Hi,
My comments below..
>
> Fra: "gringo74no" <nils.saugen_at_...>
> Dato: 2002/04/08 Mon AM 10:09:15 CEST
> Til: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Emne: [NetEpic ML] Re: more questions :)
>
> 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!
I've never understood why magi/psychers dont have psy saves.
They use the powers, but they cant protect against them?
Just doesn't seem logical to me. Demons lack psy saves for a
reason, they're tough enough to take out without them.
I also think that a psy save should be reflected in the cost.
I never mentioned psy saves though, Peter just said that the
Vanguards were supposed to have them from the start. I guess
its an oversight that they dont have it.
> 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 :)
Upgrades would be a nice way to be able to vary the price of
at least one of the few company cards Slann have, to better be
able to put together an army. I always seem to end up at 3925
or something, with no option to buy anything more. We're talking
flexibility here, and im sure you'd want your opponent to have
a full 4k army when you beat him :)
> 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.
Well, you know ive been busy with other things, and i always
have more interest in a system in change than a static one.
When things are done and debated through, they're not that fun
anymore :)
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.
I used to agree with you, but there simply aren't enough Slann
to have two separate armies. When you consider the fact that 80%
of the Slann war effort are in fact Necrons, you see why that can't
be. If we do this, there'll be a new "Slann war" when we have to
come up with new Slann units to fill in the gap after the Necrons.
> If we keep these things separate we will make a good revision on the
> Slann topic.
>
> Nils
We can't separate Necron and Slann forces when we revise them
if we want them to be one army. There is no way to balance the
two halves and still have a balanced army when you combine them.
Rune
> --- 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.
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
Received on Mon Apr 08 2002 - 14:28:50 UTC