Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
Knight size (type and damage capacity) http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=25389 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | Ulrik [ Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:22 pm ] |
Post subject: | Knight size (type and damage capacity) |
With the new Riptide another race gets a Knight type unit. Maybe it's a good idea to once and for all decide where Knights should sit in EA rules? I think most of these units should be the same size, in the same way that all types of scout titans, superheavy tanks or bombers are the same DC. - Imperial Knights - Eldar knights - Eldar Wraithknight - Tau Riptide - Tyranid Tyrannofex and Tervigon War Engine DC2 seems popular? |
Author: | GlynG [ Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:43 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Knight size (type and damage capacity) |
Hell no! This is best decided as appropriate by each particular list designers and what suits sleek Eldar Knights doesn't necesarily have to apply to bulkier Imperial Knights. The Wraithknight should probably be DC2 but the I'm not sure about DC2 for the Riptide, it's a fair bit smaller and could go either way. Other existing knight units aren't WE - Slaanesh Knights are AV, Epic Ork Stompas are AV. |
Author: | DaR [ Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:00 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Knight size (type and damage capacity) |
I agree with GlynG, in the abstract, if not necessarily the particulars. The door is (and has been, based on many of the existing lists) open for War Engines at fairly arbitrary DC values. DC1 is the only remotely questionable usage, as currently it's only used in a few lists (Experimental Harkoni Warhawks and Developmental Hyperion Knights). The rules handle the concept just fine, and the only areas a DC1 War Engine differs from an AV are in its ability to Barge during an assault, which honestly seems pretty appropriate for most of the units we're talking about, and the ability to allocate shooting to it in a mixed WE/non-WE formation, which again seems appropriate as most of these units are sufficiently larger than a normal vehicle to be easily picked out in battlefield conditions. I think a lot of it depends on the background of unit and the design intent of the unit within the army. DC, like most Epic stats, is arbitrary and a bit abstract. Some units are especially powerful for their size, others particularly fragile for the same, because they have different battlefield roles. A Tau Orca is bigger than an Eldar Cobra, but it's primarily a dropship and transport, not a battle tank, so being DC2 instead of DC3 makes sense. The Grey Knight Dreadknight or Ork MegaDread is pretty much what I'd consider a DC1 WE in Epic terms. It's large enough that I can see it qualifying for the WE abilities to barge things out of the way during assaults, and to be large enough that picking it out among a formation of say, infantry and transports, would be possible at long range. The Riptide is a bit larger and definitely bulkier, and straddles the DC1 to DC2 border for me; I think Tastyfish suggested "DC1.5", but the rules don't support that well and I think it's just bulky and armored enough to round up rather than down. If it were built more like a classic Crisis Suit or the FW Hazard suits, or had lesser armor or wounds in 40k, I might be inclined to round down. The Wraithknight is pretty clearly into DC2 territory in my mind, both by size and being T8 in 40k. Roughly, I'd say anything which completely fills one of the oval flyer bases at 40k scale as a walker/creature is probably into WE territory. For more traditional vehicles, I'd probably use the Land Raider as my boundary. Anything larger is a WE, anything smaller is probably just an AV. Having particularly good defensive stats (T6 or better with more than 4 wounds, and a 3+ or better save of some sort) would push me towards WE status, and for things that are on that border between DC1 and DC2, push me towards the higher end (For instance, in the Riptide's case, it's "only" 5 wounds at T6, but it does have a 2+ armor save and a 5++ invul save which can be upgraded to 3++ on demand). On the other hand, if the stats aren't particularly strong, then even larger vehicles/creatures might not qualify for WE status. A Valkyrie is pretty clearly bigger than a Land Raider, but in 40k Terms it's got fewer HP and lower armor all around, and as a flyer it's more vulnerable as disrupting its mobility means falling from the sky instead of just grinding to a halt. Nor does its battlefield role tend to cause it be pushing units out of the way. So, ultimately, I don't think anyone really would disagree that it should remain an AV and not become a WE. I think there are a fair number of units that are currently AV that could probably stand to be upgraded to DC1 or even DC2 War Engines, with appropriate changes in costing. Slaanesh Knights and Ork Stompas both are on that list for me. |
Author: | madd0ct0r [ Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:02 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Knight size (type and damage capacity) |
DC1 = It can barge a landraider. |
Author: | LordotMilk [ Tue Dec 17, 2013 8:34 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Knight size (type and damage capacity) |
If I may, I'd like to add the Slaanesh Knights of House Devine to that list, as DaR mentioned. Another one that might be considered is the Ork Stompa, also as DaR mentioned. I wholeheartedly agree with Ulrik's initiative, I believe we should have a standard set of conventions for Knights, just as we have a standard set of conventions for pretty much every other type of unit. Knights are mostly (all?) in experimental/developmental lists, so it should not be too difficult to implement. The difficult one is the Stompa, as it is in an approved list. Also, it sits quite well with 4 + RA, as with more DC but less armour it would be overall weaker in assaults, and with more DC and the same armour, its price might become prohibitive with regards to other list options. We could just ignore the Stompa, as Ork armour in general is less resilient than what can be found in other lists. 1 DC option is for me the least attractive for two reasons: 1) aesthetic, it just does not sit well, and 2) most of these units have Superior firepower to the largest AVs making suppression/breaking a big issue, as can be seen with the turmoils of the Imperial Knights list, and the need to introduce ATSKNF. |
Author: | Apocolocyntosis [ Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:08 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Knight size (type and damage capacity) |
Given the choice between a weak DC2 and a strong AV, strong AV requires less bookkeeping. DC2 is going to be harder to balance at points level that makes the stats and the cost attractive in knight dedicated armies. I agree that suppression/breaking is a problem with DC1 or AV, and does not match the formation. However, i think re-purposing ATSHKNF is a good solution myself as it avoids creating new rules (everyone is familiar with ATSKNF from the start) and gives the behaviour desired. Being able to barge stuff is character-full though … ![]() *edit, i didn't mean start adding atsknf to all lists with knights in, just those that are knight focused. I think standarisation is a good aim, but this could be on two levels, with kngiht-centric lists having more detailed knight rules than list that just have one knight formation option (AMTL, EC, etc). |
Author: | BlackLegion [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 4:27 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Knight size (type and damage capacity) |
For me Toughness 6 and Wounds 6 is the minimum requirement for a Monstrous Creature do be a DC2 WE in Epic. Every full 3 Wounds would increase the DC by +1. |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |