> Would work but I dont want to see chapters with advantages but no penalties.
> Otherwise, why bother playing regular marines at all ?
--------> As far as I know, the Black Templars does not have devastators. Quite a limitation, I would say.
Eivind
> Fra: "Weasel Fierce" <septimus__at_...>
> Dato: 2002/05/07 Tue PM 10:57:57 CEST
> Til: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Emne: Re: Sv: Sv: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] New Imperial units
>
>
>
>
> >--- In netepic_at_y..., <eivind.borgeteien_at_c...> wrote:
> > > There where also some talk about Cyclone termies. Someone made
> >stats for them. I dont remember who.
> >
> >Gimme the staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaats! :P
> >
> >Just substituting the storm bolters with the dread missile launcher?
> >(50cm, 4BP, 5+, -1) cannot combine barrages of course
>
> In fact, I would propably prefer to keep termies as close quarter troops. A
> cyclone launcher is by no means powerfull enough to make a barrage template
> with -1 to hit. The thing carry a load of 12 missiles only and is only
> carried by ONE terminator per stand.
>
>
> >Disagree... why not make them standard transports for Termies of the
> >Black Templars chapter? Outside Black Templars there are very few of
> >them to justify even a detachment...
>
> Would work but I dont want to see chapters with advantages but no penalties.
> Otherwise, why bother playing regular marines at all ?
>
> And besides, in 40K (where the crusader is taken from) you can have a
> crusader (allthough only 1) in a normal detachment. So chapters defiantely
> have enough to field a detachment
>
>
>
>
>
> Weasel
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.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/
>
>
>
Received on Wed May 08 2002 - 07:30:25 UTC