On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Mark A Shieh wrote:
> WARNING! Long, if you don't know already.
What he said:
> > 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.
Okay so we're in agreement that the Lances should be modeled by a greater
AV and no special rules?
> 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 said the Errant because the Thermal Cannon had such a great save
modifier but was only 25cm range... I can see either being the Close
Support or the Assault.
> > 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?
Yeah.
> How about a Supreme Commander detachment of a Baron and 2
> squads of bodyguard?
Vehicular bodyguard is usually less... I'd say two Knights. 6 Knihgts is
too much IMO.
> > 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>
But the differences in the way that WEs are treated in E40k would make it
difficult in the least to have units that are WE and not WE in the same
det. What do you do for orders? How do you handle breaking? Is the whole
det. Stubborn? IMO it doesn't work.
> 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)
OKay I agree with keeping the point ratios the same, but it still doesn't
sway me to make the Support Knihgts WEs. I think the Cav skill for the
Knights isn't good either, perhaps the Walker rules if anyone is using
them? THen you get the 2x speed when charging.
I also think that the basic range for Knights should be 45cm... MBT
range.
> > 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>
I would think at the _most_ you could give a Knight 2DC making any second
or critical hit destroy the Knight. I think you're trying to wedge the
Knights into the Scout Titan role, something I cannot agree with.
> 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.
I'm glad we're in agreement here.. I just don't want to see an interesing
an informative discussion degerate into personal attacks and petty
childishness.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 - 21:35:41 UTC