Hi!
Yeah, I mentioned that fact, but I agree with your point we should not
equate things, since some armies have some cheaper units. The slann should
have some cheap units too.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Karlsen Rune <rune.karlsen_at_...>
To: 'Netepic_at_egroups.com' <Netepic_at_egroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 2:20 AM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Stagadon vs. Leviathan
>I remember someone (Peter?) mentioning that the Stagadon was
>too cheap (at 300). If you compare it with the Squat Leviathan (at 350),
>you'll see that the Leviathan is better (less move, but longer range,
>larger troop carrying capabilities, always fires on FF and lotsa nice
>bolters for those pesky inf charges :-) ). I don't think we should apply
>the cost formula for Slann, but not for the other armies. Granted, the
>Squats have cheap Preatorians, and all armies have in fact things
>which are cheap compared to the formula. I just want to make sure
>that the Slann revision is fair, and that they don't suddenly become
>a "point cost formula" army, while the others aren't...
>Seems to me that the point costs of the other armies are more or
>less based on playtesting and hunches rather than the formula.
>Granted, the Slann havn't been tested extensively, but i still think
>it's better to test them more before we go overboard with the
>cost....
>
>Rune
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>*--- FREE VOICEMAIL FOR YOUR HOME PHONE! ---*
>With eVoice Now you can keep in touch with clients, vendors, co-workers,
>friends and family ANYTIME, ANYWHERE. Sign Up Today for FREE!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/3426/3/_/7255/_/957338430/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Received on Wed May 03 2000 - 14:49:47 UTC