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

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:08:48 GMT

At 01:20 PM 20/1/97 -0500, Brad wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Brett Hollindale wrote:
>
>
>Well this is the last time i'm going to comment on this because it's
>getting pretty pathetic,


Fine by me. I'm sick of you meeting friendly rational discourse with
ranting anyway...


> but i feel i should defend my army from unfounded cheese calling.


Similarly I would like a final rebuttal if I may...


>
>> Actually my point is that this does NOT represent balance. If it did, it
>> wouldn't be "cheesy"...
>
>Sorry but you are wrong... at least IMO and in the opinion of most of my
>opponants (never known one to disagree)


They're probably too afraid of the haranging they would get...


>that the squat SHV are balanced becasue they are easier to kill than titans...


Yep, that's certainly a convincing argument all right! Sorry I still
disagree for the reasons I have already stated at length in previous posts...


>> 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...
>
>You don't seem to understand that some units are just going to be better
>than others...


Actually, I do understand that some units are better than others. What you
don't seem to understand is that if something is overwhelmingly better than
anything else of it's type then it is "you know what'ey".


> yes squat bikes are better than IG bikes,


Actually, squat bikes are better than everyone elses bikes...


> but IG bikes can outnumber anyones bikes


I don't recall saying that they couldn't...



> and as someone pointed out squat bikes are the most expensive bikes in the
game.


Yep, I did slip on the costing of the bikes. They cost 27 pts each to most
other bikes 26 pts each. are actually In single company strength, the
squats are actually on a par with everyone else (except IG). Has anyone
(else) considered the costing of two companies?


>
>> Before Titan Legions, you bet they were! After Titan Legions, the Eldar
>> bikes are probably the worst bikes in the game...
>
>I'm sorry, but this is really sad, your criteria for cheese is whatever is
>good or better than the army you pick it seems...


Yep, this IS really sad. I have explained my criteria and you have either
ignored me or failed to comprehend...


>why bother to have different armies if some armies can't do some things
better than >other armies...


I never said we shouldn't have squats. I made an inocent comment that a
squat player calling another army "cheesy" was pretty funny. You asked me
if I cared to back that up, and I did, and here we are - at each others
electronic throats...


>> 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?) :-)
>
>You still aren't getting it... squat morale is the best because that's the
>nature of dwarves in the warhammer universe... be it in WHFB, 40K, or
>Epic. Just like elves are generally fast, orcs are generaly wild and
>crazy, etc.


No, you still aren't getting it... One army will always be better than all
of the others in a given set of rules. (This is the nature of rules...) I
don't know Jack about Tyranids (no one in my croud wanted to invest) and so
I have formed the conclusion that the army most favoured by the rules is Squats.


>That's NOT cheese it's the flavour of races.


I would guess that that all depends on a definition - doesn't it?


>
>> Some of the Eldar units meat my "cheese" criteria, but moral is not usually
>> the deciding factor....
>
>I'm sorry your cheese criteria IMO is so broad


Does this mean that you know what it is?


> and also IMO bull that itseems you must whine about cheese every game
since so much >seems to be cheese to you.


Nah, whining is for losers. I enjoy butchering a cheesy army with superior
tactics and generalship. (I may not be modest, but at least I don't whine...)


>
>> 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
>
>Of course you don't see how a warlord could be cheesy, it's not squats or
>eldar, it's human, that makes it not cheesy right there...


No, I guess you didn't read my definition of "cheese" after all...



>First off, it's obvious the warlord costs too much..


At least we agree on something...


>second, and i know this from
>experiance with both squats and space marines that all 3 classes of battle
>titan survive longer (void shields aside) because the colossus only gets
>it's save, which is 1+ because it NEEDS to be, and if the save is failed
>it dies... which is why it has a 1+ all around save and 6 void shields...
>you still have to roll damage on a titan except in the case of certain
>special weapons, but the colossus doesn't get any of that. I guess that
>makes the reaver cheese then because it survives longer than something
>that costs the same... and the colossus weapons while good are set in
>stone and you can't change them... another thing the titans have over
>them.
>
>> 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...
>
>This is really pathetic... all you do is whine about cheese.


Yes, it is pathetic. You don't seem to have read a word I have written...


>
>[Stuff accidentally sniped about the Cyclopes]
>
>First off, no the Plasma Destructor doesn't have a 6 on the damage roll
>and it's true you can't fire anything else or move, but it DOES have
>multiple shots at a greater range with a firing arc. And as for the
>cyclopes being able to fire other stuff... it doesn't have much else...
>bolters, well everything big has bolters, 2 battle cannon shots, fine, but
>needing a 5 means normally you need at least =3 shots to get one hit or
>about that... 4 melta cannon shots... 35cm range means you most liklely
>wont hit anything and it's missles are only 1 shot apiece, 4 barrage
>points... all it is is a mobile hellfeury canon which is no where NEAR as
>usefull as you seem to think and useless things can't be cheesy.


Again we agree that useless things can't be cheesy, but again you have
ignored my last posting. If you read it again, you might get some ideas on
how to use the Cyclops that will change your mind.


>
>> That's CHEAPER _and_ HARDER HITTING. And, yeah, that's cheesy...
>
>Again, that's sad... 1 SHOT, just ONE for 150pts per round.... even though
>it's hard hitting they rarely do enough damage to justify their points.
>


Well that's a damn shame, because everyone else's artillery is even worse.


>> >Yeah, that's the nature of squats, higher break points and better morale,
>>
>> more cheese...
>
>More whining... you still don't get it...


Well it's a safe bet that one of us doesn't understand my point of view...


>well i guess since teh SM's
>advantages include titans with the widest weapon selection,


No, I don't think I would list "Titans" under the Space Marines assets.
Space Marines can't buy Titan Battle Groups and 900 pts for a Warlord is a
bit steep IMO. Maybe a Reaver is worth 500 pts since it is about the only
way SM's can buy artillery, but I would have to be designing a very general
purpose army before I would include one...


> vast amount of troops for every occassion,
>extremly fast flying transports that do
>the same as 3 rhinos except move A LOT faster and have real weapons but cost
>the same, and IG hving the widest array of barrage weapons, athe
>leviathan? built by the squats? uh-oh... well all that is CHEESE because
>it's advantages they have over other armies... ok everyone, guess we all
>have to play one generic army.


I don't recall advocating that, I tdo seem to recall answering your question
and being ranted at a lot though...


>
>> I'm glad that you remember that this all started when you labelled the 'nids
>> cheesy because they have too much something or other...
>
>BZZZT! I NEVER said the tyranids were cheesy...


I apologise. I checked your post and you quite explicitly stated the
opposite.




>I said that especially
>after seeing the tyranids psychic abilities that the psychic phase/system
>in epic OVERALL was very unbalanced... which is something i had felt for
>awhile and know that i've seen all the armies played i really think it
>is... not JUST because of tyranids and i DON'T consider them cheesy...


Yes, that's just what you said the first time and once again I apologise for
my mistake.


> I consider the system GW designed to be very unbalanced psychicly.


Why don't you write to GW about it? :-)


>
>> 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
>> question.)
>
>Which you haven't justified as anything more than whining IMO... If you
>think squats are so cheesy, right to GW about it.


Sigh. Thousands of words of reasoned argument flushed as whining...


>
>Look you think Squats (and alot of other things it seems) are cheesy and i
>think you are just whining too much fine, we are obviously never going to
>play each other so why don't we just agree to let it die as we will never
>agree on this issue?
>
>Brad Leffew


Sounds good to me.

Brett Hollindale
Received on Tue Jan 21 1997 - 10:08:48 UTC