Re: [Epic] more thoughts on Epic40K

From: Ken Taborek <oberon_at_...>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:44:32 -0400 (EDT)

The squats looked OK, at least the bulk of the inf and vehicles. Dunno
about the SHV though, I'm leery of new rules, and those stats were full of
them. It shouldn't be necessary to make new rules to represent the
Overlord and the Cyclops, IMHO.

--Ken Taborek oberon_at_...
"Show respect for age. Drink good Scotch for a change."- random fortune



On Tue, 3 Jun 1997 duckrvr_at_... wrote:

> At 07:00 AM 6/3/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >Do you know that you can find a non-official Squat army list at the
> >
> >Splort page?
> >
> > http://www.caspers.net/bonk/games1.html
>
> I think that's the one I mentioned earlier as being
> over-powered/under-priced for the units. If it is the one I'm thinking of
> it looked remarkable like someone had a chubby for squats. I have no doubt
> that those stats would definitely favor another squat "sit back and pummel
> the enemy" non-tactic-using kind of force.
>
> Temp
>
> But then I might have the name wrong . . .
>
Received on Tue Jun 03 1997 - 18:44:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:32 UTC