RE: [Net Epic ML] RE: [Net Epic ML] RE: [Net Epic ML] RE: [Net Epi c ML] RE: [Net Epic ML] SoB more tha n meets the eye?

From: Peter Ramos <pramos2_at_...>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 14:36:52 -0500

Hi!


I think so too. With the new vehicle saves, and with a 4+ regen
roll, they will balance out.

Also, if you give Necrons a 6+ save and a 4+ regen, that should
balance out as well. I still havn't gotten any feedback on
the 3rd detachment in the Necron cards? If we want to go
with the fluff, there should be more Necrons?!? At least
price them so that they are worth taking...

I definitely agree they should be 3 detachments. They were like that
originally and cut down due to cost. They should be brought up to 3
detachments again.

Regarding cost:

As they stand with their new saves and self repair they should cost about
250 for a raider detachment, why? a assault marine detachment is 250 and
that's about 200 for 6 marines and 50 for 3 rhinos. I figure that 5 stands
are worth roughly 165 and the remainder accounts for the self repair. This
means a company is 750 points.

In the case of the of assault Necron 300 points per detachment, since they
now compare with a veteran space marine detachment. The company would be 900
points.

Vehicles

All will have the 4+ repair ability

Protector 200 points per detachment. it compare with the squat Ironshield in
protection and firepower. Save of 5+ fixed.

Cubekeeper, better than a protector, has extra weapon (which by the way was
omitted in the rules). 250 per detachment, 5+ fixed save.

Cubemaster, much better than protector, 300 per detachment, 5+ fixed save.

Nemesis tank, really good tank, a lot of shots and big modifier. Much better
than land raider. 400 points per detachment. Save 4+

Tormentor and punisher are roughly the same, a notch below the nemesis at
350 per detachment. Save 4+ fixed.

All comparisons are with similar units. Necron vehicles are very expensive
due to their much higher firepower as compared to Land raiders and the fact
that they repair.

All else remains the same.

Good enough?

There is no reason not to keep both the Scarab types, simply
rename one of them. They are both good ideas, one works as
a ranged nullify attack (with some reduced armor save as well?
Didn't quite understand what was the intent in the 2.0 rules),
while the other beefs up CAF and save.
I'm all for having lots of choices, as long as their uses don't
overlap. :)

That's a good idea. Lets do that.

Peter
Received on Wed May 31 2000 - 19:36:52 UTC