RE: [NetEpic ML] Slann, the required balanceIts better to go a little at a time, as for killing Slann it is fairly easy to do just takes different tactics.
----- Original Message -----
From: eivind borgeteien
To: 'netepic_at_egroups.com'
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 4:23 AM
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Slann, the required balance
No other commandunits have a higher breakpoint than the rest of the army so I dont see why Slann should. The weakness of Slann is in their few numbers. By increasing breakpoint you omit this weakness and we are pretty much back where we started.
The structure of the game is, and has always been that VP is awarded when the unit is broken. We should not change that.
Ramos,
If I understood right, you said that the prices where 75-100% off, but you only changed them 25-40%
Why didnt you change them all the way?
I dont think these prices alone is enough to ballance the game, it must be easier to inflict casualities on the slann.
Eivind
-----Original Message-----
From: Karlsen Rune [mailto:rune.karlsen_at_...]
Sent: 27. april 2000 08:39
To: 'netepic_at_egroups.com'
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Slann, the required balance
Does this mean that the warp displacement shields for the
titans are also reduced to 4+ or 5+?
I can live with these changes, as long as the titan save remains
at 3+ fixed.
One thing though. Since the Slann are hardy warriors, and they
are way expensive, shouldn't the Mechs and Vanguards (at least
the Vanguards, they are after all CU's) have a higher breakpoint?
If you increase the cost, and decrease the save on the mechs, it
will be much easier to get 12-14 VP's with the new prices.
Only 5 Vanguards are needed to get 10 VP's (i assume with the
new prices). As far as i know, all command units break individually,
and i think the Vanguard should be the same, even if they are
a company card. Award 1 VP for each Vanguard killed?
Just a thought...
Rune
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Ramos [mailto:pramos2_at_...]
Sent: 2000-04-26 18:21
To:netepic_at_egroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Slann, the required balance
Hi!
I have seen al the comments with great interest. I have also
used the epic
points formula on some slann units and found them to be
under priced. The
bottom line is that they are too cheap and perhaps my
original points costs
was on the ball.
Most prices for support cards were off by 50-75 points
meaning the company
cards are off from 100-225 points. So in fact some units do
need a
substancial points increase.
It is much greater prefered to change points costs, but
these are the
changes I think should be done:
1. The nullify field HAS to shrink in size to just 6cm. I
think this is a
major complain from opponents and the 15cm distance is TOO
much.
2. Warp field displacement shield. I have to agree that a 3+
fixed save
followed by a 1+ save is again TOO MUCH. A standard 5+ or 4+
for special
units is more than good enough.
3. Titan costs will not changed from what has been
discussed, ony the rest
of the army will.
4. Lets divide the slann army as follows:
True slann, they are few and expensive, so regardless of
army core you
can get as much true slann as you can afford, they are the
masters
after all.
Necron, you may take 25% of exodites and dracon
Exodites and dracon, you may take 25% of necron
5. The self repair ability does not extend to CC.
Is this acceptable?
I will soon list alternate cost for slann units.
Peter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com:
http://click.egroups.com/1/3555/3/_/7255/_/956766781/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bids starting at $7 for thousands of products - uBid.com
http://click.egroups.com/1/3027/3/_/7255/_/956817620/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thu Apr 27 2000 - 18:47:00 UTC