[James Nugent]
>
> > You're turning these guys into minor space=
marines, while in SM/TL
> >they had the exact same stats as IG (besides mo=
rale).
>
> Actually his look more like orc boys. The basic stat line is ta=
ken
> straight from the orcs it looks like.
>
> >
> > I like the ide=
a of Hvy Wpns + Rapid Fire to represent the
> >thunderer's effectiveness. =
+12 pts/unit seems like a lot, but 4 FP
> >might be too much, especially si=
nce they'd be re-rolling misses.
> >
>
> FP of 4 on an Infantry unit is too=
much (IMHO). This isn't SM/TL, Thunders
> will have to accept that they a=
re no better than everybody elses Heavy
> Weapon Troops.
>
[James Nugent] =
. But they ARE better. Each one has a heavy weapon, not just some of them.=
And no, I'm not a squat player. The infantry is cool but I think most of
=
their vehicles look funny. The 1st ed. White Dwarf squat list was better,
=
IMHO.
[James Nugent] I aggree with both sides. However better doesn't see=
m to matter anymore. My Dark Reapers are not better than anyone elses and c=
ost more. (In 2ed Dark Reapers and Thunderes were as good as each other, ex=
cept the thunderes were faster for some reason :) Since I can think of no t=
roops that have Heavy weapons and Rapid Fire how about you double then add =
the heavy weapons, for a FP of 3 which seems fair( and plausable) to me. I'=
d keep the cost. Eldar pay +10 for Heavy weapons and don't have rapid fire,=
so +12 isn't pretty good.
-James
- application/ms-tnef attachment: stored
Received on Wed Jun 04 1997 - 11:33:20 UTC