*cough* I havnt even played 10 games with the
Slann so far :) maybe 9 ;)
I think we have to "wiggle our way in" so to
speak. We test, do some changes, test again
and modify those changes if there's any
need. Remember, tactics differ greatly from
army to army, and what you and i agree on,
a Squat player might not. That's why we'll
never agree on anything unless we all
compromise, and the result is that the
Slann players will end up with a beta
version for the next year or so. Do you
really want this discussion for another year?!?
I know i dont...
Rune
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nils.saugen_at_... [mailto:nils.saugen@...]
> Sent: 20. februar 2001 16:45
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Return of the Slann first test: (long)
>
>
> This is just the initial test. I think we should play 10 or
> so games before
> decideing what to do!!!!
>
> Some further comments below.....
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter ramos [mailto:ramospeter_at_...]
> Sent: 20. februar 2001 15:55
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Return of the Slann first test: (long)
>
>
> Hi!
>
> I was eagerly waiting your posts!
>
> Lets see what you found:
>
> The battle is as good a test as any, so I would not view it
> as not being a
> good test. One must see how they function in as many
> scenarios as possible.
>
> Tunneler attacks against the slann are very efftive when used
> properly. I
> beleive had you timed their attack after he had moved his
> knights, you would
>
> have wiped them out. It takes some planning on the slann
> players part to
> avert this, he must have nearby infantry support to off set
> any close combat
>
> rush.
>
> >As a test battle this scenario was probably not the best.
> I've never used
> >this combination agans the Slann before, in retrospec it
> would perhaps have
> >been better to take the Tech Guard, which I've used on a
> couple of earlyer
> >occations. However, it did give us some ideas. Firstly Slann
> is vunerable
> >to
> >enemies taking the battle to their side of the board. They
> also have a
> >range
> >problem, which means the cant stay on FF in the first turn
> this is good
> >IMO.
>
> I beleive it would be dangerous to combine long range and warp jump
> capability, since they could calmly stay "out of reach" while
> laying down
> constant fire, this would be too much.
>
> >Some Things to consider:
> >* The Great Mage should be classified as a greater Deamon, when
> >testing against Astropath and other powers.
>
> Hmmm, I can see Hellreichs objection on this, but this unit
> is "unique" one
> per army, so perhaps this is appropriate.
>
>
> Thats what I thought aswell....
>
>
> >* The Necrons, should NOT have 75% breakpoint.
>
> Agreed. This one is not a surprise.
>
> >* The Gravguards is supposed to be support units, they
> have 4 attacks
> >on 50 cm, we could consider giving them 2 attacks on 75cm instead?
>
> It depends what kind of support they lend, are they more a
> tank busting unit
>
> or infantry support? If we give them longer range they will be useful
> against tanks, not so usefull against infantry. We could do
> the following:
> give the gravguard the stats suggested, but give the spawn guard the
> gravguards old weapons, one tank buster unit one
> anti-infantry. opinions?
>
> Hmm, maybe they are alright as they are..... they certainly can be
> devestating at close range.....
>
>
> >* 600 points for the Necron Stalkers is to expencive. It should be
> >between 450 and 550.
>
> Did you remember the auto-repair? thats a pretty large boon
> and why it is so
>
> highly priced. If you are telling me in spite of this they
> were weak, then
> we need o explore it more.
>
> It's more like a hunch.... They always seem to go down rather
> easily.... A
> lot of victorypoints for few hits, I took them out with one
> deathstrike
> missile and a volcano cannon shot....
> >
> >Rune might want to add some to this list of things.
> >
> >Nils
> >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-~>
> eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
> Click here for more details
> http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/7255/_/982684302/
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------_->
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
Received on Wed Feb 21 2001 - 11:57:37 UTC