Re: [NetEpic ML] Slann proxies and modifying the army lists

From: Gary <gary_clark1946_at_...>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:24:29 -0000

I have some questions.


<cibernyam_at_...> wrote:
>
> As long as balance and general concept of the army are kept I have no
> problem in having those lists expanded. Maybe an expansion based on
the
> addition of Slann codex armies may be a good approach to avoid loosing
the
> previous work flavour.
I hope you aren't refering to the EA Necrons? Slann Necrons apeal to me
but the EA list turns me off completely. Although a little tweaking
might be ok I don't want to change the flavor a bit.

> About the skimmers, my concern is focused on the point increase.
Giving
> skimmer to a Rhino does not improve too much its eficiency; the same
happens
> to slow moving units;on the other hand, giving skimmer ability to a
fast SH
> tank or a well armed and armored unit, should boost up the ability
cost. We
> may end up with a too expensive army to field, even for slann. Maybe
we can
> balance that with low profile weapons/weak armor/slow movement/lower
CAF for
> new skimmer units.
>
> Albert
>
What is the big value of "skimmer"?

Is it the pop up attacks?

or the moving over difficult terrrain?

Are you concerned about the Super Heavy tank?

I hadn't thought about it being a skimmer.

I have no problem using skimmers models without the abilitys but I think
"skimmers" fit the Necrons and they are readily available now. Even if
you think the cost should be pushed up a bit. Another 50 points perhaps?

New units? It would be nice but I really don't want to rewrite the list.
I am trying to get the book ready. I am just looking at fiting the new
models into it. I can't believe an advanced race would make themselves
dependent on wheels or tracks. Each vehicle is a being.

One more day before I wrap it up for the holidays. I am at the point of
puting the pieces of the book together. Photos and other artwork can be
inserted later.

Power won't stay on for more than an hour so computer time is rare. That
is why this message is so rushed.

Gary
Received on Wed Dec 20 2006 - 19:24:29 UTC