But why would we do this? I thought the Slann were supposed to
be an army of quality, not quantity?
Arguing the strategy point wich Lorenzo started, would
also suggest a smaller number of units vs. a larger
number.
Besides, you've said earlier that the Necrons cost alot of
rescources to build. Wouldn't it cost less resources to
equip them with a battlesuit which has a fixed save, than
actually making them regenerate?!?
If a unit has fantastic stats, you pay the corresponding price,
both in cost and in strategic difficulties. I'd very much
like to play an army like this, and the Slann looked like
the solution. Now, it's being watered down slowly....
Rune
-----Original Message-----
From: hellreich [mailto:hellreich_at_...]
Sent: 2000-05-30 16:14
To: netepic_at_egroups.com
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] SoB more than meets the eye?
remove the saving throw JUST for the Foot troops, seems to me they would be
of lighter armor, and a 5+ repair roll would be fair enough. The Dreads,
tanks, and such would be the ones that get the saving throw and repair roll.
This would show that they would have more armor, then foot troops. This
would also put some constance into the Slann saving throw of troop types.
Plus we could lower the cost, just a tad, making them more useable for play.
And would also give some, not much, more numbers on the battle field.
----- Original Message -----
From: <nils.saugen_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 2:40 AM
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] SoB more than meets the eye?
> Are you suggesting that we remove the savingtrow from the Necrons
> completely? I think they at least should have a save of 6 +, and the
repair
> roll!
>
> Nils
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: hellreich [SMTP:hellreich_at_...]
> > Sent: 29. mai 2000 17:36
> > To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] SoB more than meets the eye?
> >
> > great great, so we have come to a agreement, on the army. Now just needs
> > fine tuning, I'd still like to see the Gravguards cost 1100pts for
company
> > cards. Spawnguards I'd like to leave as 3 detachments at 1100pts weaker
> > troops, plus would when feilded, make the Slanns more in number then the
> > Necron foot troops. As I see it each army should have 1 CC at some what
> > low
> > cost, This is the one for True Slann. How dose All feel about taking the
> > fixed save from the Necron foot troops, just let them have a repair roll
> > of
> > 5+, only let the tanks have the 2 roll one for save and one for repair,
> > this
> > would show that the tanks have more armor then foot troops. In my eys we
> > could then lower the cost of Necron foot troop cards Company by I'd say
50
> > pts and support by 25pts. How dose this look? !!
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Karlsen Rune <rune.karlsen_at_...>
> > To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 3:15 AM
> > Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] SoB more than meets the eye?
> >
> >
> > > You forgot to mention that i tried out the 1000 point Gravguard
> > > company as well. I'll have to say, and i think Nils agrees with
> > > me, that it didn't make much difference in this battle.
> > > I think the Gravguard and the Spawnguards both could be
> > > 2 detachments without any modifications beyond reducing
> > > the cost by one third.
> > >
> > > I was very impressed by the SOB, and also by how much more
> > > balanced the Slann seemed now. I fielded the best i had, but
> > > it was still balanced. I lucked out on initiative, winning all 3
> > > times,
> > > and contribute my victory to that fact alone...The ignore cover
> > > to hit weaponry of the SOB really makes the difference against
> > > an army like the Slann which have lots of units with fixed saves.
> > >
> > > My battleplan was to hang back with the gravguards, mechs and
> > > tanks, while the Necrons and the Vanguards took out strategic
> > > enemy positions and held VP's to the front. This worked out OK,
> > > but showed the Slann's biggest weakness, namely numbers.
> > > I simply didn't have enough units to try and take and hold all
> > > the VP's. On my right flank, i had the Nemesis' and the Gravguard.
> > > The Gravguard held a VP, and the enemy held a VP with his
> > > Archangels in a woods nearby. I had to keep a detach of
> > > Necrons nearby in case the Archangels charged (with a
> > > devastating 50cm move!). I couldn't move away, because
> > > i didn't have the move to reach the Archangels in one turn,
> > > and i couldn't hit them since they were in the woods.
> > > If Nils feels he did badly with the Archangels, this is only
> > > because he didn't attack when he had the chance! As a
> > > deterrent, they did an excellent job, and Nils wants to take
> > > 2 detachments of these next time. I don't blame him. 50cms
> > > move on charge and flightpacks makes these a Slann
> > > Mech killer! :-)
> > >
> > > Rune
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: NN [mailto:nils.saugen_at_...]
> > > Sent: 2000-05-29 08:55
> > > To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> > > Subject: [NetEpic ML] SoB more than meets the eye?
> > >
> > > This Saturday Rune and I played a 5000 points game between
> > > the SoB
> > > and the Slann, The SoB fielded a Sister Company, an
> > > Immolator
> > > Company, a Rhino Company, a Retributor company and a
> > > Punisher
> > > company. They where supported by 2 Predator and 1 Vindicator
> > >
> > > detachment, 2 detachments of Cardinals, one detachment of
> > > Archangels,
> > > a Justifier special card, a Cleric, a fwd. Observer, and a
> > > pair of
> > > Warhounds. The Slann had a Gravguard company and a Necron
> > > raider
> > > company, supported by 2 Bullfrog detachments, a Nemesis
> > > detachment
> > > and finally two Vanguard special cards.
> > >
> > > The battlefield was dominated by a ruined town and a couple
> > > of woods.
> > > Lots of cover! The Sisters won the roll for setup, and chose
> > > the side
> > > with the most cover. The plan was to catch as many VPs as
> > > possible in
> > > the first turn and to defend them and keeping a mobile
> > > reserve to
> > > stop any Slann breakthroughs. The Cardinals and the
> > > Retributors would
> > > hang back giving fire support. The Titans had one role, suck
> > > up fire
> > > in the first turn! If they survived, that would be
> > > excellent, but I
> > > didn't plan for that to happen!
> > >
> > > The game lasted for three turns, and was a very close race.
> > > After the
> > > first turn, the score was 25 - 21 in favour of the SoB, the
> > > second 41
> > > - 37 to the Slann, and the game ended in the third turn 55 -
> > > 37 to
> > > the Slann. We had equal luck with the dies, except that the
> > > Slann won
> > > the initiative in every turn. If the SoB had got the
> > > initiative in
> > > the third turn, things might have looked different. Most
> > > went
> > > according to my plan, but I chickened out with the
> > > Archangels and the
> > > Justifiers, so they didn't see any action at all. I lost
> > > because
> > > the
> > > Slann where able to break all most all of my detachments,
> > > while
> > > keeping the Bullfrogs and Gravguards more or less out of
> > > harms way.
> > >
> > > The SoB worked just fine on their own. I take my hat off to
> > > Jyrki for
> > > putting together a well balanced army. It appears light on
> > > paper, but
> > > looks can be deceiving. I'm working on a couple of units
> > > that
> > > I'll
> > > add to this army in due time, and I'm definitely keeping the
> > > sisters
> > > as a standalone army!
> > >
> > > What about the Slann then? They have made progression. They
> > > now seem
> > > more balanced, but are still a very hard to beat. Each unit,
> > > although
> > > small, packs a lot of punch and resilience, making them very
> > > hard to
> > > kill. Slow moving opponents might find it difficult to beat
> > > them,
> > > because they stop you dead in your tracks by the end of the
> > > first
> > > turn. I think you need to try to catch as many VP's as
> > > possible
> > > in
> > > the first turn! Concentrate the fire and break one unit
> > > after
> > > another! They are very few and not that mobile, so they will
> > > have
> > > trouble covering the entire battlefield. Use that to your
> > > advantage,
> > > and you may be able to beat them.
> > >
> > > Nils
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Missing old school friends? Find them here:
> > > http://click.egroups.com/1/4055/5/_/7255/_/959583411/
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe send e-mail to:
> > > netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Old school buds here:
> > > http://click.egroups.com/1/4057/5/_/7255/_/959584557/
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _____________________________________________
> > NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
> > Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
> > http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/5/_/7255/_/959668910/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to table saws.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4634/5/_/7255/_/959695995/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Tue May 30 2000 - 14:23:28 UTC