Shortbeards, since they are supposed to be young.
Jyrki Saari
-There is no such thing as free lunch because eating takes time and time is
money.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext nils.saugen_at_... [mailto:nils.saugen@...]
> Sent: 31. May 2001 14:49
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies (New Units)
>
>
> Ahh, as for the name.
>
> What about Tunnelrunners?
>
> Nils
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Albert Farr� Benet [mailto:cibernyam_at_...]
> Sent: 30. mai 2001 19:41
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies (New Units)
>
>
> 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_...]
> 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_...]
> 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=1
7
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
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 Thu May 31 2001 - 11:56:19 UTC