Re: [Epic] Net Epic (Titan point costs)

From: Tony Christney <acc_at_...>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:56:58 -0800

>acc_at_... (Tony Christney) writes:
>> I don't know about this idea. Then again, I'm not sure that I like the idea
>> of battlegroups in general. I think that something that was included in a set
>> of rules that is, IMHO, likely a marketing ploy, should be in question.
>
> I've always considered single Titans to be overpriced. I
>supppose that "buy two get one free" is a bit too cheap, and should be
>applicable to all titans, not just Reavers, Phantoms, Warlords, and
>Great Gargants, but I just refuse to pay 600 for a Phantom or 750 for
>a Warlock, as I'll never get my money's worth. All it does is tell my
>opponent "barrages go here for lots of easy VP, the other shots go
>elsewhere for more easy VP".

Herein lies one of my main problems - I have never played Eldar - for or
against. This is why I left the costing of Eldar Titan weapons to someone
else. I really have little idea about how survivable Phantoms are. So
basically you are saying that if there were no battlegroups you wouldn't
field Titans at all? I just don't see any justification for the 3 for the
cost of 2 scheme (other than GW moneygrabbing, ie. you still pay $$ for that
third Titan). I would rather have all Titans lowered in cost on an army list
basis.

> Speaking of which, how about making Warlords 800, 1600 for a
>BG as a compromise? At least they won't be half-point hosed.

With or without variable weapons cost?

>
>
> There's a second reason I like battlegroups... I feel that
>all-titan forces should be easy to make under the rules.

Me too. I just think that single Titans are overpriced. Why would Titans
always work in groups of three? The only justification for BG's that I have
seen is that it makes them cheaper. Pretty shaky rationale, IMHO.

>Mark

Tony Christney
acc_at_...
Received on Thu Feb 27 1997 - 23:56:58 UTC