Hi Peter!
I agree that the best course of action would be to leave the Slaan unit
stats alone, for the time being.
Yesterday, I started reading the rules for the Slaan. Comparing the
action in Nils/Runes battle, with the Slaan units involved.
The Fluff created for the Slaan is excellent. Hellreich, and Rune (Did
I forget someone?) should be quite proud of the work they have done.
All of the units seem to be fairly well ballanced. The army is quite
well rounded, and has a unit for just about everything. It's weakness
being the high cost and fewer numbers of troops. The break points are
about equal to the Eldar.
In reading about the Slaan, I came across the Necron. The Necron units,
like Wraithguard, have no morale problems. So, they can fight to the
last stand. They also self repair. The combination of Morale and self
repair can combine to equal higher numbers of troops.
This is what concerns me most about these units. Yes, the units ARE
smaller. But does that REALLY matter?
In reading the battle report, I was alarmed to see that the Roughrider
Company was decimated, without giving back some of the same to the
Necrons. That really got me thinking.
Of course, the next thing I did was to create the vaccum battle
examples, with units I know well. Although they don't tell the whole
story that only repeated playtesting can, they do eliminate the
variables of terrain, luck, playing style, etc...
Such testing can give an indication of problems. In my mock battle, I
used company sized units. But detachments could just as easily have
been used.
Your point about each army, having it's own bargain units is well taken.
What can seem to be an overwealming unit, may be necessary to ballance
the army as a whole.
An example of which is the Wave Serpent. My Ork playing pal used to
give me a bad time for taking them. He would cry, "They're sooo
unfair!" After much complaining, I finally suggested that we switch
armies. He agreed, and we had one of best games I've ever played.
Now mind you, he still complains a little about the Wave Serpents, but
not as much as he used to. That battle convinced him to build an Eldar
army of his own.
It helps, to play the other guys army. Things that seemed unfair, seem
not so unfair, after the table has been reversed. I hope that
Hellreich, and Runes groups will try passing the command of the Slaan
around between members, to better playtest it.
In the final analysis, only repeated playtesting will suffice. But
vaccuum testing can give a valuable, heads up, to possible ballance
issues. Issues I will key into, when reading battle reports, or playing
my own battles.
Warprat ;)
peter ramos wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I would think Teras the original creator of the Slann would be very happy to
> see all the interest his creation has engendered!
>
> First point.
>
> The slann can and will draw a lot of attention since they are "new". there
> is always a perception of something not being "right" with such armies,
> especially one so out of the ordinary. Compounding the issue is that there
> is not equivalent to them to compare and thus balance.
>
> Keep in mind that ALL armies have units that are way too good for points.
> Thats the nature of the game.
>
> Second point.
>
> Testing in a vaccum has its drawbacks. First when you line up the units your
> testing and just have a mock close combat or shooting fest the results look
> very reliable on the surface. Unfortunately this is deceptive. When you do
> this you take out of the equation all the other variables that effect the
> combat you are testing. I agree that a necron raider company by the numbers
> seems to perform extremely well, but hte question is how often will you get
> that whole comapny intact to where its going? By the actual playtest not
> very likely. This of course alters performance. By most accounts of games
> played the assault necrons while potent receive many casualties and break
> easily. Remember you get only 16 stands for 750 points, you get nearly 30
> units in a tactical marine company for the same cost and they can shoot,
> while the necron raider cannot. This should not be underestimated. If you
> let these necron get into combat they can and will nuke you back to the
> stone age. Is this wrong? Probably not. If they made it intact you didn't
> defend properly and will pay the price.
>
> Third point
>
> Although we could not play the scheduled game this weekend (it will be next
> weekend) i was shocked on how small a force you get for the points in a
> necron army, smaller even than the Eldar. While some of the troops are real
> good in combat it is so easy to swarm and break, and mind you I dont mean
> swarm the whole group but you can easily swarm enough of them to break them
> and not in turn break the unit you use to do it. This is a dstinct
> disadvantage for them.
>
> Fourth point
>
> In the end we have to play actual games nothing else will suffice. This
> weekend I will play a couple against the slann, using mostly necron to see
> what they can do. Also it seems the track record under the new revised rules
> has been less than sterling. In ed's/darius's group the slann have 3 losses
> one draw and I think no wins. The last post from Nils and company the slann
> lost. Isn't it funny we are trying to change them downwards when they
> actually haven't won a solid victory yet? Keep that in mind too.
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Peter
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Tue Oct 10 2000 - 14:49:45 UTC