Sv: Re: [NetEpic ML] Brainstorm session

From: <eivind.borgeteien_at_...>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:39:59 +0100

My gaming group has playtested them too, debated them much, and found them to be OK. In all my time playing the Squats I have 1, maybe 2 wins. I dont se any reason to make them more expencive.

Eivind
>
> Fra: "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_...>
> Dato: 2002/03/26 Tue PM 02:49:49 CET
> Til: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> Emne: Re: [NetEpic ML] Brainstorm session
>
> Hi!
> -------->NO NO NO NO NO! The one thing the Squats have is cheap praetorians. Everything else is rather expencive, so to up the prices on the Squat Praetorians will make the squats useless all together. The squats have cheap Praetorians, but completely lack bigger formations of armour. This is what makes the squats special and stand out from the other armies. If we make the praetorians more expencive, we would have to give them tank companies and cheaper infantry to make the army work. Sounds a lot like Imperial Guard doesnt it? To make the Preatorians more expencive would IMHO ruin the Squat army.
>
> Every army has that something to make them different from the rest, and if we use the formula on every unit in the game, we will end up playing a variant of Imperial Guard all together!
>
> Hehe, I was wondering when you'd pop-up. Remember that squats DO have a lot of new units (which will become core, vote willing), so they have their own armored units to compensate which was the point. You have to admit they are too GOOD for their points right now. Mind you not all of them has to go up in price, but the colossus for example is grossly underprices for what it can do. It just HAS to be increased. I know that all armies have their "cheapies" ans the squat should have them too, but they are too cheap as is. Perhaps 150 may be to much, maybe 100 is better, they'd still be cheaper than they should.
>
> > 3. Another thorn is the issue of weapons with the same name having different stats for different units (bolters being the most prominent example). A lascannon should have the same stats regardless where its on as well as battle cannons, etc. Some uniformity here makes it easier for people to remember
>
> ------->Sounds OK
> >
> > 4. AA guns should probably be defined as one of two types :static and mobile. Static AA are expensive, have long range and may only fire at either air or ground in a turn (not both). Mobile AA are cheap, shorter range and can fire at both ground and air units indescriminately.
>
> ----------> Sound OK
>
> Peter
>
>


[ Attachment content not displayed ] Received on Tue Mar 26 2002 - 15:39:59 UTC