Aah, yes, forgot about that. Although you actually picked
the date w/o asking me first :)
Rune
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nils.saugen_at_... [mailto:nils.saugen@...]
> Sent: 21. februar 2001 15:16
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Return of the Slann first test: (long)
>
>
> We have a huge 10000 points game between chaos and Slann/Sm
> comming up on
> the 3rd of march!
>
> nils
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter ramos [mailto:ramospeter_at_...]
> Sent: 21. februar 2001 15:00
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Return of the Slann first test: (long)
>
>
> Hi!
>
> On our end probably 4 games can be done between this saturday
> and another
> one 2 weeks done the line.
>
> When is you next game?
>
> I dont want this to go too long, but since the other lists
> are being done
> first we do have some time.
>
> Peter
>
>
> >From: "Eivind Borgeteien" <eivind.borgeteien_at_...>
> >Reply-To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> >To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> >Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Return of the Slann first test: (long)
> >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:44:40 +0100
> >
> >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/
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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 - 14:19:26 UTC