Hi!
Albert, thank you for starting the Squat review, your help is much
appreciated.
The only thing I would add a general comment is that the optional unit
such as the Ironshield should now be core. They have over 4 years
testing and seem to be balanced.
Comments?
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Albert Farr� Benet [mailto:cibernyam_at_...]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 1:55 PM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] [5.0] Squats part 0 or what is this about
Hi all,
in the following mails I will include my proposals for new units, rules
and
codex armies, plus some others collected from the list in this lasts
years
plus some rules/units modification proposals.
This is not by any means the word of God, so feel free to comment, give
opinion and modificate as you see fit. Some ideas, you will notice, are
not
really new, and not all are mine. Unfortunately I had them recorded
without
the author, so I couldn't credit the owner of the idea. If you are the
author of something from the follownig mails, please say it in order to
give
proper credit.
Just some comments on the proposals and modifications:
I have not added the full text revised. Suppose that anything not
commented
is just unchanged. I expect the old army book will be placed somewhere
either in the files section or the website (if it is not already in
both)
I've seen, so far till now, that codex armies have been built based on
the
addition of new units and rules. In these proposals you will find that
this
is not the case. I've preferred to base Squat codex armies on a certain
(and
specific) way of fighting and thus, limited the choice of units, as well
as
adding some rules. IMHO the Squat army lacked some variety in "core,
all-ground" units, other than having a lot of very specialized units.
This
has been in some way mended with the addition of Squat general use tanks
(Ironshield, Ironwhatever,...) but nothing for infantry, just standard,
CC
and heavy.
So, the idea has been adding standard units and then limit the choice
for
codex armies. Which is the purpose of playing codex armies then? they
have
some special rules that enhance them in some way. Still is an idea that
needs some playtesting but I think than can work quite good or even
better
than,
well-this-is-a-codex-army-which-just-has-increased-movement-for-motorbik
es.
In this case codex doesn't mean better but different.
To increase the flavour of the Squat style of war, I've limited the
choice
of allies to 25% to standard armies. My gaming experience also has shown
that is quite usual that Squat armies never fight "alone", that means,
I've
played too many times against (and of course with) an alliance of Squat,
SM
and IG. Thus, the best of three armies in just one. I don't think that
the
point playing Squats is to use them as a support army for imperials with
their best units. IMHO, Squats should play alone except under special
circumstances, thus this decrease of allies allowance.
25% allies allowance is more than enough to add some flavour with one
company and some support but 50% is usually abused.
And just one final note: english is not my mother language, so please
feel
also free to change anything which is not correctly written, either
word-spelling or not-so-clear sentences.
Thanks!
Albert Farr� Benet
P.S. I was working on two Squat codex armies more, but I have a lot of
work
and may take some weeks til I finish them properly. I'll post them when
ready.
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Received on Mon Jun 16 2003 - 22:09:04 UTC