Hi,
comments below
>
> Fra: "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_...>
> Dato: 2002/04/08 Mon PM 03:00:14 CEST
> Til: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> Emne: RE: [NetEpic ML] Re: more questions :)
>
> Hi!
>
> Ahem.....
>
> One of the reasons Slann generate so much...traffic..is that it is the
> first army to be added that is outside GW "dogma". Even the PDF and
> sisters of battle lists did not engender this much debate, because they
> are armies with a firm foot in GW lore.
>
> This means that what would be accepted for one of those armies would not
> be for the slann. As our own creation we have demanded a much tighter
> list as far as balance and playability than even those "official" GW
> armies have. I bet if we would have invented all the other lists they'd
> be pretty different from what GW gave us (some already are there). Of
> course we STILL wondering what goes well for the slann as rules and what
> don't.
>
> The slann are expensive, but they have to be. Any army that has superior
> deployment capability has to be. Having played them, even with the risks
> warp jumping is a HUGE advantage. Its impact on the playing field is up
> above what mere points can convey. Also note the points formula Birol
> made up, don't really cover a lot of special abilities. So to use it to
> compare with other units is difficult and misleading. I remember the
> original slann rules, they were TOO GOOD. I have played them with the
> current rules and they are just fine. Playtest is far a more compelling
> argument than all else. That we need to further develop the list,
> perhaps using the upgrade idea, is good and necessary. But changing the
> points cost is iffy at best.
>
> I would prefer to leave the Slann and necron as ONE army. The fluff
> invented supports as much and to have them separate would mean an
> expansion of the Slann part (as they stand they don't have enough unit
> variety to stand alone). As they are they are a large list with many
> parts, much like the chaos list (and it also shares that lists problems
> too). I think we need to decide its overall structure. There are
> guidelines in place now but they may not be as tight as one would like
> them.
>
> Having played the slann quite a bit I have thought what kind of
> structure they should have, so as to promote ONE army instead of many.
>
> If the slann are the "masters" they should be at the core of army
> construction. Meaning their companies are the center of each army. All
> the necron units should be support. After all their reason of being is
> to defend the slann not fight on their own. There are only two Necron
> companies if I recall correctly and I wonder if they should be just
> support. Mind you you don't need to change the unit content, just make
> it a support card. This is not a new concept since chaos has company
> size support cards (chaos marine legions are company sized, but
> purchased as support).
I agree that the Slann are pretty balanced, i was merely pointing
out two units which imho cost too much, and a way to make a more
flexible system for the mechs. When it comes to making the Necron
Company Cards into support cards, consider this : It will give
the Slann perhaps 2 special cards in a 4K game. You have only
2 infantry companies and 2 mech companies to choose from. If
you bring one of each, you're talking at least 1450 points for
the cheapest combinations. If you want to change the structure,
i think you'd be better off purchasing Slann commanders (like
Vanguards), and adding support cards (with a 2/5th True Slann limit),
and adding special cards as you see fit. This is a structure which
would make the Slann easy to break (since in effect, there are
no company cards), but would allow for greater flexibility.
> Regarding the "Abilities" idea. I do like it, but it will be optional
> and advance if used. Making them support cards and spending support
> slots is a great idea that should be used. I know some armies have
> "cheapies" as far as card cost, perhaps these "cards" could be theirs.
>
> There are things that need to be changed for the slann, but I think its
> mostly organization in nature and adding options, rather than changing
> what's there already. The slann have had a more scrutiny than even the
> original GW armies. As they stand they are balanced, even by the
> standards of the slann opponents, but as always everything can ise MINOR
> tweaking.
>
> Peter
Yes, i agree completely. Its just that some people hear the
word "Slann", and they immediately go into fetal position.
I will gladly playtest the Slann mage in a mech and the time
mage in a mech at 500 points a pop, just to prove that they
are a waste of points. Hey, lets test a 500 point Slann Mage
in a mech against a Leviathan or Colossus, they're about
the same cost. That'd be fun ;)
Rune
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gringo74no [mailto:nils.saugen_at_...]
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 4:09 AM
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [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!
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 - 14:52:22 UTC