Hi!
Yes, the Slann were victorious once again, but this time it wasnt because of
superior units! I had all 3 OP's by the end of the 3rd round, and had broken
most of the SM forces. Mind you, SM were only 2 models away from gaining
another 11 VP's from me. Since i had gotten 27VP's from breaking his forces,
and he had 14 from mine, only 2 more models would have gotten him to 25,
which is pretty much even. We both did a few tactical blunders, but all in
all
i think it was Eivinds lousy CC rolls which lost the day for him. We have
changed
the stats somewhat on the Necron titan, to comply with other Necrons (this
was in fact Nils' idea, and it works beautifully). With a conversion field
and
the standard Necron +4 roll (and a +3 repair roll, as other Slann titans)
, it seems tough on paper, but can be taken out by one lucky shot from a HW
infantry unit. It was taken out by a volcano cannon,
which, on a successful hit (and a failed save on my part), only needs
to roll a 2 to destroy the titan). Gather that with the fact that the titan
has rather poor range, and needs to be put on advance to do anything
useful, the other player can just mount a titan/praetorian with some
long range weapons (missiles etc.) and shoot it out. We also gave
the titan a powerfist in addition to the shortrange weapon, as we
thought this would make no big difference.
The droppods did some damage to my forces, but mostly the fear of what
they might attack (in the 2 round) tied up the most. I had to put all
of the forces within charge distance on FF. I pointed out to Eivind, that
what he really should do, is field 2 Thunderchickens instead, and
simply wait till i moved all my stuff. SM will always have more detachments,
so it would be rather easy to take out a mech detachment for example.
I guess i will have to start surrounding the mechs with kroxigors or
something, since we have changed the flyer rules somewhat.
We've reduced their range, and AA can only shoot on them in
the FF phase, long after they have moved. This opens up for some
cheesy ploys, and i think we might have to rethink this rule in
the future, specially when our chaos player gets his clammy
hands on some thunderchickens ;)
All in all, a very close and satisfying game! I was very happy with
the results, and hearing Eivind say that the Slann are balanced
was like hearing the first birds of spring:)
Rune
-----Original Message-----
From: Eivind Borgeteien [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_...]
Sent: 8. mars 2001 22:55
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Another battle fought
Hi!
We have just finished off another battle, now Slann vs Space Marines. I
played the marines and, off course, lost bigtime. This time it was due to my
own failures and bad dierolling. (I absolutly dont know how to roll a die!)
Anyway, the Slann army seems to be alright now!
I never thought I would say this, but those of you that wants to start
collecting a new army, go out and buy it! Unless some new and cheesy units
are being introduced, I think the army now is perfectly balanced.
We tried the necron titan to 550 points, this new cost worked out just fine.
We also tried Peters, Hellreichs & Darius' rules with only three objective
points and really liked it! Its quite another experience to fight the
oponets army rather than the objective points! I really recomend it, but one
word of advice: We played 3000 points, and at this level, leave your drop
pods at home! The pods are great to tie up enemy troops so you can mop up
OPs, but when there are only three, its not really all that important. Thats
what made me loose tonight!
Eivind
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<
http://rd.yahoo.com/M=182283.1338155.2932296/D=egroupmail/S=1700059081:N/A=
597633/*
http://www.airforce.com/cgi-bin/media/setmedia.cgi?media=YH11Q201>
AirForce.com
<
http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=182283.1338155.2932296/D=egroupmail/S=1700
059081:N/A=597633/rand=451867783>
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
Received on Fri Mar 09 2001 - 07:44:19 UTC