Re: [Epic] Knight units in E40K

From: Mark A Shieh <SHODAN+_at_...>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 19:48:33 -0400 (EDT)

Warning: still kinda long

Paul Tobia <heresy_at_...> writes:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Mark A Shieh wrote:
>
> Okay so we're in agreement that the Lances should be modeled by a greater
> AV and no special rules?

        Yup, though the lance is looking like it should be modeled as
a Specialist ability (Assault, Close Support, etc)

> > 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.

        Well, the Errant has no long-ranged guns, so it seems to be
the Assault Knight more than any other (reduce range to 15cm)

[detachment discussion snipped, summary below]

        This is what Paul and I seem to agree on, with much
ambivalence from the rest of the list.

-----------------------------------------

Imperial Knight Detachment

Command
You must choose a Commander
Baron xxx points
Detachment HQ +25 points

Main Force
Choose up to 3 squadrons from the following list

Tactical Knight Squad (Paladin) xxx points per unit
Consists of 1-3 Tactical Knights

Extra Cost to:
  Upgrade to Assault Knight (Assault) xxx points
  Upgrade to Support Knight (Close Support) xxx points

Support
Choose up to 3 squadrons from he following list, but you may not
exceed the number of choices made on the main force list

Heavy Knight Squad (Crusader, Castellan) xxx points
Consists of 1-3 Heavy Knights

-------------------------------------------

> > 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.

        Orks can bodyguard with 4 Stompas. Since you feel they're
pretty similar, 2 seems a bit small. Eldar can support with 4 Falcons
or Dreadnaughts, which look a lot like Knights with less FP.

> > > It would be unwieldy to have both regular and War Engine units in one
> > > detachemnt as you suggest making the Support Knights...

> 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.

        Ah, I see what you're talking about. I had missed this
complication about mixing the two in a detachment. Of course, you can
always separate out the Heavy Knights into a separate detachment of
War Engines. They're screwed if they're unsupported anyways, so
loading up on them isn't in your best interests.

> > 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.

        Well, my problem is that I see the basic knight as being
slightly better than your average MBT. (It's armed just like a Falcon
used to be, plus a bolter). It has the same save, but is unmodifiable
from the front. It has a favorable terrain table, though not as good
as a Falcon's. It's pretty good in CC, unlike the Falcon.
        The Heavy Knights (I don't want to use the word Support any
more), OTOH, were about twice as expensive, and twice as good.
They're just much better armed than any other unit in E40k that isn't
a War Engine. The only other unit I know of offhand with similar
weaponry is the Imperial SHVs. The similarities between the two units
are very striking to me. The shield more than compensates for the 2+
save instead of 1+, and the Paladin bodyguard compensates for the lack
of +8? CAF.

        Demoting the Heavy Knights into just Knights with +1FP and
half assault doesn't feel right after playing the old version. (It's
a Quake Cannon, after all, in addition to a MBT's weaponry, not a mere
3FP) I'd rather have a Land Raider than 3FP, and these things are
significantly better armed than a Land Raider.

> 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.

        Agreed, this makes sense to me.

> I also think that the basic range for Knights should be 45cm... MBT
> range.

        Well, a simple conversion would make this the case. a 75cm,
4+, -2 SM gun converts into 2FP at 45cm (Falcon). The Bolter adds to
Assault, if anything.
        The Thermal Gun used by Errants converts into a 15cm gun,
which makes it a prime target for Assault status
        The Shock Lance used by Lancers is just as useful in the CC as
it is within 15cm of the CC, so it seems like a prime target for Close
Support Status.

> > 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'm trying to wedge them into the role I remember them as, a
replacement for the overpriced Shadowsword and Baneblade. I really do
feel that the two units are comparable. The stats I posted made them
too slow to be Scout Titans.

        Surely if a unit which formerly had a 1+ save and tended to
get shot at with large guns with large save modifier in Epic 2nd
edition can turn into a War Engine with 6+ armor and 4DC, a unit with
a 2+ save, unmodifiable from the front, put in a similar role, should
be more durable?

        Also, if the Knights are to have any hope of standing alone
with out allies, they deserve a War Engine, IMHO. I think the
background let them take straight Guardsmen and Rough Riders, but not
much else.

> 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.

:P

        Seriously though, it's probably time we got back to making
more specific stats rather than me trying to convince everyone else on
the list that the Heavy Knights deserve stats similar to a
Shadowsword's.

        However, I don't understand some of the "It's too powerful"
arguments. It's no more powerful than the SHV and Scout Titan I'm
basing it off of, and has points values to match. While I consider
"It should be smaller" to be something worth debating, I just can't
understand "It's too powerful".

Mark
Received on Sun Apr 20 1997 - 23:48:33 UTC