At 20.48 06/03/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi!
>
>I understand that. Perhaps the best solution is for an optional rule,
>let people try it out for a while and see the results.
>
>Peter
Sounds good!!
Zerloon
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Zerloon [mailto:zerloon_at_...]
>Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 8:28 PM
>To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Core rules proposal
>
>I see your point, but the fact is that if I must choose between Titan
>and
>medic or tech, well there are no match, there's no situation where a
>medic
>can be prefered to a titan... but this is my opinion, I want only made
>some
>unit a little more usable.
>
>And of course Psyker should remain special.
>
>
>At 16.26 06/03/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> >Please don't change the army composition slots.
> >Medics, Techs, Chaplains etc... are meant to be
> >special units. Support max 1 defeats this purpose. I
> >attach a tech marine to my landraider co. a medic or
> >chaplain to my assault co or a psyker to my tactical
> >or devastator co's. Now you don't have to decide
> >whether to take another company for those warhounds or
> >other titans because they are open because there are
> >no other special units. No to support max 1!!!!
> >Darius
> >--- Jarreas Underwood <jarreas_at_...> wrote:
> > > >Make a "new" kind of card, the "support max 1",
> > > wich take a support slot but can be purchased only
> > > one for company, and in this category I'll put all
> > > medics and tech, all flyer, chaplains and so on.
> > >
> > > I'm opposed to the idea, but have a counterproposal.
> > >
> > > A) The [Company + 1x Specal + 5x Support] is simple,
> > > easy, ingrained in everyone's head and follows all
> > > the existing GW stuff. Anyone coming into Net Epic
> > > from old Epic would be lost on a fundamental level,
> > > instead of just the rules-level now.
> > > B) There would be a huge arguement^Xdebate over what
> > > units would go where. I don *not* want to get into
> > > that.
> > >
> > > Instead, let's take a look at the foundation of Net
> > > Epic - Rogue Trader. The basic squad (one stand in
> > > Net Epic) couldn't get a medic - they had some heavy
> > > weapons choices, a sargeant option and that's about
> > > it. A Headquarters squad had an officer, a chaplain,
> > > a few soldiers and a medic option. And medics
> > > weren't all that effective - they could save one
> > > dude in a turn - and one dude is *nothing* on the
> > > Net Epic battlefield. I figure the reason Marine
> > > Commander stands have better armor save is the
> > > presence of a medic, and we should get rid of the
> > > medic unit completely. However, it's here and here
> > > to stay. And I ramble - back to my point.
> > >
> > > Let's make the Medic a Support card. If you want
> > > five medics in a company, go ahead - just remember
> > > that each stand only gets *one* healer roll, no
> > > matter how many medics are around. Likewise with a
> > > techmarine - support away! The chaplain should
> > > probably stay a special card, except for some armies
> > > where there are *lots* of fanatics (like Blood
> > > Angels).
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > > -Yar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > > \~
> > > |~ . o o . :;: () -0- o
> > > o .
> > > |~ ^
> > > /~ |
> > > You are here. Wouldn't you
> > > rather be out there? -->
> > >
> >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> >http://taxes.yahoo.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/
>
>
>
>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 Fri Mar 07 2003 - 00:53:09 UTC