| Author |
Message |
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: On Super Sizing Epic Games |
| Lsrwolf |
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:00 pm
|
|
Replies: 41
Views: 8624
|
| 1) We have/could play BFG 8-) Perhaps we could stage the exact ships we bought and the survivors be what is eligible to fire during the Epic battle. 2) All my Phoenix bombers and Night Spinners were deployed. Its just not quite the same... 3) I was thinking within Race mixing rather than between rac... |
|
 |
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: How about amending IG Rough Riders? |
| Lsrwolf |
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:38 pm
|
|
Replies: 84
Views: 12035
|
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: On Super Sizing Epic Games |
| Lsrwolf |
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:29 pm
|
|
Replies: 41
Views: 8624
|
| This was born from the question "Why can't we just field everything we have?" It has grown from there. Based on our 12' x 16' (3.65 m x 4.88m) board, we increased the deployment depth to 45cm deep. By increasing the area by 8x we figured we would have sufficent space for 8x the activations... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: On Super Sizing Epic Games |
| Lsrwolf |
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:28 pm
|
|
Replies: 41
Views: 8624
|
| Try the second page of the thread for some photos Ginger? Though the more the better. Thinking about it I'm a bit surprised we haven't collectively thrown together some guidelines for playing big battles before now, rather than just telling those playing the rules 'aren't balanced' for them. Even i... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: On Super Sizing Epic Games |
| Lsrwolf |
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:27 pm
|
|
Replies: 41
Views: 8624
|
| Ah, I see where you are coming from now Lsrwolf. Ok, historically, many debates on the various forums have been marred by the assumption that the debaters are all playing *exactly* the same game (the Tournament game and objectives, 3000 points, 6'x4' table, 12 pieces of terrain giving ~30% table co... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: On Super Sizing Epic Games |
| Lsrwolf |
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:26 pm
|
|
Replies: 41
Views: 8624
|
| Beginning new Topic about considerations for games larger than 5,000 points. Please add insights and suggestions on considerations for extra large play board sizes and army sizes of 5k, 10k, 20k and up! |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: How about amending IG Rough Riders? |
| Lsrwolf |
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:24 pm
|
|
Replies: 84
Views: 12035
|
| This was born from the question "Why can't we just field everything we have?" It has grown from there. Based on our 12' x 16' (3.65 m x 4.88m) board, we increased the deployment depth to 45cm deep. By increasing the area by 8x we figured we would have sufficent space for 8x the activations... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: How about amending IG Rough Riders? |
| Lsrwolf |
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:09 am
|
|
Replies: 84
Views: 12035
|
| I meant competitive as in playing against many different people. There's 9, 10 of us in my club and most regularly go to tournaments (I rarely do) so we're always exposed to new trends and tactics. In the mountains of Western North Carolina. There are two of us, that's why we play huge games that t... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: How about amending IG Rough Riders? |
| Lsrwolf |
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:26 am
|
|
Replies: 84
Views: 12035
|
| I meant competitive as in playing against many different people. There's 9, 10 of us in my club and most regularly go to tournaments (I rarely do) so we're always exposed to new trends and tactics. In the mountains of Western North Carolina. There are two of us, that's why we play huge games that t... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: How about amending IG Rough Riders? |
| Lsrwolf |
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:04 am
|
|
Replies: 84
Views: 12035
|
| Spirit Troupes that are 6 Wraithlords ? OK, I'm in. According to Carlos though, swapping 6 wraithguard for 6 wraithlords would make the unit worse, not better. |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: How about amending IG Rough Riders? |
| Lsrwolf |
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:51 pm
|
|
Replies: 84
Views: 12035
|
| I was just hoping for a unit where I could field them. What can you do with 50 Wraithlords? 8-) |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: How about amending IG Rough Riders? |
| Lsrwolf |
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:25 pm
|
|
Replies: 84
Views: 12035
|
| Lsrwolf, from some of your comments in this thread I'm starting to question how competitive is your local epic scene. You busted us. We only "fight" with pillows and spit balls. No competition here, we take turns allowing the other to win. So you see infiltrate as a way to almost make up ... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: How about amending IG Rough Riders? |
| Lsrwolf |
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:30 pm
|
|
Replies: 84
Views: 12035
|
| I would agree that they used to be - back when you could give them some mobility. In 40K they move as fast as Swooping Hawks, but they are hamstrung down to 15cm and no transport in Epic. Sure they have a good Armor save, but Infiltrate on a FF unit? Use it and that's just begging to have your first... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: How about amending IG Rough Riders? |
| Lsrwolf |
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 7:50 pm
|
|
Replies: 84
Views: 12035
|
Ginger wrote: Finally all lists have some formations that are better than others on a point-for-point basis (under particular circumstances)
So in your experience, what Eldar unit is that? |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: How about amending IG Rough Riders? |
| Lsrwolf |
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:21 pm
|
|
Replies: 84
Views: 12035
|
| Using the Epic UK stats again: 61 lists.... 61 fms Sentinels 56 lone Shadowswords 26 fms Manticores 28 fms Rough Riders With 300pts to spend on support I think most would go for a flexible Sentinel-Shadowsword combo rather than 2 fms of RR. I know it's an unfair comparison as they do not fill suppo... |
|
|
| Sort by: |