Hi
I have not played this combo as Im the one in our group with both Squats and Bugs. However, I have played bugs vs IG, witch is fairly comparatible. It is very hard to break IG, and equally hard to wipe out. They also have monstrous firepower to take you out before you manage to close in on them, much like the Squats.
Remember that bugs dont get VPs for OPs either, and it is quite hard to kill EVERY stand in a unit.
To summarise; I dont think we need to make any adjustments to this rule.
Eivind
>
> Fra: Albert Farr� Benet <cibernyam_at_...>
> Dato: 2003/11/27 Thu AM 01:36:31 CET
> Til: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> Emne: [NetEpic ML] Tyranids vs Squats
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I posted this problem long ago, but seems noone noticed and didn't answer
> (and if someone did, I'm sorry but I couldn't find the mails):
>
> Tyranids score victory points two times, one when they break a unit, another
> when they wipe it out. So if you are a Tyranid (general, hive mind or
> whatever) and wipe out a unit you get twice VP. Until now, everything OK.
>
> But what happens when Tyranid fight Squats? Squat have a higher break point
> which is compensated boosting the VP obtained for breaking squat units.
> Still, wiping out the unit is as much or as less difficult as with any other
> army, but they give a lot more victory points, since they give VP again as
> if you were breaking it a second time.
>
> In my opinion this is not fair at all and should be fixed in some way. I
> haven't had the chance to play a game between Nids and Squats, but I
> wouldn't like to be on the squat side.
>
> As a proposal, just state that the total points for breaking a unit plus
> wiping it out cannot exceed twice the point cost divided by 100 (e.g. a card
> that costs 850 points would give a max of 750/100 *2=15 VP, or 16 if you
> round first, and not 20 if it was squat).
>
> Please, give opinions!
>
> Albert
>
>
> 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 Thu Nov 27 2003 - 11:19:13 UTC