[NetEpic ML] Re: Decision, decisions, what to do with the revision?

From: Peter Ramos <pramos2_at_...>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:10:34 -0600

Hi!

>
> I just want to see the Warlord's reactor become less vulnerable. Either
> moving it or making the front location a 1+ is fine by me.


We can let stand what was voted on for the Warlord, eliminating the front
reactor.
>
> This fine. I'd still like to see a limit to the number of Vortex and Warp
> Missiles in play, but as they stand, most of the rules for Titan weapons
> are fine. Are we still going to give the Quake cannon back its template?

Certainly these too will stand and the wuake cannon gets its barrage
template.
>
> >As far as the eldar holofiled, as i sad before I'm of two minds. I guess
to
> >avoid major conflicts the barrage liablility should stand, BUT I'd lower
the
> >hull cost a tiny bit. We'd leave the original holofield rules.
>
> I have always thought the Eldar Titans a bit too vulnerable to the
> barrages. Sure, Barrages affect a large area, but even they need SOME
> telemetry to fire well. I'm content to stick with the original rules
while
> lowering the cost of the hulls SLIGHTLY. But here's some food for
thought:

I'd lower them by 50 points.
>
> Option 1:
> The Holofields provide no save against barrages (normal rules), but the
> firer does NOT get to choose the location hit on the Titan. Instead, this
> is determined randomly. Fluff: without proper telemetry, the Barrage crew
> cannot choose where to place the majority of their fire, so if they manage
> to catch the Titan in the blast area, the section hit is completely
random.
>
> Option 2:
> I always saw the Holofields as making the Eldar hard to hit. So rather
> than giving them a special save, why not give them a to-hit modifier.
> Against 'standard' weapons, the Titan uses the following progression:
First
> Fire/Fallback: -2 to hit, Advance: -3 to hit, Charge: -4 to hit. For any
> weapons that use a template, use the following progression: First
> Fire/Fallback: no modifier, Advance: -1 to hit, Charge -2 to hit.

I would like option two. What does everybody else think?
>
> How do these options sound to everyone? I think #1 would be the simpler
> compromise and makes a lot of sense.
>
> >As for the D-cannon. This was originally intended as the eldar equivalent
> >for the volcano cannon. Why not just do this:
> >
> >Range 75cm, to hit 3+, save modifier -4, add +2 to damage rolls. One
attack
> >dice Cost 100 points, pretty much a volcano cannon. It would eliminate
all
> >the fiddly rules and people would want to buy it. Opinions?
>
> Why not keep the D-Cannon as well (for the same cost but without the First
> Fire limitation) and simply name the above option something different,
like
> the "Star Cannon"? Same weapon on the model, but you have the option of
> using it as either the D-Cannon or Star Cannon.

Thats a good compromise. Opinions?
>
> >As for the remaining titans I'd rather ask if people have a particular
> >problem with them and address those issues.
>
> I really don't have much in the way of problems with the remaining Titans,
> except possibly the proliferation of options for the Chaos Titans.

I'll list some concerns that I have heard over time and see what people
think.

Peter
Received on Wed Mar 15 2000 - 00:10:34 UTC