I've beaten the Squats twice, once with the orks when
we didnt use the army cards (hehe, those were the
days for the orks, eh ;), and once with an early
Jarlsberg version of Slann.
Rune
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nils.saugen_at_... [mailto:nils.saugen@...]
> Sent: 29. mai 2001 12:14
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
> Sensitivity: Confidential
>
>
> 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_...
> > Dato: 2001/05/29 Tue AM 11:26:44 CEST
> > Til: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > 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_at_...]
> > 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_...]
> > > 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/>
>
> >
> > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_...m
> >
> > 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/
>
> T
> o 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 12:14:15 +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 12:20:37 +0200
***********************************************
Received on Tue May 29 2001 - 10:20:37 UTC