hehehe....
Compromising; I've heard about the word.....:-)
Thats right, I'm stubborn as a squat when it comes to rules. Sometimes I
think I'm the only one who actually have read the rules, so I dont
compromise when the answer to our problem is right there on page #,
paragraph #.
Nils and me had ejoyed playing Space Marines for quite some years and said
to ourselves,
"Whats wrong with this game then?"
"I dont know, lets introduce it to Rune"
Thats was an exaggeration, but if I am the rules lawyer of the group, Rune
is the one who always finds loopholes and inconcitensies in the rules.
Hmmm.... He always seems to find them when its a benefit of his. :-)
So that was a glimpse of our everyday gaming life, I really look forward to
our 10K game next saturday. Rune and I will be the unbeatable coalission of
Slann and Dark Angels, beating the he*** out of the heretic forces of Nils
and Trygve!!!!!
Eivind
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karlsen Rune" <rune.karlsen_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 8:26 AM
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Return of the Slann first test: (long)
> Hi,
>
> Nils and Eivind are the most experienced players. They got
> me into the game, and then Trygve as well. They both
> know alot more about the fluff and such than myself.
> We've played D&D and AD&D together for many years, and
> i started watching one of their games. Next time,
> i joined them, playing with Nils against Eivind. I remember
> playing with Eldar, and i think Nils played IG, and Eivind
> SM. Me and Nils lost of course, mostly due to me not knowing
> anything about the forces or the rules :) I didnt think too
> much of the game back then, but i got interested again later, and
> bought some Orks from Eivind. I supplemented those units
> with what i could find, and soon had a very good army.
> We played with different rules back then, we actually
> had a price for each stand and could put together pretty
> much what we wanted (there were some rules about army
> composition, but they werent really that strict).
> Well, the system had worked pretty well before i came into
> the picture i think. I put together an army consisting of
> mostly nobz and heavier stuff, and kicked ass every time
> except one (The Squats got me!). Quite an eyeopener for
> Nils and Eivind. After a while, we all agreed to convert
> to NetEpic, and we've been playing that (with some
> modifications) ever since. When the Slann came out, i
> was extatic about it. Here was just the kind of army
> i'd been wanting (and trying to turn the orkz into :).
> So, i ordered everything i thought i'd need from the UK
> and the States and put together a decent army. That's when
> the trouble started with me winning every game and we
> all quarrelling about the stats and rules. In the end,
> we've all grown a little, and no longer quarrel, but
> try to compromise instead. Me and Nils are pretty good
> at compromising with each other, but Eivind can be pretty
> stubborn sometimes. There's a reason he plays the Squats :)
> Well, that's about it..You asked, so don't complain about
> the length ;)
>
> THE END! :)
>
> Rune
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: peter ramos [mailto:ramospeter_at_...]
> > Sent: 21. februar 2001 20:51
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Return of the Slann first test: (long)
> >
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Out of curiosity Rune, whose the most expeienced player in
> > your group? By
> > what I have seen from the post and such, you seem to be
> > really wily in your
> > approach to the game. Who got who into epic?
> >
> > For that matter what the same answer for Darius and Ed's group?
> >
> > For me its kinda wierd, since I came through 40k (rogue
> > trader),got curious
> > about GW in general and saw the ads for AT in dragon
> > magazine, then picked
> > up the game and then dropped 40k like a bad habit.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> > >From: Karlsen Rune <rune.karlsen_at_...>
> > >Reply-To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > >To: "'netepic_at_yahoogroups.com'" <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> > >Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Return of the Slann first test: (long)
> > >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:32:57 +0100
> > >
> > >Nope, actually, FF is usually a massacre for
> > >both sides in most of our games:)
> > >
> > >Rune
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Hellreich [mailto:helreich_at_...]
> > > > Sent: 21. februar 2001 22:21
> > > > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Return of the Slann first test: (long)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yea I bet you do, knid of defeats the purpose of even have a
> > > > first fire
> > > > rule. A charge can never be disrupted, units can never be
> > pinned down.
> > > > uugghh what a hum drum game, guess you all leave your first
> > > > fire markers at
> > > > home then.
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: <nils.saugen_at_...>
> > > > To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 6:11 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Return of the Slann first test: (long)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Yupp, wonder where I got that Idea from........
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Peter!
> > > > >
> > > > > One point to remember, we don't use snapfire rules.....
> > > > > This means we can move much more freely!!! Rune is really
> > > > eager to start
> > > > > using it, but the rest of us like the game to much
> > without it.....
> > > > >
> > > > > Nils
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: peter ramos [mailto:ramospeter_at_...]
> > > > > Sent: 21. februar 2001 14:56
> > > > > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Return of the Slann first test: (long)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >Yes, i was also worried about these attacks. I cant really
> > > > > >see any defense against them. I could surround my mechs
> > > > > >with infantry, but then there's be less forces other
> > > > > >places, and he'd simply choose not to use them against
> > > > > >the mechs. How do i prepare for such attacks?!?
> > > > >
> > > > > I used this tactic against Ed once and it was highly
> > > > effective. Of course
> > > > as
> > > > >
> > > > > I used it I thought about effective ways of countering:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. At the early stages of the game, place your mechs out of
> > > > line of sight,
> > > > > he scatters on average a lot more than if he can see
> > the point of
> > > > emergence.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Remember you can snap fire at tunnelers when they come
> > > > out, use necrons
> > > > > that dont have a snap fire penalty to do this. Image a
> > > > nemesis necron tank
> > > > > blowing up moles <evil grin>. The hellbore is more
> > > > difficult since it has
> > > > a
> > > > > template, but it is less threatening since all troops will
> > > > come out of one
> > > > > transport in a limited area, you can thus divide your mechs
> > > > far and wide
> > > > and
> > > > >
> > > > > he could only go after one or two detachments at the most.
> > > > Moles are more
> > > > > effective since they can split up a little more (even more with
> > > > commissars),
> > > > >
> > > > > but they dont have a template so snap fire from necron is
> > > > high yield in
> > > > this
> > > > >
> > > > > scenario.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. infantry back up. Knights, of course cannot be pinned by
> > > > infantry, so
> > > > > even if they are engaged you can still fire at the targets
> > > > you battle plan
> > > > > dictates without being disrupted by the IG that close
> > combat you. Of
> > > > course
> > > > > you cant totally ignore them because they are many and your
> > > > CAF is low.
> > > > Use
> > > > > cheap Kroxigors as shock troops and help your knights,
> > > > remeber, on average
> > > > > it takes 3 IG stands to take out a Mech for sure. If the
> > > > Kroxigor takes
> > > > out
> > > > > on or two then its usually one-on-one with your mech and
> > > > one IG, he should
> > > > > usuallt win.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Combine 2 and 3, very effective. Snap fire at the troops
> > > > as they come
> > > > out
> > > > >
> > > > > to reduce their number then unleash kroxigors on them.
> > > > Imagine a nearby
> > > > > group of gravguard with 4 attack dice each firing at IG
> > > > stands, doesn't
> > > > look
> > > > >
> > > > > good for the IG.
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. Disruptor missiles. Slann forces are immune, when they
> > > > engage you shoot
> > > > > disruptor missiles into the melee (this raises an omission,
> > > > necron are
> > > > cold
> > > > > blooded so they may do this), the penalties will maount on
> > > > the IG placing
> > > > > them in negative CAF, combine this with 4 and the IG will
> > > > be wiped out!
> > > > >
> > > > > These ploys are cost effective for the slann since the
> > > > units I would use
> > > > > might already be part of your standard army, so you
> > dont buy extra
> > > > needless
> > > > > units for defense.
> > > > >
> > > > > >This is a good suggestion. The old Gravguards would be renamed
> > > > > >to Spawnguards, and the new gravguards get the long range HW
> > > > > >tank busters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I'll be testing this one, I think it will work fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > >This is really no biggie, its just that we didnt feel they
> > > > > >were worth the points. They made no real impact on the game,
> > > > > >and were taken out easily (granted, by volcano cannons).
> > > > > >Ill await your testing..
> > > > >
> > > > > We'll see, if it takes guns that big, it means they are
> > > > probably worth the
> > > > > cost. As always some units work better against some armies
> > > > than others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > > 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/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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/
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ 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/
> >
> >
>
>
> 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 Thu Feb 22 2001 - 11:50:31 UTC