[NetEpic ML] Re: Net Epic Revision: Titans

From: Peter Ramos <pramos2_at_...>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 15:28:50 -0600


  Disagree leave at 500 for the changes make up for this, tryed the 4+ save and in 3 round damn thing still had 4 sheilds and not one hit on it. And that was with using only -1 gun fire to take a sheild down. no plain weapons are allowed to take a sheild down in are house rules.

  One test may not be enough, but point taken, I'd go for hte compromise of 450, more time and playtest will tell. Needed -1 weapons to take down a shield is also an official net epic rule.

  I will list the Imperial weapons below with current cost, the comments should be two fold, first wether the cost is okay and second whether the rules for it should change.

  1.Gatling blaster, nice weapon, but hits on a 5+ perhaps a cost of 50 is better
> rules are fine
> increase to 75, for you almost always get 2 hits and at -1 TSM

  Mathematically, you average one, sometiomes two. the range is good, but overall I'd rather leave it with the current points than increase it.

  3.Quake cannon-overpriced, by a lot, only one shot and the volcano is a lot better, I'd say its not worth more than 50 points
>disagree for you can take out a building with one shot, and -3 or -4 on 1D6 not much of a differance still going to much damage I say 100pts for if you check out the Knights with this gun they are at 130pts each and no one is crying bout that.
>rules are fine

  Theability to destroy buildings in my experience is a little used one since titans have better things to shoot at. While 50 may be too low, I definatley feel its 75 point weapon, never more than that.

  7.Volcano, leave as is
>Disagree Up points to 150
>Weapon Bucu powerful an unsheilded Titan is almost always going down, put on list to destroy buildings.
  The key word is unshielded, how much is it worth until then, not much. A weapon is only as good as with the combo you use it in. Its current points is good enough.

  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
>just drop to 75pts, and leave as is

  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.
> are you crazy any unsheilde Titan is gone,Almost always say goodbye to Gargant, increase to 175, but allow to move.

  Again the key word is unshielded, how to you get it unshielded and use this weapon in the same turn, the same titan can not do this in one turn since he can use this weapon AND the others. If you have to defend on other to do this job, why arm it with this weapon anyway, might as well arm it with anti-shield weapons and let a shadowsword take it out. The matter is that its not worth having these weapons, they pack a punch thats true, but what is it worth if you can only hit a shielded target?


  13.Multi-launcher, if you played AT you know this is NOTHING like its predecessor, it just plain sucks. I say either give it a save modifier of -1 or extra templates to earn its points.
>ok ok ok put the crack pipe down, This weapon in the game is very effective at what it was designed for, Infantry killer and light tank killing.
>leave as is

  Hehe, but I like my pipe. I disagree this weapon really blows. I wouldn't waste my time on it when I can buy a centerline cannon for a few pints more and have a save modifier and better range.

  15.harpoon missile, I dont like the rules, who uses this anyway? I'd amke this ignore shields (like the trident) and take over the titan the same turn, (even if it already acted), otherwise why bother?
>up the TSM to -4
>Leave as is

  thats sounds marginally better.

  16.Voretx, something is just gotta be done with this, its a "kill-a-titan-for-free" card, with gargants its a joke, they are so wide this never scatters far enough not hit it. If the rules are kept, its got to be limited, preferable by special card.
> up cost to 300pts, for this will limit it to game size as it should be.
>leave rules as is

  17.warp missile, same here as above
>up pts to 400 for this is alway a Titan killer, and as such shuold cost as much. This will limit to game size as should be
>leave rules as is

  this might be the way to go, make them insanely expensive and that will limit them pretty much.

  18.All close combat weapons, they rules are okay, but why pay for them, how often does close combat occur in these rules? Not very much unlike AT. I'd save give people an incentive and give close combat weapons for free
> not free but all 10pts for some destroy buildings
>all rules ok

  thats a good compromise, charge for those of building destruction.

  19.cerebus,AA, augment the stats, at least as good as hydra.
>increase to 4 dice, decrease range to 75cm.
>other rule fine
  20.Landing pad, okay as is
>up points to 75 for you may now fire indirect barrage with no scatter
>if leave as is make scatter 1D6 like forward obsevers

  these two sound good.

  21.Different heads, okay as is
> command head should be 50 pts same as commander stand.


  22.Corvus, too expensive unless the termies are included, I'm okay with leaving the cost if termies are included.
> ok now I know your on crack LOL it cost 350 pts for drop pods and you have to give up your rihnos, you don't get an extra die in close combat, and after all these are termies +4-+6 CAF already. Protected by void sheilds, if Titan goes down they get to roll there fixed save. Come on up points 250
> change rule for arm pod and let termies be deployed on ground also.

  hehe, actually the cost of a termie company at 350, the price is mostly from the landraiders (about 100 each) thus leaving the price at 150. but I can live with 200 if you can.

Received on Sun Mar 05 2000 - 21:28:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:58:53 UTC