Personally, I'm okay with this idea, but "after" an OW action is a somewhat problematic concept that will need clarification.

Borka, honestly I'm not keen on good portions of the Thurgrimm's list and Demiurg list, both, despite my heavy involvement in them. The lists belonged to other players who I call friends and at some point I just had to let it go. Now that the Squats are up for grabs again -so to speak- the guys I normally play with and I wanted to see them more old school. So the Goliath stats I posted are part of a 'new' list for classic Squats.

Neal, I was thinking that the list will need an FAQ section anyway, so including it for this Stubborn concept wouldn't be an issue. The proposed idea might not be enough in the end, but it is a low key place to start.

Ironmonger, how did it play for you?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

If they have 2DC I would account for that in the save. They might have had the same save as the Rhino in SM2 but it still took only one hit to take them out. A 6+ save at 2DC is a lot closer to a 5+ than a 5+ at 2DC. As an example, take a look at the Thunderhawk. It has equivalent armor to a Predator in 40k and 3 structure points, normally that would translate to 4+ at 3DC. It was dropped to 2DC though and got an armour bump to compensate (4+RA).

On the BP, in SM2 the Golaith and Doomsday cannons had Barrage value that were very close to each other (D6+4 and D6+3 respecitvely). Given that I think having them both at the same BP in EA makes sense. They also had the same save mod (-3) which is what the plasma blastgun had (which is MW in EA). I'd think 3BP MW for both, with IC for the Goliath would be a closer fit. MW and IC on arty though is a killer, maybe just MW then if it can't be balanced points-wise.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

There's three ways to go there:

1) after it goes on overwatch



2) after it shoots



3) remove the bit about overwatch



I'd be in favor of the second option, as it follows how things work with a marshal (fire first, then remove BMs).

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I agree with Dave on the goliath MW seems more appropriate. I mean the canon is HUGE and like you point out Dave it was almost the same as the doomsday. It might need to be dropped to 3bp to compensate for MW though.

It would probably be à good thing for the new AC to do what you guys did with the tyranids. I mean start up a few threads on the different squat units and their stats. Seems a lot of us are unhappy with several units in the current thurgrim list and want to be more true to the oldschool unit descriptions/stats.

Cheers

That is what I intend to do. Before I start dumping an untested list on the community though, I want to confer with a few people (Borka, Dwarf Supreme, Dave, Ironmonger, Morgan Vening) to hash out some basic stats, then open things up for discussion once a couple playtests are done. This doesn't mean other people aren't welcome - only that these are the folks who have been pushing things along and are active now.

One of my gripes with new ACs is they drop ideas they have been shuffling around on paper for years into a list and expect everyone to test it. I'd like to test some ideas first, then bring them to the community for larger playtesting. I am all for open development, but not for wasting people's time. If a set of stats don't work AT ALL, best to subject a few to it than many. Once we lay a thin foundation, we'll bring things to the forefront for all to see.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Yeah, I just saw that you've been appointed! I didn't actually know that when I wrote my last comment.

That's good new! I think you'll do a great job!

Congrats!

I had another idea for the stubborn rule.

We could let all squat formations (none automaton) have a "free" leader ability tied to the formation and not any particular unit. It's a bit more powerful than the above, but you still have to actually test for rally and would still only be able to shed one extra marker per turn (most of the time, but two if marshalling). It would also favor staying put since you get -1 for being close to the enemy (I don't really agree though with the above that squats should only be stubborn when not moving/defending, I picture them as equally determined when advancing to avenge whatever slight they've suffered).

The big benefit would be that it's only a "semi-special rule", it's easier to implement and easy to explain to a new opponent that hasn't faced squats before.

cheers