These things proposed was not meant as changes, just things to consider
while testing further.
We are two groups testing slann, so I think that a total of 10 games is
within reach of a month or two. We should test the beta-rules thoroughly
before we make any changes!
Eivind
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karlsen Rune" <rune.karlsen_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 12:57 PM
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Return of the Slann first test: (long)
> *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
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Received on Wed Feb 21 2001 - 12:44:40 UTC