Re: [NetEpic ML] Tyranids vs Squats

From: ramospeter <primarch_at_...>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:19:44 -0000

Hi!

> 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.

No question. We have thrown out over the years a number of GW rules
that were silly, besides adding a truckload of thing that made
sense. I think we still live by the old net epic adage "nothing is
written in stone", but as you say we are more careful in what we add
nowadays.

> 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.

All too true. Most of the poblems that emerged with the original SM
rules was that they added a lot fo expansions without taking into
account how those rules affected previous ones. We have done a lot
of work on that in net epic over that last 7 years, so the obvious
ones have been taken care of, but there are still one or two that
may need tweaking.

Now that you have me thinking about the tyranid VP scheme, I'll
throw out an idea I had, but never posted for general commentary.
Instead of giving the same VP's again for wiping out a force, why
not just subtract the VP's for objectives the non-tyranid player has
secured from his total? Tyranids dont care about objectives but the
opponent does and not controlling them hurts him.

So, they tyranid would get normal VP's for breaking, but the
opponent would have to subtract 5Vp's for every objective not under
his control, which means he can't just ignore objectives to wipe out
tyranids alone.

If in the end turn the non-tyranid player has 5 objectives, but 3
are not in his control, he must subtract 15 VP's from this total.

Dont know what implications it has for play, but its an idea to test
nonetheless.
>
> Fortunately, in my opinion, in NetEpic always have been priorizing
balance
> before innovation. And I hope this lasts for long.

I hope so too! <grin>
 
> 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.

I dont think its right or wrong, more than it is "works or doesn't".
 
> > 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.

Agree totally, hopefully the newer units will add more depth and
versatility to squats. We must remember that we're the only ones who
provide epic support for them in any meaningful way, so its good we
add new units to them as time permits.

> 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.

I hope, that at the very least, the new epic game and its renewed
availability of epic minis will make it easier for all to flesh out
their armies. At least in the short term.

> > Of course there are ways of beating the squats with tyranids, but
> > thats another thread.
> >
> even without the squat extra VP for wiping out?

Sure, squats have big guns, but they are few, thats one thing to
exploit and tyranids have several ways to do this.

Peter
Received on Thu Nov 27 2003 - 17:19:44 UTC