Hi!
Valid points as usual. I can live with leaving the reactor where it is if
others can. Also I am swaying to leave hull costs and weapons cost as is,
even the rules leave them as is. I think they EARN what they cost now, not
like before.
I'd like to hear more opinions on this but I suspect hats the slant.
Peter
> OK, I've got a couple of things to say.
>
> 1) I think the reactor should be in the front, for Eldar Titans.
> I agree with the "more fragile" argument. I don't think the front
> reactor hurts these titans, near as much as the Warlord was. The armor
> is 1+, WITH a holo field, already! And barrages, the chief weakness of
> holo fields, will no longer be an issue?
>
> 2) I'm very, very disturbed, by the direction these Eldar Titans are
> going. I can go along with eliminating the holo field barrage weakness,
> but these titans are fast becoming monsters. I have an Eldar army, with
> lots of titans. I've played with, and against the Eldar. I love the
> Eldar. But I DO NOT want to cheeze my friends with these things. And I
> don't want them so expensive, I can't field more than one.
>
> 3) The D-Cannon. Let it fire on Advance. Scatter it on 2d6. 1d6 is
> almost meaningless, it will still hit 1/2 of the time, if it does
> scatter. After thinking about it, leave the cost at 125pts.
>
> 4) At first I really liked the idea of new Eldar titan weapons (I even
> created a couple of them for consideration), now I'm starting to lean
> against them. Weapon flexability is a human advantage. Humans have the
> most variety of any race. Humans are creative and adaptable. Eldar are
> an ancient race, and set in thier ways. They already have the best
> technology, so why should new weapons be developed, beyond creating more
> money for Games Workshop? ;)
>
>
> Warprat ;)
>
>
>
>
> Peter Ramos wrote:
> >
> > Second, I dislike the 2d6 scattering and would rather it scattered a
single
> > d6, their tech is better after all. All else remains the same. This way
150
> > ponts is definately in order.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > > Read my post again. I didn't say they were too cheap.
> > > The point I was trying to make, was that these weapons, in particular,
are
> > > very nasty; while the D-Cannon has only the *potential* for nastiness.
If
> > > you raise the points cost of it, it won't be worth taking.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
>
> eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/netepic
> www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
Received on Sat Mar 11 2000 - 02:53:12 UTC