On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Mark A Shieh wrote:
> 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 meant the overall lance in general, not the Power lance of the Lancer?
Knight. The Power Lance should be it's own weapon system, or special
ability.
> > > 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)
Okay... sounds good.
[snip]
> 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
I don't want the differences between the Knights to be skills used for
infantry. I think we should make different profiles for each type of
Knight.
> 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
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> 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.
Okay 4 bodyguard then.
[snip]
> 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 that demotion is bad too. I think the differeces inthe Knight
type warrant more than a +Assualt or +Hvy Wepons skill. That's why
I'd like to see differnt profiles. What I'm looking at for Heavy Knights
would be slow down the speed by 5-10cm, reduce the AV by 1 or 2 and change
the weapon to a Mega-Cannon (Quake Cannon) with a range of 60cm. No
secondary FP.
> 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.
Sounds good to me.
> 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?
A valid point, but I still think Knights should be kept on the level of
MBTs and not WEs. Perhaps add a Save to the Heavy Knights in addition to
the 6+ armor of the other Knights.
I don't think all Knights deserve a Save... Yes the power field was pretty
functional, but it only covered the front 90, and Knights 3+ armor in 2nd
ed.
> 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.
But Knights are not an army unto themselves (according to the fluff from
TL), they're part of the Titan Legion. They have War Engines... the
Titans. From my interpretation of the fluff the only time you'd run into
a Knight army without Titans and Tech Guard would be if you invaded a
Knight world. On the crusades they were a support group for the Titans.
> 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".
I think the Knights in general should represent the fast, mobile heavy
strike force they did in 2nd ed. By throwing WEs in to the mix you add
confusion and dissimilar tactics across the Knight force.
Now this might mean that Heavy Knights are not as powerful as they are in
2nd ed., but I think the point values we decide on should reflect this
making the Heavy Knights more accessable.
Later on today I will go over all the Knight posts and will submit another
Knight force based on everyone's postings, perhaps we will come closer to
a compromise.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Mon Apr 21 1997 - 18:35:05 UTC