Re: [NetEpic ML] [5.0] On Shortbeards

From: darius spano <dmanspano_at_...>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 11:51:50 -0700 (PDT)

Albert,
I am just bouncing some ideas with the Shortbeards. I
think they should be nothing special. Have no special
attributes and be limited. I see them as a Free card
type of unit. Whatever way we get them to work is fine
with me.

The Slayers I am modelling after the Warhammer fantasy
Troll Slayers. It is their mission to die in battle. I
play Warmaster and we are penalized if they survive
because they are our fanatics who never break and keep
going till the end. I would think these be a special
unit/card.

I think the the Squats should have an infiltration
unit. The explorers is quite boring. Maybe Blond
Beards. But I see the explorer type unit more common
than the Slayer type.

I hope this clears it up. I did download the new units
last week and have read through them. Maybe not
carefully. I will look them over again. I like the
idea of the 3 troop types above.

Thanks,
Darius
--- Albert Farr� Benet <cibernyam_at_...> wrote:
> 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
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Received on Sat Jun 21 2003 - 18:51:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:59:55 UTC