Re: [Epic] Knight units in E40K

From: Mark A Shieh <SHODAN+_at_...>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 14:08:56 -0400 (EDT)

WARNING! Long, if you don't know already.

Paul Tobia <heresy_at_...> writes:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 1997, Mark A Shieh wrote:
> I'm _strongly_ against making some Knights War Engines and some Knights
> not. They are not really different in size.

        They are different, however, in the amount of armor that is
put on them. I'd like to see something with a 2+ unmodifiable save in
Epic 2nd receive something more than what a Dreadnaught has in Epic.
<shrug> The Goliath Mega-Cannon in Epic was huge, but only had a 5+
save.

> 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.

        I'll go check again, but the Knights seemed more massive than
the SHW-eqippped units you list. IMHO, your argument of making them
all one and not the other is far more convincing to me than the size.
At this point, I'm just playing devils advocate since I don't really
have any support.
        More importantly to me, I remember looking across the
battlefield and seeing a company of Paladins, and would think, "okay,
I can deal with Paladins, I just have to shoot them a bit", but the
feeling in the pit of my stomach when I saw the Castellans was matched
only by the Bloodletters charging forward under cover of the Warlord
which tried to Vortex my Warlock Titan and Warp Missile Aaron's
Colossus. I *feared* these things. I fail to be impressed by the new
stats. <shrug>

> > 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.

        Err, yeah, that's the long way of saying "use the standard
rules for them". I agree with you, and wasn't saying they were close
support.

> > > 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 like the idea of Close Support Knights, but I'd actually
favor the Lancer. The Errant has a power fist, clearly a CC weapon.
The Lancer's shock(?) Lance can be shot 15cm into CC in the old Epic,
which sounds perfect for contributing to CC.

> > 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?

        True. I guess you wouldn't ever really need more than 3
Squads of Tac/Assault together at a time. Sounds good. A Squad is
still 1-3?

        How about a Supreme Commander detachment of a Baron and 2
squads of bodyguard?

> 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.

        Actually, they came close. They had a morale of 2+, 1+ with a
Baron around. Maybe they forced Squats to pilot them. <shrug>

> > > 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.

> 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.

        The former Knights that survived are an amalgamation of 3
Knights, one of which was 3/150, and 2 similar ones which were 3/400.
I think of it as an averaging, which incidentally leaves you with
the numbers you get when you average the cost of an Errant with the
cost of a Paladin/Lancer.

        The other thing I noticed about E40k point values is that the
ratio between new and old was maintained in the majority of cases.
Take, for example, Revenant vs. Warlord. 3:1 ratio. Old was 300 vs
900. Now it's 185 vs. 555... Warlock Titan vs. Imperator. Old was
750 vs 2250 (3:1) New 390 vs. 900. Not quite, but reasonably close.

        While the Paladins used to cost the same as a Leman Russ, or
more than a Land Raider, the Crusader, Castellan, and Baron used to
cost as much as a Tempest, more than the Stompa or the Slanneshi
Knights (not as much as I had thought, but I suppose if you can shrink
their costs by such a drastic amount, you can do so for the Imperial
Knights)
        Every model I know of that used to cost 150 or more seems to
have become a War Engine with the exception of infantry. Well, except
the Colossus and Cyclops and Overlord and Goliath. :)
        I'd like to see that ratio maintained, where the Support
Knights and the Baron cost about the same, which would be about twice
the cost of all the other Knights. I like Alan's idea of building
your Knights by equipping them like infantry, but I feel that for the
most part, they have a 45cm range (Most MBTs in E40k do, exceptions
usually have the Close Support or Transport ability)

> 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.

        Do you consider the War Engine status a special rule, or just
too large for what you feel the larger Knights are? I also like the
idea of being able to blow off the arm of a Knight. <shrug>

> 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. :)

        I generally don't take stuff personally if it looks like
you've listened to what I said. I'm also still on the list after so
long because I like to keep my debating/arguing skills from getting
completely rusty.

Mark
Received on Sun Apr 20 1997 - 18:08:56 UTC