Hi!
These look good, could you give a polished copy to Tom for Incoming!
please?
Peter
--- In netepic_at_y..., Albert Farr� Benet <cibernyam_at_h...> wrote:
> 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_y...
> 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_b...]
> Sent: 30 May 2001 02:37
> To: netepic_at_y...
> 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_s...
> To:netepic_at_y...
> 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_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=1700059
081:N/
> A=551014/?http://www.debticated.com> www.debticated.com
>
>
<
http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=190462.1393721.2979173..2/D=egroupma
il/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.
Received on Thu May 31 2001 - 12:32:07 UTC