Hi,
I agree, +5 for the SM veteran HQ should be more than enough.
As for veteran IG, I think it would be best to limit those to support cards
only. The casuality rate of the IG is so high that it's unlikely to have
whole companies of veterans. A while back I posted some rule suggestions for
different types of IG (Tallarn, Cadian, Mordian, etc.), perhaps we could use
those(or something similar) as veteran IG support units?
Nils
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Albert Farr� Benet [SMTP:cibernyam_at_...]
> Sent: 11. august 2000 12:27
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Veteran HQs
>
> >Does it strike anyone else as kinda wierd that Space marine veteran
> >companies have the same HQ units as everyone else? I'd think that a
> >veteran unit would be pretty likely to have a veteran HQ.
>
> >My suggestion would be to have a Veteran HQ unit with the same stats
> >as a regular HQ, but w/ one of the 2 special abbilities of the SM
> >Commander (ie forced march or tactical genius) to be chosen before
> >the beginning of the game. Thoughts? Would this make the SMs too
> >powerful?
>
> Yip. I would use it the same way as Terminator HQ. +1 to Veteran CAF for a
>
> total of +5. No more.
>
> >And on a side note, why aren't there any special veteran units for
> >the IG? In W40K (small-scale) there's an entire regiment (calan or
> >something... called the "deathworld") that's considered veterans... I
> >wouldn't think that the Imps would have that much difficulty fielding
> >a company or 2 of veterans (and I'd also support the veteran HQ for
> >them too)...
>
> For a company of veterans I would use tactical/assault/heavy stands with
> an
> extra +1 to CAF and morale rating 3+. If you find this too less you can
> think of any way to improve them (What about no chain of command or some
> advantages about it?)
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Fri Aug 11 2000 - 09:05:54 UTC