Hmm...I remember a while back, you talked about how the Necrons
were rather few, and expensive to make. Requiring a lot of
resources. Why would a unit which is so expensive, be required
to do something as potentially dangerous as warping?
I remember Peter was also talking about something a while back,
that if a unit wasn't playable, we'd make it so, or remove it.
If the Necrons are forced to warp, they might not be worth while
to bring along.
I agree with my friend Eivind, im growing rather tired of the
constant rules changing/bickering, and specially with the Slann. Im feeling
more and more like just giving up and "freezing" the rules as they
are, using houserules and changes my group comes up with in stead.
If you havnt played the Slann, or against them, you dont really
know what you're talking about. Stats look great on paper, but
they have to be since they are so few. If you guys who havnt played
or played against Slann want something to do, set up a mock army
for 3000 points. Count the units you get :)
Rune
-----Original Message-----
From: hellreich [mailto:hellreich_at_...]
Sent: 11. oktober 2000 03:33
To: netepic_at_egroups.com
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] RE: [Net Epic ML] Slann victorious again?
if you could only buy them as support cards like Eldar Warp Spiders and if
they could only jump up to the first 40cm like the Exodus Warp Walkers, then
I'd say no it is not unbalancing. But when you give them as a Whole Company
of 3 seperate detachments then yes they do become unbalaning, 3 quick
assults on all fronts center left and right flanks with great fighting
ablity, No other Army has anything like this to compete. Bikes and jet bikes
can be FF on plus they have no save, most unit types that move fast and have
good CC skills have no saves, Necron have all three. Just looking at point
cost how can the Necron be less then the Exodus even the formula will work
for this one LOL :-) Exodus 6 stands, Movement must always jump, armorsave
6+, CAF +4, gun 25cm 1 AD, 4+ TH, move up to 40cm[Total cost 250pts] Necron
5 stands, Movement 15cm or warp jump, armor save 6+, CAF +5, no gun, Nullify
feild -2caf giving them a +7 CAF, -1FF in CC if they charge by foot if they
jump can't shoot them, 5+ regen roll if shot. [Total cost 200pts]. Now by
looking at these stats you can see Necron are way stonger then Exodus, Plus
Necron can control the Best part they can move by foot also, getting all
into colse combat where as the Exodus have to jump and some may deviate.
Exodus can only be bought as support cards Necrons come in a company at a
600pts the lowest cost company in all of Slanndom LOL :-) By this I'd say
atleast reduce the CAF by 2 or 3 giving them a +2 CAF with the nullify
brings them back to a +4 or 5 CAF, plus make them warp jump move all the
time like Exodus.
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 6:34 PM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] RE: [Net Epic ML] Slann victorious again?
> Hi!
>
> Question: do you really consider this ability unbalancing? I'm not so
> inclined but you have used them more than I, also if we don't give it to
> them, they'll probably need some cards with transports, which is not bad,
> but more work.
>
> Let me know.
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hellreich [mailto:hellreich_at_...]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:26 PM
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Slann victorious again?
>
>
> Necron Infantry should not be able to warp jump, they did not have this
> before and some how it has snuck in. They should be slow moving troops,
that
> have to spend points on transports to move fast this is were the messup
is.
> As for your math it is a good point be a febble one at that, try this one
> and tell me who wins 600 pts of Bloodletters to 600 pts of SM forces.
these
> guys are about the same as Necron but they get to regen in CC.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: warprat <warprat_at_...>
> To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 6:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Slann victorious again?
>
>
> > Hi Rune!
> >
> > The result is very bad, for the Imperials. Sorry!
> >
> >
> > Warprat ;)
> >
> >
> > Karlsen Rune wrote:
> > >
> > > Is the cost unbalanced? If you take 600 points of CC SM forces and
> > > pitch them against the Necrons, what is the result?
> > >
> > > Rune
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: warprat [mailto:warprat_at_...]
> > > Sent: 10. oktober 2000 11:55
> > > To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Slann victorious again?
> > >
> > > Hi Nils!
> > >
> > > Are you sure about the regeneration? I was thinking the same thing as
> > > you, BUT I couldn't find it in the rules. Anyway, very few Necrons
were
> > > killed by CC.
> > >
> > > Even if -1 surprise mod is not used, and the Necrons killed in CC do
not
> > > regenerate, the end result is unballanced.
> > >
> > > Warprat ;)
> > >
> > > nils.saugen_at_... wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Two points, first Necrons killed in CC doesn't regenerate, secondly
> > > > Hellreich/Darius mentioned thet the -1 to CAF modifyer for units
> charged
> > > by
> > > > mechs popping out of the warp, was due to the size of the mech! So
we
> have
> > > > do not apply that penalty to units charget by warping Necron Assault
> > > > warriors.
> > > >
> > > > Nils
> > > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> >
> >
>
>
> _____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
> http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Wed Oct 11 2000 - 06:45:26 UTC