Re: [NetEpic ML] Titan battle group

From: Zerloon <zerloon_at_...>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:15:18 +0200

At 18.15 26/09/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> > >Now, my 1st suggestion is simple, keep TBG but
> > make that a SPECIAL card
> > >that take TWO slot, in this manner this should
> > keep TBG only for large battle.
>
>You may wish to read the Titan Legions Army Book on the Yahoo website - it now
>requires a Titan Legion Codex army to take battle groups.

Well. but I would play NetEpic, not Titan Legion!! ^___^
The fact is that I simply love titan and titan battle group, so I wish use
in "normal" (4k or more) epic games


> > >2nd: I don't understand why tree Titan MUST
> > have the same weapons, keep the
> > >"one chassis free" and let weapons choose up
> > to the player.
>
>The titans forming a battle group have never been required to be identical.
>Look at the example titans in the TL Army Book.

? in the titan battle group section of core rules 4.1 there are written
that the titan must have the same weapon



> > >3rd: The composition of TBG, we should keep
> > the same of the old Journal, so
> > >for example Eldar should have 1 Warlock and 2
> > Phantom, not 3 phantom.
>
>Ok. I don't really care - I play Imperial and rather like a variety of targets
>to blow to smithereens. *grin* Of course, Net Epic is starting to diverge
>rather strongly from the Games Workshop "mainline" history - see the receint
>timeline, for example. I see no reason for staying with something just because
>'that's the way it's always been.' Show me some well-written fluff and you've
>got me convinced, though.

I care however. Let me make an example:
I'm an Eldar player, and decide to take a Titan battle group: I take 1
warlock and 2 phantom chassis, and spend 700 pt. Now I think for a while
and spend another 100 pt in chassis and can take 3 warlock. Now, for 100 pt
nobody refuse the change between phantom and warlock, and since the weapon
I can mount is the same this way open way to "cheese" player. So for me the
TBG should be fixed, in the same way old journal is the impartial way for me.
And good fluff is always well accepted, but since this is a game it should
not rules.

> > >4th: Ork big mob, isn't very clear, why I
> > should take a two great and one
> > >slasha when I can take tree great at the same
> > cost?
>
>As I remember, greats have a belly gun and slashas move a good deal faster -
>player choice and pick to fit the battle (slashas for city fights, greats for
>long-range artillery duels). When we get to reviewing Orks I wouldn't mind
>equalizing the two.
>-Yar

Mmmmmm I not think they in effect could have different role, but if you see
the example above you catch what I mean.

So let me know!!!!

Zerloon
Received on Mon Sep 30 2002 - 20:15:18 UTC