[NetEpic ML] Re: Net Epic Revision: Titans

From: Kelvin <kx.henderson_at_...>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 13:15:12 +1000

At 01:02 PM 3/5/00 -0600, Peter Ramos wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Now I'll comment on my own post.
>>
>> Warhound hull, 250 points
>>
>> At 125 per warhound its TOO low for such a useful unit, 200 per hull is my
>> guess, the cost of weapons keeps it around 350 on average.
>


I agree totally. The Warhound is a very, very useful Titan.

>
>>
>> Reaver hull, 300
>>
>> The only one I'd leave as is.
>


True. I like the Reaver. It looks cool, isn't too expensive and can mount
most of the more useful weapons.

>
>>
>> Warlord hull, 500
>>
>> I'd trim it down to 450 and would even argue for a 400, the changes made
>> although useful, still make 500 points too much.
>


I think 450 for the new, improved Warlord is fair. Its the most versatile of
the Battle Titans and its cost should reflect this. They are most common
design.

>
>>
>> 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
>


Sounds fair.

>
>>
>> 2.Laser blaster, lots of dice but no modifier, anti-infantry really not bad
>> at 50 points
>> 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
>


75 for this I think. It has its uses. Perhaps we should give it back its
Barrage Template?

>
>>
>> 4.Melta cannon, pretty good as is.
>> 5.Turbo laser, perhpas too good, two dice hits on a 3+, at the very least
>> keep at 75 points
>> 6.Vulcan mega-bolter, leave ass is
>> 7.Volcano, leave as is
>> 8.Balstgun, very useful weapon, I'd say bump it up to 75 points
>


All sound fair.

>
>>
>> 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.
>


These are some of the best Titan weapons of all IMHO. I LIKE the rules the way
they stand. Sure you can't use any other weapons when you use the Destructor
or Cannon and the Destructor stops you moving next turn. Who cares? Put it on
a Fire Support Titan. Destructor, Fire Con tower, Chain Fist and Melta Gun are
my favourites. It just stands up the back and shoots once per turn with the
Destructor. If anyone gets too close, you haven't been shooting them enough.
But just stay on First Fire and when they charge you, let loose with the Melta
Cannon and then use the Chain Fist. Easy.

If we make the Destructor and Cannon drop shields, no one will take them. I
certainly won't. I like them as is.

>
>>
>> 11. Inferno gun, good as is
>> 12.Deathsrike centerline head, good a is
>> 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.
>


Very, very, very true. I'd support this whole heartedly.

>
>>
>> 14.barage missile launcher, having use and abused this thing for many years
>> leave as is, sure its an expensive one shot, but its too easy to mount
>> several and cause damage, especially at the games start.
>> 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?
>


Yes.

>
>>
>> 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.
>> 17.warp missile, same here as above
>


Yes, yes, yes Apart from the HArpoon, these are just too good. They need
adjusting. Either make them expensive or make them specials. Or restrict it
to only ONE of each type per game, period.

And as to the Deathstrike variants, I'd like to see some newer versions of them
come up. The Warp Missiles are supposed to be almost as hard to produce as the
Vortex Missiles. But the IG use them everyday? Yeah, right. Perhaps the IG
should just get two versions: an Anti-Tank and an Anti-Personnel missile.
Nothing fancy.

>
>>
>> 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
>


Or make them dirt cheap.

>
>>
>> 19.cerebus,AA, augment the stats, at least as good as hydra.
>


Yes. It is useless right now.

>
>>
>> 20.Landing pad, okay as is
>> 21.Different heads, okay as is
>> 22.Corvus, too expensive unless the termies are included, I'm okay with
>> leaving the cost if termies are included.
>> 23.devotional bell, okay as is
>> 24. Fire control, as is
>> 25.trident, as is
>


These all sound fine.

>
>>
>> well. thats my rather long two cents.
>


I'd really like to meet you one day, Peter. You and I seem to think alike.
You must be a great guy!


-Kelvin....

============================================
         "Of course I'm paranoid!
       Everyone's trying to kill me."
============================================
Received on Mon Mar 06 2000 - 03:15:12 UTC