Re: [Epic] Net Epic

From: Spatula <shupes_at_...>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:58:43 -0500

> From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
>
> If it isn't broken - don't fix it!
>
> Titans are just fine the way that they are.
>
> They are exceptionally fragile (to CC) if they are left unsupported, so
> support the damn things! Don't change the rules to account for poor
> generalship. Think of titans as land going battleships and (IMO) you will
> be close to the truth.
>
> As to some weapons being "useless" and others "exceptional", I don't know
> that I would agree. I would tend to suggest (in fact I will suggest!) that
> every weapon has its place.

        Every weapon may have its place, but some are still next to
useless. This is especially true of some of the Eldar weapons - like
the missile wing or the d-cannon. You really can't compare these to
the lascannon wing or the pulsar.

> The "points cost per weapon" is too much like 40K and we are doing this
> whole net epic thing because of EPIC 40K!!!

        The titan's variable weapon load is already like 40k. Adding
point costs isn't going to change that. And as it only applies to titans,
I don't see what the big deal is.

> If we want 40K integrated with
> EPIC it is highly likely that all we have to do is sit back and wait...
>
> At the moment titans are a bit underpowered for their point expenditure

        A reaver is underpowered for 333 points? A Warlord for 500?
I don't think so.

> (especially compared to the Squat SHV's) but people still love 'em, so
> what's the problem?
>
> The only obvious problems with titans that I can see are the fact that the
> Warlord (and Banelord) cost 900pts instead of 750pts, the Impirator starts
> the game with a random amount of plasma instead of a fixed 7 or 12, and
> there is no Slasher Gargant Mob costing 1200pts.

        You got that right.

Scott
shupes_at_...
Received on Thu Feb 20 1997 - 18:58:43 UTC