Talk:Boomeroid

From UFOpaedia
Revision as of 07:52, 15 August 2018 by NKF (talk | contribs) (→‎"Step up")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I, personally, do not think that the boomeroid is a poor weapon; it softens up aliens around the corner, can sometimes find that last "hiding" alien and thrown between the closing doors of a UFO... well, that's just mean. Out-of-LOS fatal wounds are also possible. Of course, civilians attract boomeroids easily... --Karp 00:42, 18 August 2008 (PDT)


The last few paragraphs that mention that can be removed as they appear to be more opinion than factual (and is rather contrary to the rest of the explanation).
Except for the blast-on-impact bit (which I think I added). I use that a lot, on account of the boomeroids that often litter the battlefield - anything can be solved with enough explosives. The only thing that's really against them is their size and their inability to destroy the reinforcement spawn pads. - NKF 00:58, 18 August 2008 (PDT)
Or with a few inc. grenades. Fire also solves everything, albeit slower.
Will remove the opinion, as it serves no purpose outside the discussion page.
--Karp 02:10, 18 August 2008 (PDT)
Thanks for the advice.
--Karp 05:31, 18 August 2008 (PDT)

"Step up"

I'm looking at the in-game UFOpaedia, and the Boomeroid only has power 70 to the Marsec Proximity Mine's 75. This is, IMO, the biggest argument against actually using the Boomeroid, since it costs over twice as much as said mine. Which UFOpaedia is wrong here? Magic9mushroom (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2018 (CEST)

Because the Apocalypse pages have not had the same level of attention or curation as the first two games, I would says 'step up' is the opinion of the author that wrote that line.
I like the Marsec Mine myself as it powerful, portable and affordable. It's the hopping feature and sheer abundance (late game) of the Boomeroids that sets it apart. NKF (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2018 (CEST)