Re: [Epic] SM2 -> E40k Orky injustice

From: Mark A Shieh <SHODAN+_at_...>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:06:00 -0500 (EST)

"Matthew J. Silvernail" <msilver_at_...> writes:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Scott Shupe wrote:
> Now, if you were just to give stompas an armor of 6+,
> and not touch their points cost, what would you get? A
> land raider with 2 better assault, less speed, no transport
> ability, and no stubborness. From everything I've heard
> and seen, 2 FP = 1 AT shot, so that's equivalent. If*
> we are to assume that Land Raiders are priced properly,
> then Stompas would be properly balanced by keeping the
> points the same and giving them armor 6+. If, as several
> people have said, Land Raiders are undercosted (which I
> think I agree with), then Stompas with 6+ armor should
> cost a few points less than whatever you set LR cost at
> in your house rules.

        IMHO, a better solution would be to give the LR 2FP instead of
2 AT shots, just like the Falcon has. They were about equivalent in
SM/TL, though 3FP wouldn't be unreasonable, since it was better at
shooting things on open ground than the Falcon, and shot as well as
two of my Dreadnaughts. It fixes the LR problem, and the other armies
can stop complaining about the dreaded Land Raider without proposing
an escalation of power. (Hey, I do it too!). I mean, if the more
accurate, same strength Lascannon on the Falcon doesn't qualify for
AT, why should the Land Raider? IIRC, it's no meaner to be shot by
than a squad of Dark Reapers w/ Exarch (2 pairs of Lascannon and a
bolter?). I can see the problems with popup AT though, so I'm not
really advocating the other fix, making the Falcon have an AT shot...
brr.

Mark
Received on Tue Nov 04 1997 - 22:06:00 UTC