Hi Albert,
I see your point. Theres is one aspect to this discussion that I need to
clarify. We have a houserule that impacts the game quite a lot. Our houses
has four hits! This means that a weapon with the destroys buildings special
ability needs 2 hits to destr�y the building, any other building affecting
weapon needs 4. This very much affects both Squats and IG, since these
armies origianlly don't have the same quality assault troops as the other
races. Since it is now much more secure to hide in buildings the need for
good assault troops in these armies has increased. This will affect the way
Squats and IG is played. And I think that this is the wrong path to take
these armies! The are supposed to be hard hitting armies that rely on
stubbornness or numerical supperiority to win Close Combat. Another thing
that is sure to come up now is the range of our flyers. At present the
flyers can't reach the artillery in the first round. If we where to change
this, then the Squats and IG would have another, but just as unbalancing
problem on their hands. They would probably be forced to leave their
artillery at home, when faceing armies with transports, or they could invest
in AA units off course (These are actually allowed to snapfire!). Anyway
they would be forced to respond in this manner. Now the transports will
reach the artillery in the second round, and since ther isn't much need for
AA units with the rules as they are. The opponent would probably not bring
any to court. This is a powerbalance thing.
As for the shortbeards, our main concern is that a relativ cheap company
will bring in one more preatorian to a game. However I'm willing to give
this a shot. The same goes for the Robot Company but I still would like to
see the timedelay before preprogram kicks in.
Finally in my experience all games against the Squats have been very close
indeed. So even if Eivind haven't managed many wins he never gets thoroughly
thrashed, and you should see this guys die rolling. He is very unlucky. If
lady luck just for once would grace him, he would win by a landsilde!
This is the reason for my reluctanse to introduce the Slayer Cults.
Nils
-----Original Message-----
From: Albert Farr� Benet [mailto:cibernyam_at_hotmail.com]
Sent: 12. juni 2001 19:00
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: [NetEpic ML] On the new squat units
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_... <mailto:nils.saugen_at_...>
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
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_... [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_...]
Sent: 12. juni 2001 13:23
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
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_sebkort.no
> Dato: 2001/06/12 Tue AM 11:32:22 CEST
> Til: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> 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_... [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_...]
> Sent: 12. juni 2001 11:13
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> 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/
<
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/
<
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/
<
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
<
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> of Service.
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=17
00059081:N/A=551014/rand=478933242>
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/> .
Received on Wed Jun 13 2001 - 07:17:56 UTC