Comparisons like this can be a little misleading though. Not all armies
p=
ay the same for equivalent units. Case in point is the cost of heavy
weapo=
ns and assault upgrades. Orks pay 2 extra points (relatively
speaking) for=
heavy weapons and an extra point for assault upgrades
compared to most arm=
ies (like chaos pays extra for stubborn, eldar pay
extra for heavy weapons,=
ect). So when you make those comparisons, you
have to take into account t=
hat orks pay extra for firepower (life sucks,
but we the best hero upgrades=
of any army :).
Also, the relative power of certain upgrades changes. Pa=
ying 1 extra
point for the artillery ability is reasonable for a unit with =
2 FP,
but would (IMO) be much too cheap for a unit with a mega-cannon.
I t=
hink you have a very good point. If there is some sort of master
plan to ho=
w units abilities and costs are made, I would like to see it,
if for no oth=
er reason than it would be easier to make up rules for new
units. A exampl=
e being the trouble the list had with the squat units. Part of the problem =
is most of the costs seem non-liner. Going from a
4 armour to a 5 armour i=
s more than from 3 to 4. Also, factors such as availability and what army t=
hey belong to come into play. For instance Eldar support platforms are exac=
ly the same as the imperial ones, but cost 2 points more and someone mentio=
ned the Ork Hero upgrades :). For instance the Eldar get some excelent comm=
anders in the Shadow Seer and Great Harliquin, but the have a limited avala=
bility.(And limited transport)
-James
- application/ms-tnef attachment: stored
Received on Sun Jun 22 1997 - 02:49:44 UTC