Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Knight Question
dafrca
 Post subject: Knight Question
PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:03 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:02 pm
Posts: 10956
Location: Burbank, CA, USA
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

_________________
"Every Man is a But Spark in the Darkness"
              - Cities of Death, page 59

Come fight me, if you dare...... http://dd-janks.mybrute.com
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Knight Question
PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
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.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
dafrca
 Post subject: Knight Question
PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:02 pm
Posts: 10956
Location: Burbank, CA, USA
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 05 2005 July,00:52)
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.

Then get rid of the Void Shields. The Paladin should be the most numerous of the Knights, not the most rare.  ???

dafrca

_________________
"Every Man is a But Spark in the Darkness"
              - Cities of Death, page 59

Come fight me, if you dare...... http://dd-janks.mybrute.com
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
clausewitz
 Post subject: Knight Question
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 4:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
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).
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dwarf Supreme
 Post subject: Knight Question
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 4:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11149
Location: Canton, CT, USA
Welcome, clausewitz!

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
dafrca
 Post subject: Knight Question
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:02 pm
Posts: 10956
Location: Burbank, CA, USA
Quote (clausewitz @ 07 2005 July,08:13)
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.

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.  :D ) 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

_________________
"Every Man is a But Spark in the Darkness"
              - Cities of Death, page 59

Come fight me, if you dare...... http://dd-janks.mybrute.com
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dwarf Supreme
 Post subject: Knight Question
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11149
Location: Canton, CT, USA
I'm almost positive that the Paladin is supposed to be the most common knight. At least per TL fluff it is.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
clausewitz
 Post subject: Knight Question
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
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.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dwarf Supreme
 Post subject: Knight Question
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11149
Location: Canton, CT, USA
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "most common" mean "most numerous?"

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Biff
 Post subject: Knight Question
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:41 pm
Posts: 86
Location: UK
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.

_________________
50% Rule?

Never heard of it.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dwarf Supreme
 Post subject: Knight Question
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11149
Location: Canton, CT, USA
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.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
clausewitz
 Post subject: Knight Question
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 11:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
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.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
dafrca
 Post subject: Knight Question
PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 12:28 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:02 pm
Posts: 10956
Location: Burbank, CA, USA
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. :cool:

In any case, play away!

dafrca

EDIT: dafrca still can't spell  :{




_________________
"Every Man is a But Spark in the Darkness"
              - Cities of Death, page 59

Come fight me, if you dare...... http://dd-janks.mybrute.com
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
wargame_insomniac
 Post subject: Knight Question
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:21 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:42 pm
Posts: 3305
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
Quote (dafrca @ 08 2005 July,00:28)
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. :cool:

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

_________________
My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts
My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs
My Epic trades list
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Knight Question
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:26 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
AT is the oldest Epic game and passions seem to run deep over this :)

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net