Well perhaps razorbacks? I would change the Immolator to the double flame
attack though! I think that will make it a much more interesting weapon.
They seem to lack a really good Close assault unit, perhaps we could up the
caf of the archangels. They are somewhat limted in numbers already, perhaps
to +4 or +5? Other than that I think it would be nice to playtest them a
couple of tims to see how they work, and then make any neccesary
adjustments!
Nils
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Ramos [SMTP:pramos2_at_...]
> Sent: 24. mai 2000 16:30
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Suggestions please.
>
> Hi!
>
> Sounds perfectly reasonable. So now we need to add anything to round off
> their list. The predator is a must, what else is needed?
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nils.saugen_at_... <nils.saugen@...>
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com <netepic_at_egroups.com>
> Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 9:28 AM
> Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Suggestions please.
>
>
> >I wote to keep it a stand alone army! For me it just doesn't feel right
> to
> >make them part of the spacemarine army.
> >
> >They are the armed part of the imperial church, fighting aganist
> disbelivers
> >and heretics wherever they can be found. Most often the Sisters will be
> the
> >first line of defence on any planet attaced by the enemies of mankind.
> >Fighting alongside local militia forces, defending the local shrines! All
> >this makes me feel that the sisters as an army is more closely linked to
> IG
> >than SM!
> >
> >Nils
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Peter Ramos [SMTP:pramos2_at_...]
> >> Sent: 24. mai 2000 16:06
> >> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> >> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Suggestions please.
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> I'd add the predators for sure, they seem to have that right "feel" for
> >> them. As for what extra things, I think we should decide first wether
> it
> >> will be a stand alone army or a part of marines. This will determine
> what
> >> we
> >> can create.
> >>
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: jyrki.saari_at_... <jyrki.saari@...>
> >> To: netepic_at_egroups.com <netepic_at_egroups.com>
> >> Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 8:39 AM
> >> Subject: [NetEpic ML] Suggestions please.
> >>
> >>
> >> >I think that for the moment I have rached the limits of my imagination
> >> >considering the Sisters of Battle so I ask for some suggestions. My
> >> purpose
> >> >was to create a fast-strike cityfighting army to defend the Imperial
> >> Shrines
> >> >with the emphasis in close range firepower and occassional long range
> >> >support. The question is: what should be added next.
> >> >
> >> >My opinion is that the Sisters are somewhere in between of the IG and
> SM:
> >> >lighter than IG but more heavy than a pure planetary assault force
> (SM).
> >> The
> >> >predator would probably be a reasonable addition.
> >> >
> >> >Suggestions?
> >> >
> >> >Jyrki Saari
> >> >
> >>
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >Missing old school friends? Find them here:
> >> >http://click.egroups.com/1/4055/5/_/7255/_/959175589/
> >>
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
> >> Remember the good 'ol days
> >> http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/5/_/7255/_/959177324/
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
> >http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/5/_/7255/_/959178530/
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Did you know you're using eGroups now?
> Start a free email group today at
> http://click.egroups.com/1/3947/5/_/7255/_/959178821/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Received on Wed May 24 2000 - 14:41:05 UTC