Hi Albert,
On behalf of Nils and myself, thanks a lot for a great idea. We'll
definately try something like your suggested building rule in the near
future...
Trygve
-----Original Message-----
From: Albert Farr� Benet [mailto:cibernyam_at_...]
Sent: 13. juni 2001 20:49
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: [NetEpic ML] On the new squat units
For what you say about flyers, I just can't tell you that they work fine
with my marines. It just a matter of intelligent use of cover.
About buildings, I didn't know those rules.
I always played with one hit per bulding unless it was a special building
or so. This way, thunderers, devastators, and other building parasites, risk
themselves a little bit. I think four hits to destroy a building is
excessive. We play "hard terrain" games so we usually start the game with
lots of terrain (not a jungle though) and buildings and we end with few
buildings when Squats, IG or Gargants are on board. We also have the house
rule that Barrage weapons with 7+ BP leave a 3-6 cm Crater on impact. This
way the game becomes more "real". Artillery really punches out terrain and
hidden troops, that's what is used for.
I would rather make buildings more vulnerable. If you don't want to end
without buildings, I would rather try this house rule:
- When a Building takes HALF of his total hits, everything inside that
doesn't have a saving throw is destroyed. The building remains standing
though a with a little angle like Pisa's tower... from then on, every hit on
the building will have the same effect until the last hit. Then the building
is removed and replaced with ruins.
This way, your heavy weapons team will have more "nests" from where to
shot but they will risk themselves a little more. And the battlefield would
end looking like NeoTokio after some headbanger teenagers party. You know
what I mean...
Albert
----- Original Message -----
From: nils.saugen_at_...
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 9:17 AM
Subject: RE: RE: [NetEpic ML] On the new squat units
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_...]
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_...
To: 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_...
> 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/
>
>
> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
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 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 Jun 14 2001 - 08:45:15 UTC