I really resent that, you lost the game because you made crucial mistakes.
As I said I consider this to be one of my best played games ever. I had
another, using SoB aganst BDF. However, the godess of luck smiled favorably
upon me in that game.
I was totally viped out in one round, using marines. We then had the lists,
not the cards. In that Game I really played like an ass.
Nils
-----Original Message-----
From: eivind.borgeteien_at_... [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_enitel.com]
> 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 Farré Benet [mailto:cibernyam_at_...]
> 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=egroupmail/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/
Received on Tue May 29 2001 - 09:26:44 UTC