| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Knight Question http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=5261 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | dafrca [ Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Knight Question |
In the list you linked to (ver. 2) you have the Paladins as an Auxilia Formation. Further you have two more Lancer and Errant that can be bought if a Paladin formation is taken. Now, looking at the costs etc, I have to ask: Why do you allow the Lancer and the Errant to upgrade to a formation of six, but not the Paladin formation? I buy a formation of Paladins (3), that is it. But I buy a formation of Lancers (3) and can upgrade an additional three for a total of six. This does not make sense to me. Help this old man understand the logic here. dafrca |
|
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Knight Question |
Disclaimer - none of this means I nessecerily aggree with the knights as currently presented (of course I might as well)  I think it is to do with balance. Paladins have void shields. 6 regenerating void shields a turn is too hard. So no upgrade option. |
|
| Author: | dafrca [ Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:33 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Knight Question | ||
Then get rid of the Void Shields. The Paladin should be the most numerous of the Knights, not the most rare.  dafrca |
|||
| Author: | clausewitz [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 4:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Knight Question |
If I remember correctly the voidshields were employed to make a clear difference between the Knights Paladin and the Leman Russ tank. (similar main armament and similar protection without voidshields) And as TRC mentioned the formation size was limited due to the effect of multiple voidshielded units in a formation. PS Hello to everyone I knew from the SG forums (and to those I dont yet know from this forum). |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 4:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Knight Question |
Welcome, clausewitz! |
|
| Author: | dafrca [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:23 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Knight Question | ||
I do not have an issue with the "Logic" of why things were done the way they were. I just think this path took the Paladin somewhere it should not have been. The Paladin should not be the most rare of Knights. Unless I am mis-remembering something (which I could be.  ) The Paladin was not the rare Knight. If there is a worry about making it much more different then the Leman Russ, fine, but it should not be at the expense of the Knight. dafrca |
|||
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Knight Question |
I'm almost positive that the Paladin is supposed to be the most common knight. At least per TL fluff it is. |
|
| Author: | clausewitz [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Knight Question |
The intention is still that the Paladin should be the most common knight. That is why you must select a Paladin Household before you can select the other types of knights. So while some lists might use errants, some lancers and others castellans/crusaders, they all will include paladins. So in a sence it is still the most common, if not the most numerous in a particular army. There hasn't been much discussion about knights for a little while, so I'm not sure if Dysartes intends any changes. |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Knight Question |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "most common" mean "most numerous?" |
|
| Author: | Biff [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Knight Question |
As I recall it from the previous AMTL Forum, there isn't a real consensus view on the Void Shield versus Formation size aspect of the Paladins, Dysartes may disagree, but that's how I remember it. I agree that Paladins should be at least as plentiful as Lancers and Errants, they're the basic core choice for Knights. ?To achieve that then it's goodbye Void Shield, I can live with that. What though do they get instead? Invulnerable Save Power Field Knight Shield (As suggested by Baduin in the old Forum) Other? I'm currently keen on the Knight Shield concept myself. ?So what do the rest of you think. Paladin formation size aside my other current gripe with Knights is that I think they should be allies, but that's not a major concern. |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Knight Question |
I prefer a knight shield, as they had in TL, although a Power Field (or two since they can't be repaired like a void shield) might not be a bad idea either. I also agree with having larger formations for them and as Allies. |
|
| Author: | clausewitz [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 11:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Knight Question |
There were various discussions regarding knight shield ideas. Such as... http://forums.specialist-games.com/epic....ID=5827 I think Dysartes wanted people to give the knights a go in a few playtest games and give feedback before more changes were made. |
|
| Author: | dafrca [ Fri Jul 08, 2005 12:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Knight Question |
What ever is the final answer, I am sure it will be fun. I would like to see an answer that allowed the Paladins to have formations of at least equal size to any other "Knight" formation in the army.  In any case, play away! dafrca EDIT: dafrca still can't spell  |
|
| Author: | wargame_insomniac [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:21 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Knight Question | ||
Ditto. 3 strong formations of Paladins should be AN option not the only option. I know that discussion of Knight shields caused a lot of contreversy previously on the SG forums. At the risk of picking open old wounds I would hope that we could come to consensus on EpiComms. Cheers James |
|||
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Knight Question |
AT is the oldest Epic game and passions seem to run deep over this
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|