(Reaver @ Sep. 03 2006,16:37)
QUOTE One question I have, and a trawl through the archives hasn't cleared it up, is why the Reaver and Warlord have different weapons costs? I know it's something to do with translating from Netepic.
On the minus side, I think it makes the list more complicated, slower to use and harder to balance. What is the plus side? ( not saying there isn't one, just right now I can't see it ! )
Regards,
Reaver
If you change the basecost of the Reaver so that it uses the Warlord weapons table, you get a moderate variance in cost final from a result built using the Reaver-specific table.
The result is that Reavers built using the warlord's cost table become circa 5%-10% cheaper when their total price is over 650 points, and slightly more expensive when their total is below 650 points.
The end result being that it becomes slightly more cost effective to buy the more expensive weapons on Reavers, and less cost effective to buy expensive weapons on a Warlord, proportionally speaking that is.
And yes, this rather complicated system is a result of the proportional-cost system I used for transferring the points costs of the hulls across from NetEpic to Epic:A.
If it was important enough, it wouldn't be too complicated to find a happy medium between the two points lists, and then change the hull costs of both titans. This would result in titans that cost similar points values under each system, but use a single selection table.
Oh yes, the plus side is that weapons systems that are proportionately more cost effective on cheaper titans can be costed accordingly (More expensively) to stop overly-cheap synergies from developing.
|
