RE: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] New unit summary (marine revision part III)

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 08:08:51 +0300

[snip]
> All fine though I really dont want to see each vehicle
> combination detailed
> out. 40K3 gives 4-5 different weapon fits for the razorback ....
>
> I dont see this as being something that is really needed
>

There will be a poll of acceptance; I don't think these will make it to core units anyway. I just feel it is easier not to use something which exists than try to use something which doesn't exist.
 
>
> >Land Speeder 'Tornado'
> >Carrying a devastating Assault Cannon the Tornados excels in the
> >anti-personnel role, often acting as a mobil reserve, dashing forward
> >to exploit weaknesses in the enemy or bolstering the Space Marines'
> >attack where they most need it.
> >
> >Move: 30 cm
> >Save: 6+
> >CAF: +3
> >Weapons: Assault Cannon
> >Range: 35cm
> >Att. D: 2
> >To Hit: 4+
> >TSM: 0
> >Notes: Skimmer
>
> Same thing goes here really. I guess Im starting to get
> conservative :)
>

Counterrevolutionary! Get him, comrades! :P

>
> >Comments appreciated. Personally I'd say the Typhoon's CAF
> should be lower;
> >+2 at most.
>
> I'd say all landspeeders should be lowered. I cant see why
> they should be so
> dangerous in close quarter fighting.
> A +2 or even +1 IMO
>

There's a poll about this, although it only asks about whether the CAF should be lowered to +1. I should've paraphrased it like "What CAF do you prefer for the landspeeder" and given alternatives. Same with the bikes. I may have to redo those.

>
>
> Weasel
>


Jyrki Saari

-There is no such thing as free lunch because eating takes time and time is money.
Received on Tue May 28 2002 - 05:08:51 UTC