Em, i didnt go home after round 1, but after round 2.
I had no forces left, and it was getting late.
I hadnt taken out any of your HW support, and had none
left myself. Everything i had was broken. I had no
chance of taking any more OP's, since i didnt have
any forces left who could do so, and stood only a slim
chance of actually holding the ones i had. So, i decided
to go home and sleep instead :)
Problem with you, is you dont see a surrender as a
defeat. When you have 20% left of your forces, and your
opponent has lost maybe 10%, i see no point in
continuing. It's like beating a dead horse.
You wouldn't probably have won, you did win, because
i surrendered due to the mass destruction i suffered.
Even with your crappy dice rolling, whimsical strategical
moves and my generally good rolls, i lost big time.
When i play against the squats next time, i honestly don't
know what to field against them. The Necrons aren't tough
enough to take them out in CC anymore, and the HW support
the stocky little bastards can field make the Slann look
like they're using slingshots. If i remember correctly,
the Squats even outnumbered the Slann. You wanna trade
and try the Slann against the Squats once? :)
Rune
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eivind.borgeteien_at_chello.no [mailto:eivind.borgeteien@...]
> Sent: 29. mai 2001 11:08
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Sv: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
> Sensitivity: Confidential
>
>
> Hi
>
> Rune is refering to a battle the squats would probably have
> won, but we wil never know as Rune went home after round 1. I
> have seen battles turn before so this could have gone either way.
>
> Nils is refering to a battle the squat lost, but this was due
> to cheesy necron rules that now has been changed. Under the
> current rules, squats might have won.
>
> My question is if my comrades can refer to a battle they
> actually lost to my squats using NetEpic rules because I cant
> seem to remember any. :-)
>
> (I know you last some battles when we used our own
> constructed epic 40k rules, but that does not count.)
>
> Eivind
> >
> > Fra: nils.saugen_at_...
> > Dato: 2001/05/29 Tue AM 09:56:05 CEST
> > Til: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Emne: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
> >
> > I have to agree, I played sqats with my Necrons (3.0 rules
> if I remnember
> > correctly) and barely won. I played one of IMHO best games
> ever, and my
> > opponend did some strange things.( I won because he chose
> not to attack a VP
> > on the flank with his bikes, thus making it possible for me
> to move my mechs
> > up close to them and blast away with my heavy weaponry, + I
> made that all
> > crutial repair roll on a unit holding a objective on a
> bridge in the centre
> > of the field). I have said it for a while, I guess both
> Rune and Trygve can
> > confirme this, squats are very hard to defeat perhaps too
> difficult. Now
> > that is just a challenge for me, I love playing against
> armies with superior
> > stats. However, I understand perfectly well why some groups
> might ban squats
> > from the game ruling them as an unbalanced army. (They are
> certainly very
> > close)
> >
> > Nils
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Karlsen Rune [mailto:rune.karlsen_at_...]
> > Sent: 29. mai 2001 09:25
> > To: 'netepic_at_yahoogroups.com'
> > Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
> >
> >
> > Yes, we've tried Slann Vs. Squats. I brought the firepower
> i could, and my
> > best CC troops, but i still lost pretty had. A company of
> Medium mechs
> > and a necron titan just doens't compare with two Leviathans
> (or was it
> > Colossuses?),
> > neither in price or killing power. If Slann want to take
> heavy support equal
> > to two
> > Leviathans, they have to bring out the big Titans, and
> fielding one of these
> > in a 3-4k battle is just ludicrous. Besides, any of the
> Slann titans can be
> > taken out in one lucky shot (this
> > is true for all titans, but Slann titans are even more
> vulnerable to this).
> > Squats are even harder to beat than chaos imho, mostly due
> to their high
> > BP's and cheap Praetorians.
> >
> > Rune
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Albert Farr� Benet [mailto:cibernyam_at_hotmail.com]
> > Sent: 29. mai 2001 02:00
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't understand why you keep saying squats have a bad CAF.
> >
> > Besides from SM, which non-CC-focused army (this is, all
> but Nids and Chaos)
> > fields troops with a minimum CAF of +2 (remember the "1"
> reroll gives Squats
> > an equivalent of almost +2 extra CAF)?.
> >
> > Eldar? no, they have very low numbers with good CAF.
> > IG? absolutely no, their assault troops have +1 CAF (and
> remember chain of
> > command and bad morale).
> > Orks? their best CC troops are +3 while you reroll "1" and
> "2" ( equivalent
> > to +3/+4 CAF).
> > Slann? Yip, they have a little better CAF but you fight
> them on equal
> > numbers. Your superior firepower should balance that.
> > PDF and SOB? Don't make me laugh, PDF couldn't win a CC
> fight even against a
> > tree... and sisters of battle are ajust a little better than PDF.
> >
> > If you try to beat Nids and Chaos in CC with Squats (or any
> other army) then
> > I can't say nothing, because I can't imagine how (Don't
> tell me with big
> > numbers, because big numbers means big morale
> disadvantatges, and playing
> > against Chaos in CC bad morale means losing CC even before
> starting).
> >
> > Even so, a good Squat player will try to shatter the
> opponent's army to
> > pieces before CC to equal numbers, or obviously will lose due to
> > overwhelming numbers.
> >
> > I'm just talking of infantry, but I really hate bikers when
> playing against
> > Squats. My figures point that for every squat biker I loose
> about 1,5 SM
> > bikes in CC; just compare the break points and you'll see
> that Bikers are
> > really tough (but not invincible, for sure).
> >
> > Anyone disagrees?
> >
> >
> > P.S. Anyone tried Squats vs Slann? I think it will be very
> interesting,
> > could show the tactics ability of commanders trying to make
> maximum use of
> > very few units. Kinda empty field, isn't it?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Sam <mailto:epic_at_...> Dale
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 9:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Ummmm. Bikers with +4 CAF and a move of 30cm... Yeah, you
> can't storm
> > buildings, but that's what the mass of artillery and the
> berserkers in
> > rhinos are there to deal with.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I had 4 companies, 1 support and 1 special in 3k. I was
> outnumbered by the
> > marines, but outgunned and outfought them to a terrifying degree.
> >
> > > Bad movability.
> >
> > Bikes, trikes, gyrocopters. And the Overlords just keep going.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Sammy Chaos. Barprop of Slaanesh and Bane of the Organised.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/> .
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> >
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=190462.1393721.2979173.2/D=egroupmail/S
> =1700059081:N/
> > A=551014/?http://www.debticated.com> www.debticated.com
> >
> >
> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=190462.1393721.2979173.2/D=e
groupmail/S=17
> > 00059081:N/A=551014/rand=755327239>
> >
> > 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/> .
> >
> >
> > ***********************************************
> > This message confirms that this E-Mail
> > has been scanned for the presence of
> > Computer Virus, and deemed Virus-Free
> > by F-Secure Antivirus
> >
> > Tue, 29 May 2001 01:59:41 +0200
> > ***********************************************
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ***********************************************
> > This message confirms that this E-Mail
> > has been scanned for the presence of
> > Computer Virus, and deemed Virus-Free
> > by F-Secure Antivirus
> >
> > Tue, 29 May 2001 09:24:53 +0200
> > ***********************************************
> >
> > 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/
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************
> This message confirms that this E-Mail
> has been scanned for the presence of
> Computer Virus, and deemed Virus-Free
> by F-Secure Antivirus
>
> Tue, 29 May 2001 11:07:40 +0200
> ***********************************************
>
***********************************************
This message confirms that this E-Mail
has been scanned for the presence of
Computer Virus, and deemed Virus-Free
by F-Secure Antivirus
Tue, 29 May 2001 11:23:40 +0200
***********************************************
Received on Tue May 29 2001 - 09:23:40 UTC