Mmmmh, maybe you are right (I didn't take into account the extended weapon range), but still it seems a bit dull to have them for the same price as berserkers. Infiltration only give them advantatge for one turn over berserkers, since the second turn they have covered the same distance. Still I would favour the fact that they should be cheaper, perhaps reducing weapon range and getting them for 125 (company for 425) or as you said in your first mail remove the infiltration ability and get them for 100 points (350 company).
I wanted them to be a ONE AND ONLY ONE cheap unit for the squat army, not a bad berserker variant. It's just a colour resource on your army. If you really want cheap troops, in a 4000 points battle, you can get 1000 points of tactical allied IG (50 stands, probably more than the rest of the squat army), just imagine if you could use that 50% allies! The reduction in allies should be compensated a little, and that means giving a "bit" of a wider rangfe to Squats, not to cover their weaknesses but to give for more tactical variation. I repeated a hundred times that I'm fed up seeing always exactly the same squat armies because they have few useful units too choose and no tactical variation. Either that or a SM-IG-TL-Squat ally with the best of everything.
In the other hand I don't think that my POV of their little power in a 4k-5k point battle has been understood. You can only take ONE company for every 3000 pints of Squat forces. Do you really think that this 15 stands of cheap infantry will unbalance the game? I think they have to be played in combination with others, which BTW it's against the concept of breaking the game since it becomes a more complicated strategy and then far easy to bring down. Their fire power is nothing compared to even a lonely thunderer detachment and their CC is just as bad as to consider them as just cannon fodder. And cannon fodder is cannon fodder when there is a lot of cannon fodder (which sounds a bit odd) but when you got such few not-so-expendable units, their use must be carefully planned for the risk of easily loosing them is great. Still, I think that even at shorter weapon range and without infiltration they can be useful in some specific battles, but not to break them alone.
Albert Farr� Benet
----- Original Message -----
From: Eivind Borgeteien
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 3:25 PM
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] [5.0] On Shortbeards
Well, at the "cost" of CAF, 5cm movement and reroll, you get Infiltration and twice range of weapons. Even with a decrease of morale, our playtesting has convinced me it is worth it.
We might not agree on this one so it should perhaps be decided by a poll?
Eivind
-----Original Message-----
From: Albert Farr� Benet [mailto:cibernyam_at_...]
Sent: 20. juni 2003 13:13
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] [5.0] On Shortbeards
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Eivind Borgeteien [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_...]
Sent: 19. juni 2003 19:44
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] [5.0] Squats part 2 Infantry
Hi
My gaming group as on several ocations tested the shortbeards. We have substituted their bolt pistols with lasguns and also taken away their ability to reroll CC. (You have to grow more beard to do that, laddie! :-) )
Their new prize would be 450 / 5VP pr company and 150 / 2VP pr squadron.
I would suggest that we rather use this stats.
Eivind
SHORTBEARDS
The rising of a Squat army is not something of a few months. The young squats must observe some years of military service before deciding his role in the squat society. Since they are not enough cold-blooded to face most battles, they usually play the role of explorers and scouts. Due to the slow growth rate of the squat society, it's not usual to risk the lives of the younger ones and only in desperate or (supposed) secure situations are they used.
You can only field one Shortbeard Brotherhood (or a max of 3 squadrons) pr 3000 points.
Unit Name
Move
Save
CAF
Weapon
Range
Attack Dice
To hit roll
Target's save modifier
Notes
ShortBeards
10 cm
0
0
Bolt Pistols
25 cm
1
5+
0
Infiltration
Name
Contents
Break Point
Morale
Victory Points
Cost
Shortbeards Brotherhood (company)
1 Warlord
3 Shortbeards squadrons (1 hearthguard, 5 Shortbeards)
9
3
4
350
Shortbeard squadron (support)
1 Hearthguard, 5 Shortbeards
3
3
1
100
NOTE: I reduced the point cost since they had the same point cost as SM scouts having clearly inferior stats.
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Content-Length: 10970
Return-Path: <cibernyam_at_...>
X-Sender: cibernyam_at_...
X-Apparently-To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 29175 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2003 18:37:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Jun 2003 18:37:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.200)
by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Jun 2003 18:37:41 -0000
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Sat, 21 Jun 2003 11:37:41 -0700
Received: from 80.58.36.42 by law8-oe65.law8.hotmail.com with DAV;
Sat, 21 Jun 2003 18:37:41 +0000
X-Originating-Email: [cibernyam_at_...]
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
References: <20030621134025.17872.qmail_at_...>
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] [5.0] On Shortbeards
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:41:46 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID: <Law8-OE65qRYzayZWM6000115ea_at_...>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2003 18:37:41.0500 (UTC) FILETIME=[329353C0:01C33824]
From: "Albert Farr� Benet" <cibernyam_at_...>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=33535653
X-Yahoo-Profile: cibernyam
I'm a bit confused about this mail. It's quite probably is due to my english
so sorry in advance for any mistaken opinion (just correct me).
As I understood
1. Make shortbeards a 8 stand (without infiltration) unit for 150 points. I
suppose you don't include any hearthguard. And I think you mean they should
have usual Squat BP but give only 2 VP.
- In my opinion this is far too much. If they have 75% BP, then VP are
increased 25% (if I remember correctly) so I don't see why this is not going
to apply. On the other hand I also think that they are quite cheap for a 8
stand squat unit. Another thing you have not taken into account is that they
are already limited to one company for each 3000 points of Squat forces.
2. Create a explorer infantry unit of 6 warrior stands with infiltration at
a cost of 150 points. BTW, must be 3 VP
The explorer idea is reasonable but I also think that they need more sauce
(fluff). I mean a good name and something more, for the rest, the BP for a 6
stand Squat unit is 5 but I would make them a 5 stand unit.
- I cannot understand what you mean when you say that slayers must be dead
or Squat loses VP automatically.
Albert Farr� Benet
----- Original Message -----
From: "darius spano" <dmanspano_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 3:40 PM
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] [5.0] On Shortbeards
> Eivind,
> Squats are my favorite army to play and I think we
> need more units too. But since the Shortbeards are the
> young Squats they wouldn't be seen on the battlefield
> that often I would suggest only as a detachment squad
> and not a company squad. Personally I would take away
> the infiltration and bump the squad up to 8 units and
> make the Break Point 6 cost 150 and VPs 2 to fit in
> with the other Squat army cards. The Squats do
> exploring. Why not make the Explorers the Infiltraters
> or Scouts. Same as a Squat Warrior but 6 in a Squad BP
> of 4 cost of 150 or 200 pts and gives up 2-3 VPs.
> Again the Slayers I see as a Free Card and they must
> be all be dead or the Squat loses VPs automatically.
> Above notes 3 new units without adding too much. With
> all the new vehicles introduced as optional in 4.1 I
> think the Squats are well defined. Just getting all
> those damn minis now. I like the Shortbeards but I
> think they must be more scarce.
> Darius
> --- Eivind Borgeteien <eivind.borgeteien_at_...>
> wrote:
> > Well, at the "cost" of CAF, 5cm movement and
> > reroll, you get Infiltration
> > and twice range of weapons. Even with a decrease of
> > morale, our playtesting
> > has convinced me it is worth it.
> >
> > We might not agree on this one so it should perhaps
> > be decided by a poll?
> >
> > Eivind
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Albert Farr� Benet
> > [mailto:cibernyam_at_...]
> > Sent: 20. juni 2003 13:13
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [NetEpic ML] [5.0] On Shortbeards
> >
> >
> > 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
> === 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 - 18:20:50 UTC