I'm not on the warpath :)
I just think that comparable units should have comparable
prices, within certain variations (based on army composition).
Rune
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eivind.borgeteien_at_... [mailto:eivind.borgeteien@...]
> Sent: 31. mai 2001 11:10
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Sv: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
> Sensitivity: Confidential
>
>
> Hehe...
>
> I see that Rune really is on the warpath here, but since I
> have played a lot of battles using squats and only one of
> them had the potential of being a victory (all though never
> finished)any point increase on the praetorians is a big no-no
> in my book.
>
> Eivind
> >
> > Fra: Karlsen Rune <rune.karlsen_at_...>
> > Dato: 2001/05/31 Thu AM 10:10:27 CEST
> > Til: "'netepic_at_yahoogroups.com'" <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> > Emne: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
> >
> > I too have been amazed at how little the Squats have to pay
> for their
> > Praetorians.
> > They can outshoot anything short of an Eldar titan armed
> with pulslasers,
> > but
> > are 5 times more resilient. 650-750 sounds much more
> reasonable to me.
> >
> > Rune
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Ramos [mailto:primarch_at_...]
> > Sent: 31. mai 2001 01:04
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Hmmm.. very interesting points, you should have pointed
> that out during the
> > revision, we could have up the cost. I see the merit in
> what you say, they
> > are pretty more resilient know with templates, especially
> since vortex and
> > other one-shot kills are now expensive, makes preatorians
> pretty nasty.
> >
> > What say others in this regard? I think the points cost
> Ryan states are on
> > the money too, opinions?
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > Ryan Lawson wrote:
> >
> >
> > Damn thats expensive! The original idea was to make
> preatorians worth
> > their points by giving them templates, is templates and
> their original
> > cost too good? I'd like to hear comments on this, since its a very
> > interesting point.
> >
> >
> > Squat praetorians have a LOT of firepower. They have better
> firepower than
> > titans. They also have the FF and move ability which is
> also extremely
> > valuable.
> >
> > In the old rules, the Colossus and Cyclops were pointed
> properly with regard
> > to most everything.....but vortex missiles, warp missiles,
> gutbusters and a
> > handful of other shield ignoring weapons skewed their value
> way too much.
> >
> > Adding hit locations to them made them withstand those one-shot kill
> > weapons, but it also made them much more resilient against
> regular weapons
> > and units. We found that they were too powerful with hit
> locations without
> > an additional increase in points. The points I pay right
> now are little high
> > probably, I figured it was better to overpay for them than
> underpay. Now
> > that we have fielded them a few times as they are, I think
> 700 is more in
> > line for a Colossus and 650 for a Cyclops. They take hits
> better than
> > titans, have excelle!
> >
> > !
> >
> > nt firepower....but they have no weapon options and
> > their maneuverability is nonexistent.
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> > <mailto:netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com>
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > Yahoo! Website Services- Click Here!
> > Yahoo! Website Services- Click Here!
> >
> >
> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=201903.1443829.3021311.12689
> 64/D=egroupmai
> > l/S=1700059081:N/A=662184/rand=438768239>
> >
> > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> >
> >
> > ***********************************************
> > This message confirms that this E-Mail
> > has been scanned for the presence of
> > Computer Virus, and deemed Virus-Free
> > by F-Secure Antivirus
> >
> > Wed, 30 May 2001 19:03:51 -0400
> > ***********************************************
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ***********************************************
> > This message confirms that this E-Mail
> > has been scanned for the presence of
> > Computer Virus, and deemed Virus-Free
> > by F-Secure Antivirus
> >
> > Thu, 31 May 2001 10:10:27 +0200
> > ***********************************************
> >
> > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************
> This message confirms that this E-Mail
> has been scanned for the presence of
> Computer Virus, and deemed Virus-Free
> by F-Secure Antivirus
>
> Thu, 31 May 2001 11:09:42 +0200
> ***********************************************
>
***********************************************
This message confirms that this E-Mail
has been scanned for the presence of
Computer Virus, and deemed Virus-Free
by F-Secure Antivirus
Thu, 31 May 2001 13:04:34 +0200
***********************************************
Received on Thu May 31 2001 - 11:04:34 UTC