Brilliant as always, this Jyrki!
.....and now Im writing like Yoda (!) :-(
Shortbeards is excelent!
Trainers is good, but I suggest we put a hearthguard in charge of each detachment and a warlord in charge of the company.
They should have boltpistols ratherer than lasguns.
Infiltration is a must for theese guys!
The Squats arent suppose to have a great number of infantry, and they wouldnt use their shortbeards as cannonfodder, so I would limit the use of this company to only one pr game.
Pointcost should probably be 500-600 with my suggestions. Lets take a look at the formula before deciding.
Eivind
>
> Fra: jyrki.saari_at_...
> Dato: 2001/05/31 Thu PM 02:56:19 CEST
> Til: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Emne: RE: [NetEpic ML] unballanced armies (New Units)
>
> 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/
>
>
> 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 - 12:27:49 UTC