Hi Butch!
Your right, flyers by themselves are not SUPER powerfull. The problem
comes in
when you have Thunderhawks loaded up. If you don't have the fighter
support,
your not going to land them. This has led to a sort of Arms Race, in
which
both sides commit serious amounts of points to air. Too many, in my
opinion.
You say that your group kinda limits yourselves. How do you do this?
We have
tried making air units special cards, but don't like the result of this.
As far as Space Wolves go, I would like the Terminator Great Company to
be
limited to 4 in any battle (There's only so many Terminator Suits), and
the
cost raised 50pts. I would like to see the Long Fangs reduced 25pts.
I rarely ever see Long Fangs, because of the cost. This is a pitty,
because
they are a revered part of the Space Wolves.
I agree that a good General, can make any army work. But at what cost?
Does this mean ONLY taking the cost effective units? I think most
Generals
choose units based on ability and price. So, the Dreadnoughts, Long
Fangs,
Terminators, Land Speeders, etc... get left at home to twiddle thier
thumbs.
This is a real shame, because the these units have so much history,
fluff and
flavor, to them. A unit should have a price, based on it's real value,
so
people will actually use it.
The armies are very well ballenced against each other, for the most
part.
But this does not mean that they could not use a little tweaking, here
and
there.
What does everyone else think?
Warprat ;)
"butch hobson" <fo-_at_...> wrote:
original article:
http://www.egroups.com/group/netepic/?start=3162
> -----Original Message-----
> From: warprat_at_... <warprat@...>
> To: netepic_at_... <netepic@...>
> Date: Thursday, March 30, 2000 5:18 PM
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Flyers revisited yet again!
>
>
> >Hi Peter!
> >
> >I like the idea of listing several alternatives, so further
playtesting
> >can
> >be done. Flyers are SO powerfull, they deserve a lot of thought.
> >
> >
> Personally, I'd like to see flyers left as is. In the games my
buddies and
> I play, I've come to realize that flyers just don't make that much a
> difference. Of course, we don't take "All Flyers" for support
choices; we
> kinda limit ourselves. But even so, flyers, by themselves, cannot
win the
> battle. They're pretty expensive units (especially if they're taken
down in
> a dogfight), and they can't hold objectives.
>
> Limiting them to Special Cards or in number really won't serve any
purpose,
> except severely dropping the amount of flyers you'll see on the board.
> Everybody has differing playing styles and I can't see penalizing
somebody
> who likes using flyers.
>
> It's like Eldar Holofields. People have "bitched" enough so now, we
have a
> rules change (I play Eldar, and really see nothing wrong with
Holofields the
> way they currently work). If we change too much, and start limiting
some
> units or make them more powerful, we're going to lose the game we
enjoy by
> unbalancing it.
>
> I've seen some rants about Space Wolves being too cheap for what you
get.
> That's just silly. They're more expensive than normal Marines. And
like
> normal Marines, are very limited in the Vehicle/Firepower area. The
Blood
> Claws special "howl" isn't a serious threat and the Long Fangs weapon
range
> is only 50cm and they still cost more than normal Devastators. Leave
them
> alone; it all balances out.
>
> I'm just starting my first Chaos force. In terms of consistent
firepower,
> Chaos sucks! Any unit that shoots decently or has more than 1 attack
dice
> is pretty expensive. CAF's for many units particularly KHORNITE
units are
> relatively low. But what the hell? It's the way the rules and army
lists
> were set up. I'll use them that way. You can't have your cake and
eat it,
> too.
>
> It comes down to how effectively a general uses what he has. Perhaps
it's
> time for everybody on this list to field a completely different
army/armies.
> Maybe the one(s) that give you the most problems. After awhile I'm
almost
> certain you'll find that it really is a matter of play style and not
army
> lists.
>
> b
> we now return you to your regularly scheduled program
>
>
Received on Fri Mar 31 2000 - 02:02:47 UTC