Hi!
At that time we were still in the process of revision, alot of nice
ideas got thrown around and any forgotten, because they were not
wanted as core.
Since we are only proposing ptional units and thats how they'll stay
for the great majority of them, any ideas should be revisited and
posted.
So I'd post any and all ideas for critique and streamlining.
Please write these up at your liesure and send them to Tom for
Incoming!
Peter
--- In netepic_at_y..., "Thomas Wildman" <tnrw00_at_p...> wrote:
> I remember suggesting inclusion of the Chaos marines introduced in
40K last
> year or so. They wer called Obliterators or somesuch, and in 40K
could
> vhange their bodies into any heavy weapons available to infantry.
Stats
> might be MV10 CAF 1 Wpn Variable: 2 shot 50cm 5+TH -1 SV Autocannon
>
> 1 shot 75cm 4+TH -2 SV Lascannon
>
> 1 shot 50cm 4+TH -1 SV Hvy Bolter
>
> 1 shot 50cm 4+TH -3 SV Plasma Cannon
> 250 pts for four stands, 3 models per stand
> Last time I suggested them, I was nearly laughed at. Maybe they're
more
> acceptable now?
>
> Tom
>
> > SM chapters has been there all the time. As has most IG, ork and
chaos
> > units. I agree that one could make new units for the squats, as we
have in
> > the past. Hellfury, Gyrokoper Varians, assault tanks and
Grudgekeeper
> > artillery, to name a few. However, I strongly oppose units that
are out ov
> > the Natural order for the squats. Namly cheap infantry (Short
beards) and
> > close assault infantry (Slayers). These are units that eliminates
known
> > weaknesses in the squat army. I know these units will only be
optional,
> but
> > ar things often are once they are there it's hard to deny a player
the
> usage
> > of them. Especially because one might have been using other
optional units
> > in the past.
> >
> > Trygve made an interesting comment last week. If the short squats
should
> > have Shortbeards/Slayers why shouldn't Chaos have some long range
heavy
> > infantry units. The IG could sure use som nifty assault troops
them
> selves,
> > how about some drugcrazed Ogryns with +8 in caf and exoskeleton
armour
> > giving them a fixed save of 4+. How about a Space Marine
Preatorian, Black
> > orks Clans, Eldar aspect warrior companies the list could go on
and on.
> >
> > Poin is: IF IT AINT BROKE DON'T TRY TO FIX IT.
> >
> > Just my 2 kroner.
> >
> > Nils
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: eivind.borgeteien_at_c... [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_c...]
> > Sent: 12. juni 2001 13:23
> > To: netepic_at_y...
> > Subject: Sv: RE: [NetEpic ML] On the new squat units
> > Sensitivity: Confidential
> >
> >
> > We are not trying improve the Squat armiy in terms of intoducing
better
> and
> > cheesier units, only to give them some more choices to choose
from. The
> > squat army is the same every time you field it, its variation we
are
> trying
> > to achieve here.
> >
> > Every player that owns a Squat army has put a lot of money in it
but
> > recieved no support from GW beyond the first release. Sm has a lot
of
> > chapters to choose from, orks also have a lot to choose from, only
> surpassed
> > by IG and Chaos has recieved two new armylists.
> >
> > I think its highly on time that some new choices are added to the
little
> > guys, so any constructive suggestion here are very welcome!
> >
> > Eivind
> > >
> > > Fra: nils.saugen_at_s...
> > > Dato: 2001/06/12 Tue AM 11:32:22 CEST
> > > Til: netepic_at_y...
> > > Emne: RE: [NetEpic ML] On the new squat units
> > >
> > > Hm, yes but one should perhaps then concentrate on winning with
the
> units
> > > one has got, rather than to make new ones? Remember that even if
the
> > Squats
> > > haven't won many games in our group, they have probably done so
in many
> > > other groups. It all comes down to deviceing a winning strategy.
Let us
> > > change armies for a couple of battles and see how tings works
out!!!!
> > Rather
> > > than to introduce new armies to unbalance the squats. Actually,
I
> consider
> > > the squats one of the hardest armies to beat!
> > >
> > > Nils
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: eivind.borgeteien_at_c... [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_c...]
> > > Sent: 12. juni 2001 11:13
> > > To: netepic_at_y...
> > > Subject: [NetEpic ML] On the new squat units
> > > Sensitivity: Confidential
> > >
> > >
> > > One of the main grudges people have against the squats is that
they are
> > hard
> > > to break. The Shortbeards are much easier to break and should
provide
> some
> > > easier VPs for the oponent. This way it should be very well
balanced.
> > >
> > > The Slayer Cult is taken from WFB and I think it would have been
> > introduced
> > > sooner or later if GW has continued their squat range for epic.
At least
> > > thats my personal POV...
> > >
> > > It WAS introduced as a joke, but then as a Companycard with 3
> > detatchments,
> > > with +6, +7 or something in CAF. As a specialcard of one
detatchment
> with
> > > far reduced CAF, I think this units deserves some testing.
> > >
> > > Isnt it food for thought that the only ones crying "wolf!" here
are the
> > ones
> > > that always have beaten the Squats.....? :-)
> > >
> > > There are at present time no stats for the APC carrying the
robots. I
> > havent
> > > gotten around to do that yet, but you might want to take a look
at the
> > > Hellfury APC
> > >
> > > Eivind
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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/
> >
> >
> >
Received on Tue Jun 12 2001 - 15:50:38 UTC