Hi!
hehe, after 12 years of playing epic I have learned, that depending on
who you ask, some armies are considered cheesy and others are not. I
have heard it all. I remember Kenneth always bitched and moaned how
crappy chaos was and that he could never win a game with them, yet,
there are others on tis list that swear that chaos wins the "cheesiest
of them all" trophy. I have heard the same about eldar, complaining
about those ultra-cheap jetbike companies, those awesome aspects and
exarchs and that cheesily armed titan with double pulsar cannons. Of
course I have heard the opposite too, have brittle the support cards
are, how crappy guardians are and a dozen reasons why Eldar titans are
wasted points.
The squat thing is old hat too, cheesy overlords, unbreakable
brotherhood companies, those annoying bike companies. After literally
hundreds of games played my old mantra still holds-nothing is as
chessy/crappy as you may think. Some armies shoot, other close combat.
Squats shoot, probably better than most, so don't play that game.
Bikes, shoot them to hell and back, dont close combat them, wasted
effort. Use units like t-hawks and tunnelers to keep th squats off
balance, their bikes can be everywhere. Once you tie up their small
infantry force, you can pretty much take or contest every objective on
the board. Therein lies the squats weakness, they may break many of
your units, but limit them to one or two of 8 objectives and they
can't win, the game extends itself and your numerical superiority
asserts itself.
Regardless of what army you field against them, get as many cheap
troops as you can, numbers is the game, the squats CAF isn't great so
swarm of zero CAF guys does the job, use swarm tactics. If you field
titans, do not do so for shooting, make them close combat mosters and
hunt for preatorians, even if they kill it, better the titan than your
troops, it is they not the titan who will win you the game. Think
their bikes are tough? how about two roughrider companies? You'll have
him begging for mercy by turn two with that hord of horses going his
way.
Its obvious which objectives he'll try to secure, those close to him,
mount major offensives for those and just send a detachment or lone HQ
to secure the ones he can never get to. Squats have tunnelers too you
say? They cost him a lot of points and give you a big yield when you
take them out, normally in average games as a squat player I'd never
bring them, too easy to get overwhelmed with little gain, perhaps only
against slann they give a good yield.
I could go on and on, but have a couple of games yourselves and see
what happens. Once you attune yourself to the squats options its
pretty easy to nuetralize them.
Peter
--- In netepic_at_y..., Karlsen Rune <rune.karlsen_at_e...> wrote:
> I agree, we definitely need more games against the
> Squats, to test them out. But what we can already say,
> based on what we've seen so far, is that they are
> very strong. The combination of high BP, cheap Praetorians
> ,very strong and fast CC troops and good artillery
> makes them one tough cookie to beat. It's not impossible
> to beat them, but it seems to me they already have the
> odds in their favor. The fact that not only we have
> noticed that, but people from other gaming groups as
> well, only encourages my belief that they've been
> back to the cheesecupboard for seconds.
>
> We should set up some games, one against each of our
> armies. I'd love to see how a pure Necron army fares
> against them, i missed that game :( I'd be happy to
> try that myself, think i can field about 3k or so
> in Necrons. I can field a support card of Nemesis, 1 Titan
> and a support card of Necron Mechs as HW support.
> That should be about 1.5K in HW support. The rest would
> be 2 companies of Necron raiders and assaults, and
> some transports. Voila, 3K of Necrons. What you say?
> I can play this friday or sunday.
>
> Rune
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: eivind.borgeteien_at_c... [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_c...]
> > Sent: 29. mai 2001 12:45
> > To: netepic_at_y...
> > Subject: RE: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
> > Sensitivity: Confidential
> >
> >
> > ..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_e...>
> > > Dato: 2001/05/29 Tue PM 12:03:01 CEST
> > > Til: "'netepic_at_y...'" <netepic_at_y...>
> > > 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_c...
> > [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_c...]
> > > > Sent: 29. mai 2001 11:39
> > > > To: netepic_at_y...
> > > > 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_s...
> > > > > Dato: 2001/05/29 Tue AM 11:26:44 CEST
> > > > > Til: netepic_at_y...
> > > > > 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_c...
> > > > [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_c...]
> > > > > Sent: 29. mai 2001 11:08
> > > > > To: netepic_at_y...
> > > > > 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_s...
> > > > > > Dato: 2001/05/29 Tue AM 09:56:05 CEST
> > > > > > Til: netepic_at_y...
> > > > > > 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_e...]
> > > > > > Sent: 29. mai 2001 09:25
> > > > > > To: 'netepic_at_y...'
> > > > > > 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_h...]
> > > > > > Sent: 29. mai 2001 02:00
> > > > > > To: netepic_at_y...
> > > > > > 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_l...> Dale
> > > > > > To: netepic_at_y... <mailto:netepic_at_y...>
> > > > > > 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_...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/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 12:45:11 +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 13:00:59 +0200
> ***********************************************
Received on Tue May 29 2001 - 16:27:52 UTC