just worried bout fairness for the game balance. One other thing if the
multi missiles get a -1 TSM why not give the Eldar Titans wing missiles the
same thing. This would be in all fairness to game balance would it not? I'am
not a big Eldar player and probaly never will be, but I play against them
all the time. And if are going to change the weapon for one race I feel as
though we should change it for all races. For I'am sure all Eldar players
could put in all the same beefs that the Imp players have about the multi
missiles about the wing missiles.
Dose anybody eles feel this way?
Please voice yourselfs on this!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Ramos" <pramos2_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 8:34 PM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: R: Decision, decisions,what to do with the
revision?
> Hi!
>
> Note the barrage in this case is for buildings only and not a true barrage
> weapons. The template is to indicate the blast are of the large shell. Its
> STILL a direct fire weapon.
>
> The barrage can be placed so as to try to get enough buildings in it and
rip
> them to shreds. Thats how it was originally I think.
>
> If you want it to work as true barrage, I'd still give the holofield a
> direct fire save.
>
> Peter
>
> > OOOps I named it wrong sorry it is the Quack LOL cannon but this weapon
as
> a
> > barrage will be very leathal against a Eldar Titan and in respect for
the
> > game will unbalance it when playing against Eldar unless we let the
> sheilds
> > defend against it.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get $50 free postage.
> Print postage from your PC with E-Stamp.
> Click here to sign up.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/2429/2/_/7255/_/953170800/
>
> -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=netepic&m=1
>
>
>
__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Received on Thu Mar 16 2000 - 01:55:46 UTC