Hi!
Excellent points, Albert!
While I am reluctant to add new units overall, I am more lenient with
Squats. The reason is simple they are no longer supported in any way
shape or form by GW. Fluff-wise and unit wise, if epic is going to
expand on them, that means we need to do it.
Albert hits on very good points regarding Squat predictability, once
you find the magic formula (and NO I'm NOT going to tell you what that
is <evil grin>)they are easy to beat.
They need units in almost every regard. Thats why I created armored
units for them, slow, but tough, they now have a armored spearhead.
They also need infantry and robots those are out now with these ideas.
Of course they need to be tested, but before we add to any force list
the Squats have first dibs, its only fair.
Of course, the Tyranids have the same problem too, but we can handle
that later.
Peter
--- In netepic_at_y..., Albert Farr� Benet <cibernyam_at_h...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The problem Nils, is that is already broken for the squats. From my
PoV, the Squat army on it's own is useless, although a very good ally.
At the beggining they seem very difficult to beat them, but once
you've got THE TACTIC to fight them, they have nothing to do. It is
not that they have few tactical possibilities, it is that they only
have one. And this is due to the fact that they have very few units to
choose.
>
> You will notice that Squats tend to field always a very similar
army: 1 infantry company(with or without Leviathan), 1 praetorian, 1
bike company, another praetorian, a Light artillery company/ Gyro /
Zeppelin company (depends on available points) and a personality or
another praetorian. Add two-three support cards (say more thunderers /
bikes / Gyros / Zeps) and you have a 4-5k army. If you are playing
bigger games, just repeat the receipt until you reach the limit. And
that's all, you have no more choices. And if you are fighting someone
who knows how to beat this tactic you are done.
>
> The intention on allowing different infantry (shortbeards, flamers,
medium support, slayers) or vehicle variants (like heavy armoured
tunellers with medium range weapons) is to add more possibilities to
the squat player, not to make an unbeatable army. Keep in mind that my
(our) intention is to add variety to this army without losing it's
personality.
>
> Do you think adding low cost units (shortbeards) will change squat
overall rating? their numbers are very reduced, normally one company
per game (that will mean an average of seven/eight more stands than
normally). Do you think high CAF units will make Squats more tougher?
High CAF units only serve to 2 purposes: Defending objectives (Slayers
can't) and making surgical attacks (try them, they hardly can due to
erratic movement), so for the moment, they won't make very much of an
impact.
>
> I think that adding units with the same cost and purpose as existing
units, even if they improve them, is hardly useful. I mean, it doesn't
matter if you bring a Colossus with a DDay cannon or a Goliath with a
Mega-Titan-f****r cannon. They don't allow tactical innovation. In the
other hand: a Special Card that brought a Gyro unit with transport
capacity, even weaponless, and at the same cost that Iron eagles, DOES
allow tactical innovation, even though I would make it even more
expensive to avoid Cheese smelling and I also will limit it so it
doesn't change very much the army philosophy. This new tactical
possibility will make your army (even) more reduced but with a little
added movility for some (few) stands. Your opponent will also wonder
where will you use them and will have to think a little to avoid
losing some 5-10 VPs.
>
> I think that's the point: the strategy (the philosophy) of the army
should only change a little (say 10 - 20%) but the tactical approach
should. And sometimes a little variance from the piloshophy allows a
lot of tactical variations. And sometimes it is needed to change it a
little.
>
> Albert
>
> P.D.I sent this message on tue 12 at 19:00 (Barcelona's hour), I
hope it arrives to the list before Christmas. Hotmail delaying sucks!
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: nils.saugen_at_s...
> To: netepic_at_y...
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 1:56 PM
> Subject: RE: RE: [NetEpic ML] On the new squat units
>
>
> 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/
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> Yahoo! Website Services- Click Here!
>
>
> 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 Tue Jun 12 2001 - 19:49:00 UTC