Re: [Epic] Uncheesy detachments

From: Thane Morgan <thane_at_...>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 19:05:33 -0700

Miller, Chris wrote:
>
> > >
> > > You _couldn't_ cheese out an army solely through composition in
> > SM/TL
> > > precisely because of something people seem to loathe - the army
> > cards.
> >
> > Who loathes army cards? I've never heard anyone ever
> > complain about them in the past...
> >
> ---------> I remember quite a few posts early on when E40K came out
> where people did nothing but dis the cards. Hasn't come up recently, but
> a lot of those people are gone or at least calmed down...
> (I thought you were one of the holdouts and thought SM/TL was better
> etc.?)
>
> > > For most armies, the 1 special card per company card and max of 5
> > > support cards per company card with prechosen unit sizes on each
> > card
> > > prevented a cheese-out. Now some of the actual units were
> > overpowered or
> > > underpowered for the cost, but the cards limited the quantity of
> > these
> >
> > Hooey. Specials were somewhat limited, but I've never
> > seen anyone have problems with running out of support slots.
> > You want tons of 50pt Thawks? No prob. A couple of batteries
> > of barrage missile deathstrikes? Go ahead! Cheesy armies are
> > definitely possible in SM/TL unless the players decide to limit
> > themselves (Agro's Rule of Three is a good start).
> >
> -------> That's what I really hate about Scott's posts - it's so
> hard to tell what he's thinking...pick a side,man!!!
> : )
> The T-hawks can be a problem, but I haven't noticed an
> extreme durability on their part in the post-TL environment. They
> usually get that first turn's move then BAM! You also still have to buy
> a company card to enable their purchase, which can inflate their cost a
> bit by increasing the minimum investment to get them.
> The deathstrikes are a bigger problem IMO, as one T-hawk
> move usually won't win the game but one good roll with a barrage missile
> certainly can. We just never had anyone take extreme amounts of these,
> but yeah, adding 5 to an IG arty co would be obscene. Unless of course,
> as the opponent you take those 5 T-hawks...
> Again I'd say every army had some kind of cheesy
> arrangement it could take advantage of. There's the two above, and even
> with orks, you could have the KOS take 5 batteries of Pulsa rokkits and
> use Mega-gargants as the core of unbreakable hordes of nobz & boyz.
> Chaos could take those cheesy T-hawks _and_ have specially-powered chaos
> marines jump out of them. Eldar had probaly the least cheese
> structurally (are 10 doomweavers cheesy?) but had enough special crap
> otherwise that they shouldn't feel too left out...
> BUT - under E40K I can take 10 Thawks as a seperate unit,
> Deathstrikes too. Abuses were possible under the old system (OK), but
> here I just didn't see them as much. Maybe it was the way things were
> grouped - I really think having to buy a company card controlled a lot
> of this abuse as if I had a spare 300 points I couldn't just add in 5
> more deathstrikes - I had to find a slot for them and buy them in groups
> of 3. I tended to see (roughly) 1 company + support per 1000 points
> (though admittedly the more points you had the less certain this was).
> You had a second constraint beyond simple points value which meant units
> like T-hawks, though cheap in points, were "expensive" in terms of
> slots, and you could find yourself in the interesting position of having
> a lot of points and not too many slots left.
> > I don't suppose anyone held onto the Great Mailing List
> > Battle between the all-THawk Chaos army and the 'Nids?
> >
> --------> An illustrative and enlightening cheese-fest no doubt...
>
> > > I like the flexibilty of the new
> > > system but it's certainly open to abuse.
> >
> > As was the old system.
> >
> --------> Still don't think it's as "twistable" as the old one...
>
> Chris MillerI just ran into a unit of 5 thunderhawks, 5 marauders. It shreaded 3
detats on the ground, and intercepting this unit with flyers (which I
didn't have anyway) probably would have led to the death of the
interceptors.

Thane
Received on Sat Feb 07 1998 - 02:05:33 UTC