Re: [Epic] Net Epic

From: Mark A Shieh <SHODAN+_at_...>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 15:03:12 -0500 (EST)

Excerpts from Epic: 20-Feb-97 Re: [Epic] Net Epic by Spatula_at_...
> > I have to agree... A Warlord Battlegroup should cost the same
> > as 2 Warlords.
>
> Or rather, 2 warlords should cost the same as the warlord
> battlegroup.

    I was being general. I use the two sentences above interchangably.

> 900 points is too much.

    Yeah, a little bit. And 500 seems like too little.

    I of course, have a double standard. 400 seems about right for
Phantoms IMHO, as long as you see things besides a majority Turbo-Laser
Destructor wings and Pulsars.

> > Banelords and other Chaos-enhanced Titans should not
> > be available in Battlegroup strength, IMHO.
>
> You mean 'Chaos-crippled'. I'll take a regular Warlord with
> decent weapons that I can choose myself & the ability to FF over the
> Banelord anyday.

    Okay, so the Banelord is crippled. But the other Chaos Titans are
enhanced. They get

1) a +2 CAF tail for no cost
2) they can choose from the Chaos Titan Weapon list in Titan Legions.
This list includes a shooty tail if you take a Khorne Titan, Doomfist to
replace any Chainfists you might have been considering, a Death Storm to
replace any Gatling Blaster, and the Chaos Energy Whip, the *original*
ripper tentacles.

  I don't feel that Imperial and Chaos Titans should be the same cost.
I've also considered tails on Reavers and Warhounds to be very cheesy,
but this is apparently not popular opinion.

> I see no reason why, if you let Chaos have battlegroups,
> Banelords couldn't be used in them.

    I don't feel Chaos should have battlegroups. SM and IG don't. If
you feel that both SM and IG armies should be allowed Titan
Battlegroups, I'll go the other way on this one, but otherwise, no. I
feel that Chaos should not be able to field titans in Battlegroup
strength when only 1/4 of Imperial forces are able to.

Mark
Received on Thu Feb 20 1997 - 20:03:12 UTC