Yepp, and then you will find that the collossus is the most excpensive
praetorian in the game. Capitol Imperialis is the only one more expecive.
Eivind
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karlsen Rune" <rune.karlsen_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 12:56 PM
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
> The point here, as i see it, is that we have to compare
> them to other titans/praetorians which are special cards.
>
> Rune
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nils.saugen_at_... [mailto:nils.saugen@...]
> > Sent: 31. mai 2001 11:06
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
> >
> >
> >
> > If you compare them to for instance Necron Stalkers, they are a true
> > bargain....!
> >
> > However, you might not want to doo this with all the
> > Praetorians. If one
> > should decide to change this I thing one should give each
> > type a thorough
> > evaluation. Not just up the prices by 1/3. I do feel that for
> > instance the
> > Leviathan is quite fairly priced, we must also remeber that
> > these units are
> > special cards!!! So if we should decide to up the prices, I
> > dont think we
> > should increase them by more than a 100 - 150 points.
> >
> > Nils.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Karlsen Rune [mailto:rune.karlsen_at_...]
> > Sent: 31. mai 2001 10:10
> > To: 'netepic_at_yahoogroups.com'
> > Subject: 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 11:06:11 +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 12:56:48 +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/
>
>
Received on Thu May 31 2001 - 17:02:36 UTC