Re: [Epic] [E40k] Knights IV

From: Scott Shupe <shupes_at_...>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 16:06:36 -0400

Paul Tobia wrote:
>
[knight data snipped]

        Sorry if I'm repeating any old arguments, I was off
on vacation for awhile and was unsubscribed at the time.

> *Note: Knights count as Walkers using the optional rule (p.104 Battle) if
> your group is so inclined.*

        These guys ain't dreadnoughts, they're much larger.
I always thought the 2ed knight models were roughly to scale
with the vehicles/titans (unlike GDs and HTs, which were
based the same as the knights but really about the size of
a dread).

> Latest Rationale:
>
> The Lancer went up to 10 points higher than the Paladin to act as a
> deterrant or there'd be no reason to take Paladins. I think the 10
> points might be worth the increased move and Close Support. Playtesting
> will tell.

        Shouldn't the Lancers have a lower Assault than
the paladins? In 2ed they could be nasty at short ranges
but were piss-poor when it came to close combat (making
them pretty useless IMHO, but that's besides the point).

        Personally I would have given the Paladins 1 AT
shot instead of 2 FP.

        Why the high assault value on Errants?

        What about using Death Rays on the heavy knights;
the Crusaders did have volcano cannons. Or is that too
powerful?

Scott
shupes_at_...
Received on Fri Apr 25 1997 - 20:06:36 UTC