----- Original Message -----
From: "Angel" <angel_stranded_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: R: [NetEpic ML] Squat codex
> Most of it looks fine to me, although I still have to wonder why
> Squats never use dreadnoughts. Considering their background, some
> sort of powered exo-skeleton wouldn't be uncommon.
>
Exo-armours are only available to Warlords and Hearthguards. I'm working in
some Exo-Armour special card for a new Squat codex army. Including
dreagnoughts would be a nice idea but maybe not everyone agrees.
> I'd like to see Expeditioners have the option of taking vehicles
> without using up another support card, if they go exploring so often
> they're unlikely to do it on foot.
They have infiltration, and for me that's enough, plus there's no standard
squat unit transported other than tunnelers.
>
> Squats need FO's, both for artillery spotting and for tunnelers. Let
> them finally escape from the mole/termite carriers which are a dead
> giveaway to your opponent and totally negate any element of surprise.
>
I agree in part with you, but AFAIK the politic in NetEpic has always been
to add and never substract, since there's nothing more frustating for a
player than having miniatures painted you cannot use because the "new
ruling" don't allow them. In my opinion this politic should be exclusive
from GW and NetEpic should never take. If a unit is not useful or it's too
powerful its stats should be modified, but never eliminated.
Maybe the solution would be a new ruling for tunneler transports or allow to
substitute them for a tuneeler FO which cannot act as artillery FO.
> I always thought of Squats as falling into three broad categories:
>
> - those who work closely with the Imperium, and mostly resemble
> the `short IG' so detested by GW for some reason
>
> - those who live independently of other races, are more inclined to
> use tunnelers rather than Imperial vehicles and equipment, and rarely
> have allies;
>
> - those who no longer swear allegiance to anyone, not even a
> Brotherhood or Guild, and wander wherever they please (this would
> also include the "Squats on Harleys" that seem to be a perennial
> favourite among the Rogue Trader following).
>
> The first two would be fairly simple, just some selective tweaking of
> army lists to either include or exclude Imperial hardware. The third
> list would be built around a Guild Biker company card but I would
> suggest that all support cards must be either vehicle or cavalry, and
> the only artillery allowed must be towable (Thudd Gun) or stowable
> (Mole Mortar) on the back of a Rhino or Trike. Playtesting would be
> needed to see if they can be a practical army on their own.
>
Have you actually read the codex squat armies? They are at the end of the
document and are exactly the ones you are talking about. Still there's one
lacking that still is not finished which is Squat Space wanderers. I hope
I'll have time soon to finish it.
> The whole list needs a proofread, it has small grammatical errors
> dotted about. I'm a copy co-ordinator with the Press Association, so
> I'll volunteer to do that when we have decided what actually needs to
> be in the finished version.
I'd thank you very much if you correct the grammatical errors, since english
is not my first language (nor the second) and sometimes is difficult for me
to spot all of them.
Albert
Received on Sat Nov 29 2003 - 18:09:55 UTC