----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Ramos
To: netepic_at_egroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 4:28 PM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Net Epic Revision: Titans
Hi!
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'll try it but leave this open for change
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.
> then I need to send my opponets to the same store you shop at for dice, for every time I see this gun I get hit 2-3 times. But don't feel bad for I have Walmart cheap dice too.
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.
> Well from the way we play most of the time you see Titans is when you face Imp Guards or Techs, for I'm not a big one to waste my special card on a Titan, rather have one cheap good stand and lots of cheap stands to flood flanks. From my point I could easly take your Titan sheilds down with imp heavies hidding in a building, from this point one shot from a Cursader Knight with this weapon and say bye bye to your Titan. Not to say the fact of the Titan blowing away all the biulding cover for your troops to hide in or behind. So now this weapon is very strong.
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.
>Again one company of Imp Heavies and bye bye Titan, for this weapon adds +3 to damage, so most Titans will not be able to repair without even rolling the die.
8
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
>disagree
>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?
>yes but most enemys that a Titan is to face is not another Titan, it was made for taking on the Gargant. And is very effective at doing so, opponet rolling for flicker and most of the time only needing one shot to get trough, at -6 auto hit,100cm. this is why I would like to see it increased. But allow it to move not fire. Thinking bout all effected not just other Titans. Poor Orks LOL
>agree
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.
> well this is were points come into effect if you can't afford to buy it then it is no good to you, But all in all this is another Ork killing weapon for god Knows you can use every bit of artillary against them, and is very effective agianst them.
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.
> cool for why would you want to destroy something you can use against your opponet, for free HAHAHA :-{ ) evil grin.
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.
> great way to limit them to game size
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.
>yes for these usaully do more damage in close combat
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.
>OOO I,m on a roll LOL
21.Different heads, okay as is
> command head should be 50 pts same as commander stand.
Agreed.
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.
> but don't forget to allow the arm pod to deploy troops on the ground also, with this ablity, maybe 225pts
Peter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups.com Home:
http://www.egroups.com/group/netepic
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
Received on Sun Mar 05 2000 - 23:00:19 UTC