Re: [Epic] Psychic Phase [was: Re: Titan Legions]

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:44:38 GMT

At 02:29 PM 19/1/97 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Brett Hollindale wrote:
>This looks more like you have trouble beating squaats than them being
>generally cheesy... i often have trouble beating eldar but that doesnt
>make them cheesy.

Actually, the Squats hardly ever beat me (the last time would have been
about ten games ago), but just because I beat them easily, doesn't mean that
they aren't cheesy...

By my definition, "cheesy" means "vastly more effective than their point
cost suggests" and for me, having the best and cheapest of everything is

You seem to disagree, but <shrug> that's life!


>> Overlord Airships Companies.
>> Go to high altitude, move and FF death on anything (cause you can see it
>> Fixed 50/50 save (better than anything except an avatar) and if you fail
>> this save, there is still a 2 in 3 chance that you save on a 1+ all round!
>> More firepower than any other 250 pts unit... What more do you want?
>Yes, that's right, squats actually have a super heavy type vehicle with
>SORT OF a damage table, heaven forbid, this makes them so cheesy. Sorry,
>that means nothing, every army has good units, squats don't have titans so
>they have super heavies like the colossus, cyclopes, overlord and
>leviathan. Yes, balance, very cheesy.

Actually my point is that this does NOT represent balance. If it did, it
wouldn't be "cheesy"...

>> Guild Biker Forces.
>> The best bikes in the game (+4 CAF) and almost the cheapest. (Only IG get
>> cheaper bikes and then only just cheaper.) And if these stumpy bikes ever
>> break (not likely!) they don't vanish like IG bikes!
>Oh, that's right, because it's better than IG, it MUST be cheesy. I can't
>beleive this, you are comparing two units and saying the better one is

No, I'm comparing all of the similar units and suggesting that since one of
them costs the same as almost all of the others and is actually
substantially better, (that would be higher CAF, better moral, higher
breakpoint), then THAT would be cheesy...

> That makes alot of sense... you know eldar can make a case for
>having better bikes since they are faster and skimmers... are the eldar
>bikes cheesy too?

Before Titan Legions, you bet they were! After Titan Legions, the Eldar
bikes are probably the worst bikes in the game...

> And remember, if you DO break the company you get alot
>of VP's for it...8 for a 600pt company. And yes, squats morale is better,
>because they are SQUATS...

Of course! And here I stupidly thought that their moral was better because
they were "cheesy"! When all along it was because they were SQUATS...
(Wait a minute, are we arguing the same point and using different words for
the same thing here?) :-)

> Eldar have better moral than IG too, are they cheesy?

Some of the Eldar units meat my "cheese" criteria, but moral is not usually
the deciding factor...

>> Super Heavy Vehicles.
>> Move and then FF. (No one else does that!)
>> COLOSSI:- Have spotters for their one shot barrage missiles so that they are
>> always direct fire. Have more forepower than any other 500pt unit (8d6 hit
>> on a 4+ save at -2, huge barrage weapon, 4 one shot missiles, 1d6 range 50
>> hit on 3+ save at -3, and a mere 16d6 of bolters) And lets not forget the
>> support gyrocopter... (Did I mention a 1+ all roud save with 6 - count them
>> - six! void shields)
>That's right, and NO damage template and NO damage table which is why it
>NEEDS 6 void shields. Once the colossus losses it's void shields or if
>psychic attacks pass through them, they stand a very good chance of dying
>because they get their saving throw and that's it... same with all the
>other super heavy vehicles... without damage templates and tables, it
>makes them easier to kill once the shields are by passed or knocked
>down... the warlord has 6 shields too, is it cheesy?

No, but since the Colossus packs (roughly) the same number of weapons as a
Warlord (if anything, the Colossus packs more...) with a comparable save
(from the side or rear, the Colossus is actually less vulnerable than the
poor fragile Warlord, and from the front it's a near thing... In case you
hadn't noticed, the legs are the most vulnerable spot on a Warlord, and it
saves on a 2+) and since the Colossus costs only half of what a Warlord
does, I don't see how a Warlord COULD be "cheesy"...

>> usual huge barrage weapon, 8d6 of bolters and the rad bomb... One shot,
>> unlimited range, 8 barrage points ignoring cover save at -1, **12cm**
>> diameter template!!
>Oh my you are right, i forgot, just beacuse the rad bomb has a similar
>effect to a barrage missle launcher on a titan (extra d6 barrages, 8BP's,
>-2 save) that makes it cheesy since only IG and SM can have things like

Actually, the orcs have pulsa rokkits too. The point which seems to have
escaped you is that the squats get it cheaper and better than anyone else.
And hardly anyone takes Landtrains, because Colossi are SO much cheesier...

>> CYCLOPS:- Just your average SHV - 5 void shields, 1+ all round save, a close
>> range weapon pack with one notable exception - the 100cm hit on a 2+ save at
>> -6 blows through void shields does +6 damage on titans CHEDDITE PROJECTOR!!!
>Yeah, and it has NO firing arc, just stay away frm it... it's no worse
>than a plasma destructer.

It's true, the best defense is to not be there (I think I learned that from
the Karate Kid) but what's your point? Having one of these things on the
table means that all of your oponents titans and SHV's will be on advance
orders or will be vapour... (I've never seen a plasma destructor do +6
damage against titans... Nor does the cheddite projector stop the cyclops
using other weapons or moving next turn...)

>> Super heavy artillery that can still fire when close assaulted! (You can't
>> pin a SHV with smaller than a SHV, and unpinned SHV's can target anything
>> they want...) And of course the squat artillery is cheaper and better than
>> anyone elses artillery... (Longer range, better save mod, ignores cover -
>That's right i get one barage per turn with each and it's variable. I
>don't know what problems YOU'VE had with them, but they aren't as usful as
>you think except against eldar. But yeah of course, somcething
>potentially harding hitting than an IG barrage weapon so it's cheesy.

That's CHEAPER _and_ HARDER HITTING. And, yeah, that's cheesy...

>> Snap fire weapons.
>> Again super heavy! CAN target ground units. (NOT the best snap fire weapon
>> in the game - but close!)
>This is a joke right? All snape fire weapons are good... the firestorm
>hits on a 3 or 4, this hits on a 5 so it's cheesy? This is too funny.

OK, if it isn't super heavy then I will need to reassess.

>> Gyrocopters.
>> Faster than other skimmers, 360 degree fire arc (better than other
>> skimmers,but cheese IS round isn't it?), the usual (for squats) outrageous
>> break point...
>THAT'S RIGHT... that's the point, that's the strength of the squats...
>high break points are part of the squats srengths... they don't have
>titans, no psychers, limited psychic protection, but i forgot, armies with
>strengths and weeknesses are cheesy and ones with average abilities at
>everything are not right?
>> Other units:
>> Other units that cost the same as anyone elses units and have better break
>> points thus giving up VP harder than other armies... (eg. Squat tarantulas
>> have a break point of 4 out of 5 instaed of the usual 3 out of 5.)
>Yeah, that's the nature of squats, higher break points and better morale,

more cheese...

>you also GET more VP's for those units with high break points... You don't
>seem to understand that armies have strengths and weeknesses

I'm not sure what I said to suggest this to you... I thought that I had a
pretty good grasp of armies strengths and weaknesses...

>eldar, Space
>Marine, Squats, Chaos, etc... all you have done is pick out good units for
>squats and call them cheesy CAUSE THEY ARE GOOD... you compared them to
>other units and called them cheesy cause they are better...

Better AND cheaper OR better and the same cost. I compared the squat stuff
to the second third and fourth best units of the same type and the squats
came up trumps every time.

>ok i can do that too... squats only get 2 choices of troops companies (both
>selection of troops, one is carried in a leviathan), wherase other armies
>like IG and SM, get wide troops selection... and SM/IG get entire
>companies of heavy weapons troops (ie - devestators, etc) but squats
>don't... i guess SM/IG are cheesy then... eldar have the most specialized
>troops in the game, guess they are cheesy... lets all just play the same
>army so no one is cheesy.
>>Is this enough back up?
>No, all you've done is whined about good units of an army and say they are
>cheesy... every army has strengths and weeknesses, and just because you
>have trouble with one don't label it cheesy. It's just like all those
>people who call 40K eldar cheesy because the lose against it or call WHFB
>Dwarves or Empire cheey cause they have good war machines, etc..

>Sorry to the other list members about this, but it bothers me when people
>label armies cheesy because they have trouble beating them or something...
>My point about the psychic phase is that IMO it's not balanced between
>armies, not even remotely, whereas IMO army lists have an overall balance,
>even when some units are better than others.

I'm glad that you remember that this all started when you labelled the 'nids
cheesy because they have too much something or other...

Maybe you should also remember that YOU asked ME to justify my
throwaway/aside comment and I was happy to oblige you.

You don't seem particularly convinced by any of my arguments, but then it is
wisely written that "there are none so blind as those who will not see".
(Which means in this case that if you don't want the answer, don't ask the

Received on Mon Jan 20 1997 - 10:44:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:01 UTC