"oki_at_..." <oki@...> writes:
> At 09:50 PM 2/19/97 -0500, you wrote:
> >Peter Ramos <pramos1_at_...> writes:
> >> I'm not sure what you mean,could you elaborate?
> >
> > Here's an example of what he doesn't want...
> >
> >[Since T-hawks are cheesy:]
> >
> > It is *ILLEGAL* to take more than 1 T-hawk for every 1000
> >points in your army.
>
> Unless it is a pure SM army ? Is this OK ? Someone mentioned this before
> (sorry, could not remember who). SM is basically an extremely rapid
> deployment army. What if I want to load up my THawk with my Assaults,
> Tacticals, Devastators, is this unreasonable ? Or is there something else
> which we can worked out.
I believe that facing an army with many T-hawks makes for a
ridiculous game. In the battle report I saw, Chad?, the Tyranid
player, played as near to a perfect game that I could see, and had
many important die rolls go his way (initiative, for starters). He
almost managed a draw against the all T-hawk army.
> I realised I mentioned before about not fiddling around with the point cost
> system, but in this case (THawk) many seems to think that THawk are
> under-priced, if you used it in the following manner:
The bottom line is that there are serious problems with the
T-hawk as written. All Aaron is stating is that placing a restriction
on the kinds of forces you can field is not the correct way to fix
this problem. Changing the unit's abilities or cost is a preferred
method, as you mention.
Mark
Received on Thu Feb 20 1997 - 03:39:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:09 UTC