Jump to content
Moonhare

Arronax clarification

Recommended Posts

In my opinion this is one of the reasons a mk-1 and a mk-2 might be a good solution.

 

Why? because we could phrase it like this: "Mk-2 model has diving and is considered a naval model. losing the land model designation".

 

Or, something along that line?

 

 

Also, my previous post was not intended to scold anyone for their opinion! I know I also have expressed some opinions about not feeling DW was getting proper attention, or specific balance concerns, etc. (I still have said opinions.) However, I just wanted to emphasize how thankful I am that James is making an effort to hit on some of the points we all have been asking for. I appreciate seeing the attention, and want to encourage more of the same!

 

Maybe we can work our way through some of the other issues on the CoA and DW overall list sooner going forward. Here's hoping! (Like the aforementioned large naval problem, Coeus re-vamp issues, etc.)   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in terms of the CoA's large naval models, making the 'nax available as a naval core model (and adding Diving) would totally resolve the lower end naval large issue. Kill two birds with one stone there. Many of the CoA large/massive models could do with a bit of a rework, though (Main Turret Aristotle, Dio, all the aerial Large/Massives).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.