well without the fixed save I'd say the raiders 750pts, the Assault i'd say
950pts Warp jump is a big factor in points.
----- Original Message -----
From: Karlsen Rune <rune.karlsen_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 11:26 AM
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] SoB more than meets the eye?
> I see your point with the Scarab card, but i still think the
> Necron should have a base save.
>
> Whether the Scarab card takes up a SC or not is really a moot
> point. Have you ever filled up your SC slots when playing the
> Slann? I'd rather it took up a slot, and cost less, like 100-125.
> Besides, the Scarab protector card doesn't provide a 4+fixed,
> it's modifiable to 5+fixed.
>
> How much would the Necron CC's cost without the fixed save?
> And why are the Assault Necrons more expensive than the
> Raiders? Sure, they have +2CAF and can warp jump, but
> they have no Ranged weapons what so ever. I think they're
> pretty equal. Are you suggesting that both Necron CC's
> should cost 800 without the fixed save? Why are they suddenly
> equally priced if the save is removed?
>
> So, what are the options?
> Lose the Scarab card, or change the Necrons so that there
> is actually a point for the card?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hellreich [mailto:hellreich_at_...]
> Sent: 2000-05-30 16:59
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] SoB more than meets the eye?
>
>
> LOL, just triing to bring things into prospective, is all. But, like I
said
> before this would now make a need for the Scarab Protector card. By taking
> this card for your troops you will gain a 6+ save and the 5+ fixed repair
> roll, seems quite fair to me. I would then dropp the Necron foot troops CC
> and SC's down to 800pts for the CC, and both Necron SC's by 100pts, they
> should still be somewhat higher the Exodus just for the reason you have
the
> choose to take the Scarab Protector card, or we could make them even and
let
> the Protector card take up the points. But, I'd not rise the number of
> models the Necron get. Lets not for get the Scarab Protector dose not take
> up a SC spot, so you'd be able to by one for each troop detachment to make
> them better. Can you now see my point? If not we should just drop the
> Protector card for no troop should be able to have a 4+ fixed save. IMO
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Karlsen Rune <rune.karlsen_at_...>
> To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 10:23 AM
> Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] SoB more than meets the eye?
>
>
> > 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
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
> > Remember the good 'ol days
> > http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/5/_/7255/_/959696654/
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Savings + service + convenience = beMANY!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/4116/5/_/7255/_/959698810/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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/_/959700523/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
Received on Tue May 30 2000 - 15:52:34 UTC