>
> So turning this discussion around, changing the way Tyranids acrue
> Vp's would change the way they feel.
>
> I once tinkered with eliminating the tyranid rule and let them
> accrue VP's like anyone else, while it works from a mechanical point
> of view, they didn't behave very "tyranid-like". I think sometimes
> we need to put up with rules that may not seem all that logical just
> because it makes that army different from the others.
>
I completely agree. Although there's a "but": There's a lot of differences
between NetEpic and GW official rules for epic scale. That might be obvious
to say. BUT when a new "special" rule is appointed for only one army much
care must be taken, since it might lead to other "special" rules for other
armies.
Indeed, that's the cyclical "problem" that share all GW rulesets. They make
a good core rulebook, and then start to build up army codexes full of
special rules that become more and more unbalancing until they reach a point
where the game has so many loopholes, breaking units and tactics, and cheese
in it that it becomes fairly unplayable. Then a new version is required to
redesign everything. These doesn't mean it is not an unwanted tactic, since
they allow them to sell and resell a lot of miniatures, which is their
business.
Fortunately, in my opinion, in NetEpic always have been priorizing balance
before innovation. And I hope this lasts for long.
That doesn't mean at all that Tyranid special VP rule is not good. I find it
really tasty for their stuff and gamestyle. I just point out that this
special rule is working fine but for one army, where collides with its
special VP rule. I reasonably think that this collision favours tyranids and
some kind of mending might be necessary. Or not, I just may be wrong.
> Albert, I think Squats have a higher win ratio most of the time
> because it takes getting use how to play against them due to the
> high break point, but I think it has more to do with the opponents
> than the rules. While I differ on some points, I think everyone
> interested in this topic should make a point of playing a lot of
> Squat versus tyranids game to confirm or deny the debated premise.
>
I do agree but unfortunately I have no chance for the moment to playtest it.
I hope there would be someone interested in playing some Nid against
stunties and explain the feelings and the outcome. What I totally agree with
you is about the reason of Squat high victory rate. Is the easiest army to
play with and win save the SM. But that doesn't mean they cannot be beaten,
they have a lot of unusual weaknesses which actually makes them not the best
army for an experienced player. And this can be recognized by those who have
played a lot against squats. In SM 2nd ed squats (which don't differ very
much from Netepic squats) did have a lot of trouble agaqinst experienced
players while in NE4 it is a bit corrected and in NE5 I think that they have
enough different unit choice to allow for a lot of interesting things they
were unable to do before.
In any case, I know that in some countries it was really difficult to get
Tyranid miniatures save through the net. If that's the case of someone who
would like to play and doesn't have the army, I recommend playing Chaos
(Khorne or Slanesh, better) against Squats, with Chaos using VP rules for
Tyranids. The result should be quite close to using tyranids.
> Of course there are ways of beating the squats with tyranids, but
> thats another thread.
>
even without the squat extra VP for wiping out?
> Peter
>
>
>
> 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 - 16:22:30 UTC