Re: [NetEpic ML] Remaining armies

From: Peter Ramos <pramos2_at_...>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:13:12 -0500

Hi!

> I think this is fair enough and these units I would not mind seeing in the
Core
> Squat rules. Short-ranged battle tanks with the fire-support given by the
> Praetorians is a great idea. It also fits with the idea that the Squats'
tanks
> would be needed to be used in their tunnels and so the shorter range there
is
> ideal.

This was my idea, they would make nice core unit and they seem to be in
character at least.

> > Chaos
> >
> > The main points will probably be primarch cost and teh re-evaluation of
some
> > powers. I would agree that primarchs should have a higher cost, but some
of
> > them (slaneesh) should have their powers raised accordingly.
>
>
> Yep. The Slanaeeshi Daemons get screwed royally. But as for the
Primarchs,
> they should definately be upped in cost. You see these guys everywhere.

I'd probably let it control one unit or detachment within its range (no
morale roll required), of course shielded units and titans/praetorians
regardless of shield status would be immune.

> > The usual issues of what they can and can not use as marine or IG
equipment
> > can be addressed
>
>
> I think they should be able to get this kind of gear but in limited
numbers.
> Marine and IG gear should be restricted by having Renegade Marines and
Cultist
> in your army. Otherwise, who is it who brings the gear? Plus restricting
such
> units to being "Special Minion Cards" (ie- only one "Special" Minion card
per
> Daemon) will go a long way to reducing their abuse.

I like this idea, actually to support those who hate t-haws for chaos this
rule would limit them much.

> > Two additional points will be if slannesh titans will have void shields
or
> > another idea posted where their aura made that the titan could only be
hit on
> > a 5+ regardlesss of the to hit of the weapon
>
>
> I think the 5+ fixed to-hit will make them much more attractive.

I agree. I favor this one too.

> > The second issue being the havoc missile rack and its low power to cost
> > ratio.

> I think a simple reduction in cost would be fine for it.

That may be enough, but the fact that it takes two weapon hard points. I'd
rather have a powerful expensive weapon to make it worht taking.

> > Tyranids
> >
> > The only and most poignant issue is the "regenerate card", which in my
view
> > and most who have voiced it should NOT be used for titan.praetorian
classed
> > units which have many benefits anyway.
>
>
> Perhaps to limit its abuse, we could simply limit the Regen Card to a D3+2
roll
> for the number of wounds you get back? I don't mind people playing this
on the
> Dom, but I admit that with Titans it gets a bit old. By restricting the
number
> of wounds you get back, you can still thump that Dom or Giant Roach with
20+
> wounds and then you KNOW it ain't gonna get up no more.

I make it simpler and give multi-wound creatures a d6 wounds gained with
this card, then anyone can use it.

> Back to the Mega-WasteOfPoints, your suggestion of 75cm Gun Decks and an
> increase in points to 1500 would be just about right as an improvement,
Peter.
> I think it would then make a fine addition to the ranks of Ork Idols.

Most definately. It just doesn't pay to take this without that range on the
gun decks. With this range it is worthy of its points value and certainly
worthy of consideration for Ork player. A clear superior to the Great
gargant.

Peter
Received on Tue Apr 11 2000 - 01:13:12 UTC