I've been always against free cards (well, the avatar is a battle lost in
advance, so I make them the exception) for standard armies. If you want to
bring these kind of not dso standard units you have to pay the right porice
for them.
Albert Farr� Benet
----- Original Message -----
From: "darius spano" <dmanspano_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 3:37 AM
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] [5.0] On Shortbeards
> I have changed my mind again. Make the Shortbeards 100
> pts or make them a Free Card. I don't believe the
> Squats have a free card except for the free gyrocopter
> that comes with the Colussus. This would work becuase
> the stunties can't lose too many young'uns in battle.
> Make them free with infiltrate worth 1 VP but since it
> is free you get 2 VPs when they are broken.
> Darius
> --- Albert_Farr�_Benet <cibernyam_at_...> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > But at 150 points a detachment they cost exactly the
> > same as berserkers! only that they got less
> > movement, less CAF, no reroll and less morale! Why
> > would anybody purchase shortbeards if you got an
> > equivalent troop with far better stats for the same
> > price? I think that they should cost 100 points, but
> > I wonder what result would give the formula. Please,
> > take into acount that they have Squat in their name
> > but none of the usual squat features (Reroll, morale
> > or break point), plus they have really low stats,
> > almost the same as IG tacticals or Chaos cultists
> > (only 1 point better in morale).
> >
> > When you got tons of expendable troops, like IG/PDF
> > you can waste them to enemy fire as desired, but
> > when you got ONE expendable unit, you should play it
> > really wisely, so in the end it isn't as expendable
> > as it seemed at first glance. I think that their
> > strong point is that, seeming expendable, the enemy
> > will try to go for stronger units and always leave
> > them as the shot to spare when he doesn't have other
> > available targets. Thus, they can do their job quite
> > silently. Probably they won't bring you many VP but
> > that is right, because they are a cheap unit.
> >
> > Albert Farr� Benet
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Eivind Borgeteien
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:46 PM
> > Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] [5.0] Squats part 2
> > Infantry
> >
> >
> > On the pointcost, I must disagree. It might sound
> > a little expencive, but then again Squat infantry
> > should be expencive, and it should cost you that
> > extra VP if they break.
> >
> > If you bring along your shortbeards you get some
> > cheap infantry, but you also weaken yourself in
> > terms of breakpoint. 9 stands is 5 VPs, wict in
> > turn are the same as one objective point. So, if you
> > field the shortbeards you should play them wisely so
> > that they dont break, and give you that extra OP.
> > That way, you would have to play them according to
> > the fluff. They are not cannonfodder, but valuable
> > units not to be wasted!
> >
> > Eivind
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Albert Farr� Benet
> > [mailto:cibernyam_at_...]
> > Sent: 20. juni 2003 11:30
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] [5.0] Squats part 2
> > Infantry
> >
> >
> > I checked it out. The cost for a detachment of
> > warriors is 300 ponts for 10 stands (including 1
> > hearthguard), berserkers cost 150 for 6 stands
> > (including 1 hearthguard). Shortbeards cannot have
> > the same point cost as berserkers or equivalent as
> > warriors. And I don't think the point is increasing
> > the cost of warriors and berserkers.
> >
> > Albert Farr� Benet
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Albert Farr� Benet
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:58 AM
> > Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] [5.0] Squats part 2
> > Infantry
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > well, I see there are two or three major
> > points on this.
> >
> > - Weapons: If you think that Lasguns are
> > better, I've got no problem with that. I changed it
> > to make them a bit different from squat warriors.
> >
> > - Infiltration: Most other scouts have it and
> > though I don't have the messages here, I think the
> > last stats discussed in the list (long ago) included
> > the ability. It's true they don't have the guts to
> > fight as adult Squats, but still they've got the
> > pride of youthness (that sounds a bit...) so I think
> > they would rush forward and take and hold the
> > closest free terrain/cover for the others troops to
> > take firing positions. Don't expect them to go much
> > further than that. It's nolt their work. With enemy
> > in sight their task is over. But if you don't like
> > Squats to have any unit with infiltration it's ok.
> > Still I think this does not make a big change.
> >
> > - Point cost: Here I completely disagree. 450
> > points is far too much. If you take out CC reroll,
> > their break point is as for normal armies and they
> > have low stats, how can it be so expensive? they
> > cost the same as a SM scout company!! and SM scouts
> > have REALLY better stats (plus infiltration
> > ability). I don't have the cost for other Squat
> > units, but take into account that Squat infantry
> > cost is quite high due to CC reroll. I lowered the
> > cost intentionally. I think that 450 may sound OK
> > with the CC reroll (it's like +1.5 CAF), but without
> > reroll 450 points it's not correct at all, a fairer
> > price is 350. It was my fault to not copy tha
> > sentence where reroll was eliminated for
> > shortbeards.
> >
> > Take into account also, that shortbeards units
> > are quite limited, so probably you are not going to
> > see Squats rushing with a lot of infantry. Probably
> > a company is the maximum you will see, and not
> > always. This is just a bit of cannon-fodder that has
> > to be used wisely because this is your only
> > expendable unit. I think they can be very useful if
> > well played (of course in combination with other
> > units, never alone) but they aren't a game breaker.
> > Absolutely. No, they don't make a difference on the
> > Squat standard tactics.
> >
> > On the Slayer cult, it works a bit like the
> > eldar Avatar: they are quite out of control, so all
> > your tactic is based on where you deploy them. It's
> > true that they have high CAF but they are pretty
> > slow and also useless defenders, since they won't
> > defend any objective. Another very good unit that
> > it's too limited IMHO. But I think they add lot of
> > flavour with their limitation so it's quite OK with
> > me.
> >
> > Albert Farr� Benet
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: NetEpic Webmaster
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:23 AM
> > Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] [5.0] Squats part
> > 2 Infantry
> >
> >
> > Again infiltration is a skil - so I wouldn't
> > let them have that either, I mean these are young
> > (barely 81!!) squats who have let to learn the finer
> > art of war. At the same time, surely a young squat
> > is better than a regular guardsman? I mean he has
> > been fighting a LOT longer.
> >
> > Then again at this scale, I guess it doesn't
> > matter.
> >
> > Tom Webb
> > Webmaster of the EPICentre
> > http://www.netepic.org - Home of Netepic, EPIC:
> > Armageddon, VOID and Heresy
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: nils.saugen_at_...
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:47 AM
> > Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] [5.0] Squats
> > part 2 Infantry
> >
> >
> > Lurke mode off.......
> >
> > HI,
> >
> > We've allowed Shortbeards to avoid a
> > furious discussion with our inhouse dwarf, who would
> > surly hit us over the head with his great axe untill
> > we agreed anyway.... :)
> >
> > Seriously, again I've not involved myself
> > to much with the latest revision, although I've kept
> > my self sort of updated. I would urge causion on
> > issues such as these squat infantry changes. IMOH
> > squats are one of the most powerfull armies in the
> > game, if played properly. However, one of their
> > weaknesses is the number of troops, troop movement
> > and close combat quality. With cheap units like the
> > shortbeards and good close combat units like slayer
> > cults we take away one of the squat weaknesses. I
> > think that might be a bad idea. And while we have
> > accepted the use of Shortbeards, we've never
> > accepted the use of Slayer Cults, but if my memory
> > serves me right they have been tested.
> >
> > As for the issue at hand, I do not see why
> > the shortbeards should have the infiltration special
> > ability!
> >
> > Regards
> > Nils
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>
> 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 Sat Jun 21 2003 - 17:31:12 UTC