..but there has only been one of those "premature" endings hasnt it?
And the tournament of ours was NOT fought using NetEpic-rules.
Guess the little guys doesnt have the winning statistic of a cheesy army in our group....
Eivind
>
> Fra: Karlsen Rune <rune.karlsen_at_...>
> Dato: 2001/05/29 Tue PM 12:03:01 CEST
> Til: "'netepic_at_yahoogroups.com'" <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> Emne: RE: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
>
> Yes, that really sums it up. And have you stopped to think why?
> Long battles are genereally close, and people continue to
> play because they fell they have a good chance of winning or
> drawing. Battles which are concluded prematurely, are usually
> massacres. Playing to the very end when you are already beaten
> will 9 out of 10 times make the result worse, not better.
> If this is your argument for the Squats, it is very poor
> indeed.
>
> Rune
> "Look to the cheese in thine own eye, before you wrinkle
> your nose at others"
>
> > -----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_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 11:39:02 +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 12:03:01 +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/
>
>
>
Received on Tue May 29 2001 - 10:45:11 UTC