Hi!!!!
I agree with a teleport accident, but I'm guess:
At this point, is'nt easier to don't make a teleported termies company?
We all agree that's too powerful
We all agree that's too rare
We all agree that's too risky...
so why?
Zerloon
At 13.21 31/03/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Rune makes good points. Teleporting en masse IS a game breaker. I have
>run several mock battles over this weekend just using termies and a few
>other units to see what happens. The danger is that there is no counter
>to this. That's why it's bad. If there where a way to counter, then it
>wouldn't be so bad.
>
>Unless rules for making teleport difficult were in place it would not be
>advisable to use them. Even the slann, master of warp jumping have a
>risk when they do it. Teleport is too risk free.
>
>If we want to see more terminators on the table top I would avise some
>other things than "whole company" teleport:
>
>1. Limit teleported terminators as special cards and to the size of one
>detachment. Granted you can bring more than one, but the fact they are
>special cards and price will limit them.
>
>2. Introduce terminators with assault cannons and cyclone missile
>launchers. These should be support cards to give terminator companies
>longer range support.
>
>3. Teleportation, should involve risk, as in this table:
>
>1- teleport accident unit lost
>2-3 problem with fixing drop site, teleportation delayed on turn
>4-5 teleport successful, they land in current turn with a deviation of
>the intended point of 2d6 cm (units are limited to advance and charge
>orders ONLY)
>6- perfect teleport! Lands in current turn exactly at the intended
>point, no deviation, can be assigned any orders.
>
>How's that?
>
>Peter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eivind Borgeteien [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_...]
>Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 10:46 AM
>To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: Re: [NetEpic ML] Teleporting Terminators
>
>I agree that the teleported termie company should be a special card.
>I also agree that a company of them are potential gamebreakers.
>
>Just one note; termies come in detachments of 4 + transports.
>
>Eivind
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rune Karlsen [mailto:rune.karlsen6_at_...]
>Sent: 31. mars 2002 16:32
>To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: Re: [NetEpic ML] Teleporting Terminators
>
>
>This will make them more available, but will still show
>that they are extremely rare. To get a company of terminators,
>you have to use a special card. I think that's only reasonable.
>Think about it, how rare is the terminator company? Is it more
>or less rare than the other SM special cards which presently exist?
>
>How much would a company of teleporting termies cost btw?
>1500? The problem with teleportation is that it is EXTREMLY
>deadly. 6 terminators could kill a titan easily.
>If you can teleport them in, they're potentially gamebreakers.
>One of the biggest strategic moves of the game is to get your
>troops in where they're needed relatively unharmed. If you can
>teleport large groups of extremely deadly CC/FF troops, you
>eliminate the need for strategy. I agree teleportation is likely
>at this stage of technology, just like drop pods and orbital barrage.
>The problem is, that if you are able to teleport large number of
>troops, then your enemy would have to come up with technology
>to counter this or quickly perish. Teleportation is the ultimate form
>of transportation.
>I think a teleporting terminator company will seriously unbalance SM.
>Lets say we're playing a game. Slann Vs. SM. Now, if my opponent (SM)
>is planning to take a termie company, there simply are units Slann can't
>field. But, i dont know that in advance. The result is that i have to
>plan
>my army and tactics based on the fact that he uses them no matter what.
>I agree that you generally have to plan against things like this with
>all
>armies, but nothing as devastating as a company of terminators
>teleporting
>into your midst. I actually havnt playtested this, but if i played SM,
>id
>never play without that termie company. They're good strategy against
>anything. They can take out anything. They can move anywhere they want.
>There simply arent any reasons not to take them.
>
>Another thing to consider. If teleportation exists, and races like the
>Eldar
>and
>Slann are much older than the humies. Why don't they use teleportation
>to
>a bigger degree? Sure, they walk the warp, but that's a short stroll
>compared
>to teleportation. The only reason i can think of, is that they found it
>too
>risky. If the older and more technology advanced races arent using a
>technology
>anymore, its because they've surpassed it. That's why teleportation has
>to
>be dangerous in my mind. The risk should be proportional with distance
>travelled. I know many players will disagree with me here, but im only
>using
>logic. How many of you ride a horse to work? How many paddles a canoo to
>school?
>When your technological level advances, the technology of old is quickly
>replaced.
>
>A long rant, but i just had to get my point across :)
>
>Rune
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Eivind Borgeteien" <eivind.borgeteien_at_...>
>To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 3:18 PM
>Subject: RE: Re: [NetEpic ML] Teleporting Terminators
>
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > I think this is the wrong way to go. This will make the termies less
> > available, the goal here is to make them more available as the rules
>per
>now
> > arent good enough.
> >
> > Eivind
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Ramos [mailto:primarch_at_...]
> > Sent: 31. mars 2001 15:06
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: Re: [NetEpic ML] Teleporting Terminators
> >
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > That's a good suggestion.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weasel Fierce [mailto:septimus__at_...]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 10:22 PM
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: Re: [NetEpic ML] Teleporting Terminators
> >
> >
> > >That's a good point. Unfortunately the fluff does state there are
> > >companies of terminators, so eliminating them is difficult.
> >
> > true. Perhaps the company card could be a special card ? This would
>make
> >
> > sense I figure. Fielding a terminator company only in rare situations
> > when
> > conventional marine forces need a real edge.
> >
> >
> > Or perhaps they should just be left alone :)
> >
> > Weasel
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
> <http://mobile.msn.com>http://mobile.msn.com
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=214508.1858224.3361270.1501205/D=egroupweb/S=1705059081:HM/A=949165/R=0/*http://content.search.shopping.yahoo.com/search/tmpl?tmpl=psshowcase2001.html&query=tag:PSshowcase2001+%23cversion%3A%7Bimage_PSshowcase2001+url_PSshowcase2001+desc_PSshowcase2001+title_PSshowcase2001+morehtml_PSshowcase2001%7D&q=PSshowcase2001>204c6e.jpg
>
>204c9b.jpg
>
>To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Received on Tue Apr 02 2002 - 13:22:18 UTC