----- Original Message -----
From: "ramospeter" <primarch_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Tyranids vs Squats
> Angel wrote:
>
> >>But wipping out two units of the same point cost from
> >>different armies *should* be equally easy or difficult.
> >
> >
> >Agreed. If one army is harder to wipe out than another of the same
> >point cost, then the cost needs to be adjusted. That's the whole
> >reason for having points in the first place.
> >
> >>Actually, it's not Squats who are the most difficult to wipe out at
> >
> >all.
> >
> >>Their units are quite few in numbers. But think about wiping out
> >
> >*gasp* a
> >
> >>complete ork clan... THAT is difficult.
> >
> >
> >Especially if the clan has been boosted with extra Boyz or Nobz. In
> >a game last week I had a Goff clan with four extra Boyz, that made 27
> >stands (fits neatly into 9 battlewagons for a total of 1050 pts). I
> >think the BP is 14 for that lot? Can't check, I'm at work. If the
> >Goffs do break and run, how can the Nids destroy 13 fleeing stands
> >before they leave the battle?
> >
> Hi!
>
> Interesting topic guys!
>
> I'll weigh in my view on this. I have played Tyranids versus Squats
> quite extensively. In fact its a quite fun combination since they are
> at the opposite ends of the spectrum. One is a close combat army with
> little long range heavy hitting firepower and the other is the total
> contrary.
>
> I understand Alber'ts concern, I had it too, but in actual play it
> doesn't pan out. For those who play and have played against squats,
> the infantry companies are notoriously hard to break, much more so
> than the break point entails. In 15 years of playing epic I have seen
> a whole squat brotherhood complete wiped out only once. Why? when you
> play against tyranids you tactics change. Usually, when up against
> another non-tyranid opponent, borken units are fodder to be thrown
> into battle or lost for an advantage. The opponent has the VP's for
> them, so you lose nothing. Against Tyranids, its a whole new
> perspective. You need to worry about those broken units because
> otherwise it costs you the game. Of course its relatively easy to pull
> them out and hide them behind (or in) squat super heavies and deny
> those bonus VP's. The effort in denying those units is definitely
> greater than the tyranid players effort in trying to eliminate them.
>
I have not played Nids against Squats but I agree with your POV in
everything, just that this is not true only for Squats but for all armies!
And I may add, that this tactic of hidding-the-last-stand (for me) is near
the boundaries of cheese.
I've seen similar tactics with SM veteran companies airborn (that is, with
thunderhawks), keeping one detachment outreach in order to avoid giving any
victory point; when the opponent fields two airborn SM veteran co and keeps
one detachment of each outreach it is almost 20 VP you won't ever get. It's
true, the opponent reduces his force, but reduces your chances to win.
Actually, it's a very good tactic to slow the game against squats and orks.
> It is ture that once broken the effort to "wipe out" may not be
> greater or even easier since squat units are smaller, but the effort
> to get the "first break" is HUGE. Remember that tyranids aren't the
> greatest shooters, so most casualties are close combat, but closing
> that range against one of the shootiest armies in the game is real
> hard against a good opponent. So I view the second bonus as fair since
> the initial effort is so great.
>
Indeed I disagree: In my opinion the VP for breaking a unit and the VP for
wiping out had nothing to do one with the other. That is, if breaking an
squat unit is too difficult that is paid out with the extra VP. If still
this is not enough then we should think on changing the extra VP for
breaking it but not compensating with another thing.
I have played a lot of games against squat armies (far more than with them)
and it's true, you have to put a lot of effort to win. Their army is
difficult to tackle but with patience. You have to be prepared to be losing
in points for two or three turns, but that doesn't mean you won't win in the
end. The winner is the first to reach the total VP required. And *normally*
in the third or fourth turn you will collect the VP you've been working for
during the first two turns. But that is not a problem of Nids, it's a
problem of all armies. Same happens with orks: they are tough to break, but
in the end you collect the prize, it's a matter of patience. Still Squats
have few choice of fast units and they are expensive, and that means he
won't take all objectives that easily. Wiping out a company is really
difficult with all armies, but the VP bonus for the Nids is also worthy,
even without a bonus.
> In fact I could make several good arguments that the squat break point
> and VP yield is "unfair" for the tyranids since its so difficult for
> them to wipe out squat units fully.
>
And orks? I would find it impossible. I've seen clans with BP of 24+ and
that means killing 48+ stands just to have really not a lot of VP.
> Its one of those things that on paper seems unfair, but in practice it
> works out fine. In fact my experience in win/loss ration in games
> between squats and tyranids, the squats usually win.
>
I haven't got the chance to play Squats vs Nids, but my experience tells me
that Squats have a high victory ratio over all armies, specially when you're
opponent is not used to fight them.
> I suggest trying out games between them and reporting the findings to
> compare data to see if my experiences are just a fluke or have any
> validity.
>
Playtesting almost always gives the real value of all rules. Agree.
Albert
Received on Thu Nov 27 2003 - 15:14:32 UTC