Hi Peter,
Excellent, we are in agreement.
One issue left, as far as I'm concerned. I can pretty much live with
your Plasma Cannon idea. But I would eliminate the reduced CAF for the
Plasma Destructor. If we want to encourage titan close combat, this
weapon would be a death sentence to any titan in hand to hand. My games
tend to be very mobile. The last time I played, I lost a Reaver to a
Warhound with a close combat weapon. Good move on my opponents part,
and a calculated risk. Titans without the electrohull, will be attacked
by infantry/tanks without mercy. But this is like the "old" rules, and
I can live with that. A ballanced trade off.
Also, I'd like the titan to have the ability to turn the electrohull
off, when desired, for a turn. Sometimes this can be advantagous, if
you would default to the CAF + 2 die.
I assume that all other races use some form of electrohull.
Good ideas Peter!
Warprat ;)
>
> 9.Plasma cannon, In general I am very disatisfied with the
> > rules on these plasma weapons, its not effective to have if
> > you can fire anything else. I'd import an idea from Heresy,
> > in the case of the cannon you lose half of the active
> > shields (due to power drain) and the electrohull doesn't
> > work. You can regain sheilds next turn as well as the
> > electrohull. Only this way is 100 points justified
> > 10.Destructor- same as above, but lose ALL shields,
> > e;ectrohull and no move for the next turn (with reduction in
> > CAF), and bump up cost to 150. Its just silly to mount
> > weapons that dont permit you to use anything else.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Warprat ;)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get paid for the computing stuff you know!
> Get answers for the stuff you don�t. And get $10 to spend on the site!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/2197/2/_/7255/_/952286370/
>
> -- Check out your group's private Chat room
> -- http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=netepic&m=1
Received on Sun Mar 05 2000 - 20:43:10 UTC