Well, im going on a vacation for 3 weeks from the end
of march to the middle of April, but we can probably
squeeze in a few games in march before i go.
Rune
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eivind Borgeteien [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_...]
> Sent: 21. februar 2001 13:45
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Return of the Slann first test: (long)
>
>
> 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/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-~>
> eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
> Click here for more details
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/kWP7PD/pYNCAA/4ihDAA/JfNVlB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------_->
>
> 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 - 13:34:21 UTC