Oh my.....
Here we go again :)
First off, somthing I find very Important!
IMHO there has gone inflation in psy saves!!!! Eldar Psychers does
not have PSY saves, neither should Imperial, Squat, Slann, Chaos or
Ork psychers. Heck, even greater deamons does not have a psy save!!!
Seems to me that all psychers made by us have gotten psy saves,
however old GW units does not. We must either take away the psy save
from our own creations, (That is my recomandation) or give it to all
above menitoned units. Thing is Psy saves should be restrictet to
units like Grey Knights!
Good work on picking up the glove on the Slann Revision Rune. This
Army has been much debated, not only on this list I can tell ya!
Uppgrades are not neccesary IMOH, but it is a nice advanced rule for
the Slann. However, it is not yet time to debate the Slann, so for
the time beeing, keep your patience Rune :)
Some comments on what has been done with the Slann and especially
Necrons. Rune has lost a lot of interst in the Slann since the last
the 4.1 rules, so they haven't been played that much. Personally I
thing the 4.1 rules has made Slann a playable army. However, I've
always looked at the Necrons as a stand alone army and we have made a
lot of additions/changes in order to make this a playable army. No
revolution, just minor adjustments. However, I'm of the opinion that
these changes should be kept away from a Slann/Necron combination and
only used when the Necrons are a standalone Army. So there should be
an advanced rules set for Necrons as well, making them playable as a
standalone army.
If we keep these things separate we will make a good revision on the
Slann topic.
Nils
--- In netepic_at_y..., "Rune Karlsen" <rune.karlsen6_at_c...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Im not talking about changing the Slann, only a few units which
are too expensive. If you do the math, you see
> that they are too expensive. Even if you should pay what the
two units would cost separately, they would still
> be cheaper than what they are now. You say we've playtested the
Slann, and that is true to some extent, but
> you have to remember that we've only playtested what i usually
field, and that is what i feel are worth their
> points! To say that we have playtested all the units is wrong.
>
> Rune
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eivind Borgeteien
> To: netepic_at_y...
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 3:32 PM
> Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] more questions :)
>
>
> The Slann and necrons are good as they are pr now. I have even
recomended people to buy them! The Slann have yet not lost bigtime
so right now I see no reason what so ever to upgrade the units or
make them cheaper. More playtesting is in order before we do any of
that.
>
> Eivind
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Ramos [mailto:primarch_at_c...]
> Sent: 7. april 2002 03:09
> To: netepic_at_y...
> Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] more questions :)
>
>
> Hi!
>
>
>
> You can't?! We'll have to remedy that. There should be a
separate slann mage unit.
>
>
>
> As for the rest, we've been down this beaten path a lot in the
last years. No doubt your buddies will show up soon with their
reasons why the prices should stand. Conversely if they agree with
you (after all I do recognize you, Eivind and others have tested the
slann more than anyone else), then I'll go with it. Playtest speaks
louder than reason. Granted most of my experience is with Necron
(which don't seem to be a problem any more) so perhaps the slann are
overpriced. But like I said if the "Nordic connection" agrees with
your points then you got me as well.
>
>
>
> I foresee many things as far as revision, hopefully the
second "slann wars" wont be one of them <grin>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rune Karlsen [mailto:rune.karlsen6_at_c...]
> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 8:11 PM
> To: netepic_at_y...
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] more questions :)
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> more mindnumbing questions :)
>
>
>
> Why cant the Slann Mage be bought without a mech? And the
prices don't seem fair either.
>
> You can buy the Great Magus for 150 and 3 Tadpole mechs cost
300 (100 a piece). Why does
>
> a Slann mage in a tadpole then cost 300? Shouldnt that be more
like 200? Actually, it should be
>
> less, since you dont get 2 units when you buy the slann mage in
a mech, you simply replace his
>
> save with the save of the mech and give him some other
weaponry. Plus, he can't cost more
>
> than the Great Magus without his mech, which means a Slann mage
should be around 100 points.
>
> If you upgrade his tadpole mech to a Frog, you pay 100 extra,
>
> but the support card upgrade costs 33 per mech. If you upgrade
him further to a Bull frog, you pay
>
> 200 extra, but again, the support card upgrade costs 66 per
mech. Do the math, he simply costs 3
>
> times as much to upgrade as other mechs. I've only fielded this
mage a few times, due to the extreme cost
>
> , and that was when we used the infamous 1.0 rules. As if the
cost wasn't enough,
>
> since he doesnt exist as other than a mech, you have to
purchase at least a support card of other mechs
>
> to place close by him, or he is an obvious target amongst
infantry and vehicles. So, if you field him without other mechs, and
>
> want him to survive for more than 2 minutes, you have to put
him in a bull frog mech at a mere 500 (remember,
>
> this is also a special card). Now, for 500 points as a special
card, other armies can buy some pretty
>
> nifty stuff! Please, the cost has got to go down and be
relative to the other mech prices. Also, the mage
>
> has got to be able to be bought separate from a mech (with some
different powers maybe?).
>
> I think we've gone a bit overboard on some of the Slann prices.
They aren't all that great, and they shouldn't
>
> cost more simply cause they're Slann units. Equal stats should
have similar costs, depending on army
>
> structure of course. As i see it, the Slann Mage in a mech
should cost 150 for the tadpole version, 175 for the
>
> medium version, and 200 for the heavy version. I think these
prices are fair, considering they're upgrades, AND
>
> you have to buy other mechs as well or lose your mage to a
barrage of fire almost before you've placed
>
> him on the table.
>
> And while im on the subject, i'd also like to mention the Slann
Time Mech. There aren't any mech upgrades here,
>
> it simply costs 500 for a heavy mech version. Now, the Time
Stasis beam or whatever its called is the same power
>
> as an Eldar Warlock has (he costs 125 points, and has other
powers as well). The Slann Time mech has only
>
> this one power. Lets for arguments sake say that the Slann Time
mage outside his mech would cost 100 points since
>
> he has only one power. That means his upgrade to a heavy mech
costs 400. Either the Heavy mechs should cost
>
> 1200 for 3, or this is also seriously overpriced. The same also
goes for this unit when it comes to buying support
>
> mechs. I think a fair price for this unit would be 200, same as
a Slann Mage in a heavy mech. I also think that
>
> the Time Mage should be able to exist without his mech (perhaps
his ass is welded to the seat, or maybe he's
>
> gotten so fat he can't get out of it anymore? ;). If so, he
should get some additional Time based powers.
>
> True Slann company cards are very expensive, so True Slann
special cards are very rare, maybe you only have
>
> one in a 3k game. With the overpriced mech mages, i choose to
bring the Great Magus every time. Do you realize
>
> there are only 4 True Slann company cards, but 9! True Slann
special cards if you count the 3 versions of the
>
> Slann mage mech? More company cards are definately needed, or
maybe the rules on army composition are too strict?
>
>
>
> A long rant as usual :)
>
>
>
> Rune
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_e...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_e...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_e...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
Received on Mon Apr 08 2002 - 08:09:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:59:34 UTC