RE: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies

From: <eivind.borgeteien_at_...>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 14:11:52 +0200

Hehe...!

OK

Eivind
>
> Fra: nils.saugen_at_...
> Dato: 2001/05/25 Fri PM 02:06:57 CEST
> Til: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Emne: RE: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
>
> No they are excellent!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eivind.borgeteien_at_... [mailto:eivind.borgeteien@...]
> Sent: 25. mai 2001 14:02
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Sv: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
> Sensitivity: Confidential
>
>
> Hi
>
> I just want to something concerning our houserule on buildings, in case
> anyone should feel like adopting it.
>
> We also have a set of flyer rules that limits the movement of flyers.
> Netepic has a flat 100cm move on flyers we have done it different.
> Transports and bombers have 40cm (80 on charge), figters have 50 cm (100 cm
> on charge) This means that for turn one, all artillery is safe from bombing.
> Thats part of the reason why we have made the most heavy artillery somewhat
> weaker.
>
> Its quite a drastic change, but it has developted over the years in our
> gaming group to keep the ballance.
>
> Eivind
>
> PS Nils, do you want to change the flyerrules?
> >
> > Fra: nils.saugen_at_...
> > Dato: 2001/05/25 Fri PM 01:32:52 CEST
> > Til: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Emne: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
> >
> > Well the first thing you would like to avoid while playing against both
> > Tyranids and Squats alike is to play games with fewer than 8 objectives.
> In
> > both cases this will place you at a disadvantage.
> >
> > I haven't played against the Nid's, but I've read the rules, and they seem
> > quite easy to overcome, if you don't get suckered into close combat. Stay
> > back and beat them to pulp before they are halfway across the table. Use
> > rapid deploymentroops and snipers to take out their commanders.
> Concentrate
> > youre fire on the massed formations, if you hit their big monsters hit
> them
> > hard as hell making sure they don't regenerate all the wounds you inflict.
> >
> > As for the squats, they are really hard to beat. I did it once with
> Necrons
> > and it was a really close race. Since then the Necrons have been powered
> > down, and I'm unsure if it is possible to take them with the Necrons now.
> > Squats are few in number and their CAF and Mobility are not much to brag
> > about. (Why they are allowed to field Rhinos is beond me). However, they
> are
> > very resillient and you'll find it very hard to breake their companies and
> > kill their superheavies. So capturing objectivs is always important while
> > fighting squats.
> >
> > As for the FORTRESS building rule we have adopted (Actually I can't ever
> > remeber us formally agreeing on it)I would STRONGLY advice you against
> > introduceing it. Firstly which armies have many weapons with the "destroys
> > buildings" special ability? Squats and IG/TG. What do these armies lack?
> > Good assault troops! Do you think that is a coincidence? Nope! So what you
> > do is to deprive these armies of one of ther advantages. (I haven't
> fielded
> > IG much since this hous rule was adopted, concentrating on Space Marines,
> > Necrons and lately Eldar instead.) Further your enemy KNOWS perfectly well
> > that Buildings are potential deathtraps when facing these armies, so if he
> > chooses to set up in a building anyway It's a calculated risk. Furher I
> > don't like the "Ignores Cover" compensation. Because now even QUACKE
> cannons
> > ignores cover!!!! I don't thing that is a good thing!!!!
> >
> > Nils
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: eivind.borgeteien_at_... [mailto:eivind.borgeteien@...]
> > Sent: 25. mai 2001 12:58
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
> > Sensitivity: Confidential
> >
> >
> > Hi!
> > Someone here had a mail where he complaianed about his opponents not
> wanting
> > to play up against his squat army.
> >
> > I think this is very sad, if you cant play against the squats who can you
> > play against? Not IG as their firepower is stronger and BP in numbers are
> > almost equal, not SM as their CAF is higher, not orks as their number is
> > bigger, not eldar as their weapons are stronger (and cheesy would some
> say,
> > not me though)
> >
> > So, what is your oponents main grudge against these fellows?
> >
> >
> > I cant give you a "how to beat the stunties" but having played them a
> while
> > I can point out what I think is difficult with fielding them. (I have lost
> > more battles than I have won using them!)
> >
> > They have no infantry with good CAF. +2 at most, they have some +6 but
> only
> > one pr detachment, so almost every army can beat you in CC. If you want to
> > beat your opponent in CC you have to swarm him, which leads to my other
> > point.
> >
> > Few in numbers. This might sound odd as the companies are quite large. But
> > because of the low CAF you have to committ at least 2/3 of a company to
> gain
> > controll of an OP. As the companies are quite expencive I never controll
> > more than 3 in a 3k game.
> >
> > Bad movability. None of the companies have transports, but have to buy
> them
> > seperatly. If you do this your oponent can consetrate his fire on the
> > transports, taking out 2 gives him one easy 1 VP. They do have termites
> that
> > can take them almost anywhere, but they risk comming great out of course!
> >
> > The third thing I really miss about the squats are the large
> > armourformations of the IG and SM. Squats can field tanks, but only in
> units
> > of 3, which is to give away VPs.
> >
> > My group (or everyone except the IG player) has gone tired of the
> > housewrecking of netepic. Because of that we have made the houses (not the
> > ruins) twice as strong as the original netepic rules, meaning that our
> > buildings have 4 hits. Weapons that affect buildings gives one hit,
> weapons
> > that destroys buildings gives only two but ignores cover to hit.
> >
> > You might suggest trying this rule to your opponents. In a 3k game I
> destroy
> > 1-2 buildings as opposed to 4-6.
> >
> > Hope this is going to be of some help...
> >
> > Eivind
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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 Fri May 25 2001 - 12:11:52 UTC