RE: [NetEpic ML] [5.0] Eldar summary

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:54:21 -0400

Hi!

> >4. Dreadnoughts and wraithguard get orders JUST from warlocks and
> farseers
> >not anyliving elder.
>
> Hey, isn't a little too far? I mean, 40k wraithguard and dread CAN be
> guided by a warlock, not a must... in 40k if a squad of these beauty
are
> without warlock they must roll a dice every turn, on a 1 they can do
> nothing. We may alter the rules in this sense, if there are no warlock
> roll
> a dice, with 1 they can do nothing. If we do this maybe we should drop
a
> little the cost, maybe with the antichrist weapons.

Perhaps listing it as an alternate and testing it a bit may be the way
to go.

> >7. Titan mounted Vibro-cannon? Useless. No commentary at present.
> >Opinions? Stephanes variant suggested a single scatter but 3d6 not 2.
>
> Scatter? on vibro cannon?

Oops!

Put it in the wrong place, that comment was for the warp hunter. The
original question is if Vibro-cannons need an "upgrade"

> > 9. There were some discussions regarding names for Exarchs and
such.
> The
> > arguments went both ways. Any more opinions?
>
> Woah, this is a good point. The exarch in NetEpic are not the Exarch
of
> 40k, and in a similar way are not Phoenix Lords (that in effect are
> character named and stop). I think th bes solution is to leave them as
> Exarch, maybe some good idea come later.

I agree, lacking a better term, they will probably remain "exarch"

> > 11. Suggestion to reduce the Vyper CAF to make it more of a support
> > unit. Opinions?
>
> Keep as a variant and try it a little more, but in overall agree.

This is probably the way to go on this.

> >12. Wraithguard, movement as infantry.
>
> I think wraithguard should be considered infantry for all aspect, but
they
> can only be embarked on wave serpent.

Is this restriction really necessary? What's wrong with using falcons?

Peter
Received on Thu Aug 21 2003 - 22:54:21 UTC