Come too think of it, Squats has either won the game brutally in the first
round or not at all? However, they did win our tournament a couple of years
back.
Nils
-----Original Message-----
From: eivind.borgeteien_at_... [mailto:eivind.borgeteien@...]
Sent: 29. mai 2001 11:39
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
Sensitivity: Confidential
Well, to summarise this, the squats have not won a single game played to the
very end in our group.
I really hope we can end the cheese-discussion here, at least for our part.
Eivind
>
> Fra: nils.saugen_at_seb.se
> Dato: 2001/05/29 Tue AM 11:26:44 CEST
> Til: netepic_at_...m
> Emne: RE: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
>
> 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_...]
> > 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/
>
>
> 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 - 10:14:15 UTC