Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 19:40:51 +0200
Hi,
my intention with Squats was to make them a little more flexible and not always the same Colossus-Bikes-Thunderers-Gyros (repet the receipt until you get the army total points).
So as first approach, they could field "Squat Young Blood units" (change the name if you come across something better)
Move: 10cm
CAF: 0
Save: none
weapon: bolters (or something like that - lasguns) 50 cm / 1 dice / 5+ / 0 STM
another possibility (better in my opinion) would be bolt pistols 25 cm / 1 dice / 5+ / 0 STM
Special: Infiltration?
Break Point: 50% (as for normal units other than squats)
Morale: 3?
Fielded as Company
3 Young Blood units of 5 stands
*optional* 1 Squat "trainer" unit of 2 stands (stats as for berserkers) Command unit
break point: 9
point cost: 300 (without trainers)/ 350 (with trainers)
VP: 3/4
Fielded as support
1 young blood unit of 5 stands
Break Point: 3
point cost: 100
VP: 1
Another possibility may be a kind of Squat support unit (whatever name u like)
Same stats as Thunderers BUT range 50 cm and 2 attack dice -1 STM
Fielded as support
1 unit of 5 stands
Morale 2
Point Cost: 200
BP: 4
VP: 3
Or even Squat close support units
Move: 10 cm
CAF: +1
ST: none
weapon: Flamers 25cm 1 dice / 4+ / 0 / ignores cover
treat as normal squats for morale effect and rerolls
Fielded as support
Equivalent to warriors (1 hearthguard, 9 flamers)
Morale 2
BP: 8
Point cost: 300
VP: 4
It would also be possible to make a mix with company card units (Like a "new warrior brotherhood" replacing warriors and thunderers with "support" and "close support"). Or not. What do you think? Point cost should be rearranged
Well, that's enough for now, once we agree about this, we'll talk about new tunellers
P.S. Note that I haven't used the Point cost formula. Point cost are merely an idea.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Webb
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 4:59 PM
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies (New Units)
What about underground tanks? A form of tunneling leman russ, could provide some mobility and support fire ability. But unfortunatly I cannot recommend a model.
Tom.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Ramos [mailto:primarch_at_bellatlantic.net]
Sent: 30 May 2001 02:37
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies
Hi!
I'm always for new units, I need some more before the new units book is to be made. Are you aware the recent squat book includes tunnelers and squat specific tanks and transports?
If possible try to recommend a suitable model for any new units you make so as to make it easy for others to field them.
Anxious to hear some ideas on this.
Peter
Albert Farr� Benet wrote:
Well, I agree that squats are difficult to beat, but it depends on the ability of your opponent (and yours, of course). I think that Squats are the easiest army to play. Anyone can take Squats and sit down, start to fire and wipe out anything that comes out of the smoking craters.
But you'll find that playing squats this way you'll win some (lots of) games UNTIL some one beats you. Then you'll start losing because your tactic is worn out and your gaming group has found the spoiler for the basic squat tactics. And then you'll have lots of problems to surprise your opponent with a new tactic, because squats are not Eldar nor SM. Squat army is a very unflexible one, even less than IG, because IG at least has a wider choice of different units to allow different possibilities of approaching each game.
I also agree with Peter, Squats are the opposite of Chaos, if you survived 3 turns against squats, this means you'll have much chances to win.
And now for somehing completely different: the squat army
Would it be possible to add more squat units? I find their army list too undeveloped. I know this is not a problem from Netepic, because GW has never developed squats to their full capability (has he ever developed them beyond the basic game first approach?).
I think squats should have something as scouts, or learning warriors or some kind of cheaper troop with less morale. It can't be that ALL squats are amazing warriors...they had to spent some time learning, and in times of war every citizen is needed to fight.
And what about some infantry variants, like support squats with flamers or medium range heavy weapons (like Heavy Bolters - 2 dice 50 cm -1 ST)
I also think we could add some specific squat tunnellers. They live underground, don't they? so they should have better technology than IG.
New ideas always welcomed of course, but please, don't make squats still more static; no more artillery pleaze!
I would like to hear some opinions on that, perhaps even a poll (oh my god, heretic! heretic! cleanse'im!) wether squats could be developed a little further.
Albert
----- Original Message -----
From:nils.saugen_at_...
To:netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 9:56 AM
Subject: 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_hotmail.com]
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
(image/gif attachment: debticatedbanner1.gif)
(image/gif attachment: rand_193026005.gif)