, the Paladin is better at CC than the Errant, which is
> better than the Lancer. The Lancer doesn't deserve Assault status, IMHO.
I took inta account the Errant's extra CC damage vs. SHVs, and it's close
range firepower. I took into account the Lancer's increased speed and use
of the power lance in CC. That's why I chose those two as Assault
Knights. Perhaps the Errant can be a Close Support Knight?
> I think that 10 squads is overkill. Going from Epic 2nd
> edition, you got 2 squads of 3 in the company, and then up to 5 squads
> of 3 as support.
> I'd take the IG approach.
> up to 3 squads of main force
> up to 2 squads of support for each main force selected.
>
> Main force: Assault, Tactical
> Support: Tactical, Assault, Support
Interesting... you're right, 10 squads is too much. How about 3 squads of
Tac or Assault and an equal amount of Support squads allowed as Support?
It would be unwieldy to have both regular and War Engine units in one
detachemnt as you suggest making the Support Knights... Is the detachment
Stubborn? Does the detachment never break? Sorry, I still don't like the
idea of having some Knights be regular and some be WE.
> > What do you think sirs? :)
>
> As I said before, I cannot convince myself that a Crusader or
> Castellan is weaker in any way to a Shadowsword except in CAF. When
> replying to my post, keep in mind that I am only talking about the
> larger Knights. What you have posted I consider to be an acceptable
> first draft for Knight rules. Any complaints I have about them are
> minor compared to those of the Support knights. (Y'know, stuff along
> the lines of "They should have another FP/Assault" or "They should
> move 5cm slower/faster"... )
I see you point Mark, and it's a good one. I just think that looking at
the former Knights that survived to E40k, and the problems that would
occour if some were WE, and I don't think any of them deserve Damage
Capacity or crit. tables. I still think they all should be normal units.
My reasons for the Knights I submitted were drivien by one thought: To
keep the simple and unencumbered feel of E40k (IMO it's greatest
strength), and not get bogged down in a lot of special rules and
exceptions.
Please don't take any of this personally... I know we both feel strongly
about our respective opinions. I hope to keep this stimulating argument
at a professional level and look forward to hearing your response. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul R. Tobia _O_
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon |
full of tapes hurtling down the highway." (Tanenbaum,1996)
ptobia_at_...
http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~heresy
Received on Sun Apr 20 1997 - 16:54:03 UTC