Also, keep in mind that even if Squat infantry moves 15cm, there are still plenty of 10cm field artillery units in the army to slow things down.

To me there is a difference between having a small artillery formation moving 10cm (i.e. Ork Big Gunz) and core large infantry formation doing likewise (i.e. Squats). Just because 10cm is fine for Ork Big Gunz does nt mean that should also be fine for Squats.

Agree. I can see why 10cm was tried but I think that it's been proven not to work now.

If we can agree on 15 cm move, the stubborn rule, and an autocannon/missile launcher for each infantry unit then development of this list will move forwards in a great leap and we can all get to work on statting and costing the various units and getting to grips with the structure of the army list (This is a discussion for another day though - although on Sat when Chris and I played, he did comment that he wasn't really picking a list he could just pick things he liked i.e. there were no hard choices to make. I think a move towards warriors and beserkers being core and everything else either being support or WE with a 2:1 support to core ratio would work better, but like I said, a discussion for another day.)

I don't think it has been proven, but I think there is some evidence to show it is problematic. Consider this: the 10cm move isn't going away unless we can find a suitable replacement for it.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

15cm?

Seconded. Glad we got that sorted...

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

It's certainly been proven not to work with the current lack of special rules to mitigate post-engangement hackdowns.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The 15 cm move?

I think it's categorically been shown not to work by the lengthy battle report submitted recently and by anecdotal evidence from previous games which can now be shown to be reliable, following said battle report, that have been analysed and their findings reported but not done blow for blow as the latest one was.

We playtest for epic-UK and their lists have been working out pretty well and balanced in cut throat, tournament play and we have shown with the recent bat-rep that we know what we're doing and also, that 10 cm move doesn't work. What more do you need? How many other playtesters of this list have the same experience and have gone to the same effort to present their findings? None as far as I can see.

I'm sorry Mosc, it was a nice idea but it's been tried and shown to not work. What more can be done to prove it?

Surely 2+ to activate and SR 2 shows the squats slower muster and represents this quite nicely.

Does the argument about racial movement (Eldar should have 20 cm move by the squat 10 cm movement reasoning), in addition to all the supplied evidence still not convince? The only other squat playtest I've seen, didn't finish the game and had some flaws but even they said they felt that 10cm move was inadequate. I keep hearing about these other playtest groups that have different findings but have yet to read a bat-rep, never mind a detailed one, of the standard you requested - or even decent anecdotal evidence that we can analyse and discuss. It's just "The other group says no".

What is their experience level? How skilled are the players? What armies did they take? What was the terrain like? Did the game go all the way to turn 3/4? Was there bad luck dice involved? What were the winning tournament scenario missions? Did they even play the tournament scenario?

The only people who seem to be doing detailed playtesting are my group and we all say that 10 cm doesn't work. I'm sorry Bill, but I can't help but detect a double standard here.

And the rest..









Three times. First time I decide to launch it anyway due to strength of supporting fire. Second time I decide to activate something different. Third time I decide not to engage but shoot instead with a different formation.




Yeah. Though that's becuase Stomp didn't launch any engagements against any of the Warriors or the Berserkers. No opportunities for it to come up.

You can make armies that win games without engagements (for example Tau), just give them better guns (stat analysis says that squat infantry are woefully undergunned compared to their Space Marine era forebears - warriors should have a missile launcher each and thunderers should have 3). That might well make launching engagements less attractive than shooting under most circumstances, or at least be a start in that direction.

I'm not saying that 10cm is the only solution, but it is a solution tha could merit more than one skinning attempt and then dismissal.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Did you miss all the points that showed that a 10cm move vastly reduced the squat's shooting too by having to double when, for most armies a single would have sufficed?

Also, the objective capturing issues?

Tau are fast and shooty. Fast and shooty works. Slow and shooty, not so much.

Additionally we've been testing, as a group, the 10 cm move for quite a while now and have played a good number of games against a good number of different army types, however our findings have not been done in as much detail and are simply put down as "Anecdotal evidence".

Incidently I agree on the firepower issue.

Not a double standard at all. Well, maybe a slight one. My own playtest group hasn't published any because I'm there when the games are played. When something comes up we stop, go look at the board, and talk about it. I make notes sometimes. If there is a double-standard, it is geographically imposed, not personally.

Let's look at your playtest game, for instance. You are fielding Squats against Black Templars which is not a core army (problem one). Is it safe to say that your experience has been predominantly with the Templars? Exclusively? Problem two. Curis' set up was spread like a cheerleader (problem three) knowing full well you had an army to fall from the sky on him. I didn't want to bring these up because I don't like second guessing people's tactics and games, but these are three things that stand out.

You take Morgan's list where the 10cm move was used for the last 20 months +/- and, while it struggled, the list didn't have nearly the problems you are bringing up. I can't speak for Morgan, but I can say that we run frequent tournaments here in the U.S. and we are anything but pushovers. We may not have the benefit of short distances you have in the UK, but we do well enough. At the end of the day, my groups' games had very few issues come up related to the movement. So I have ONE, (1) group telling me it doesn't work.

My response? Let's get an alternative that captures the feel of the Squats. I don't see how that is closed minded at all. What you are asking for is for me to simply agree because you say so and that isn't going to happen. I have a large group with many different thoughts and feelings that I need to listen to. This list is nothing like I originally designed it, so there is no personal investment here either.

The Squats need to be distinctive. Really, that is what the movement is all about.

Contrary to some, I don't want the Squats turning into Imperial Guard Deux. That is boring. It isn't worth the effort. Die-hard Squat fans will hate it. I can easily balance the list with 1-2 special rules and give everything IG stats and be done in a couple weeks. It is a mistake, however. You seem to have a tournament-centric mentality and that is where our paths divurge. I need to come up with a list that is flavorful, classic, fun, "old school", fresh, balanced internally, balanced externally, AND tournament ready. Old players need to feel good about it. New players need to be able to pick it up. Squat fanatics need to be able to smell White Dwarf articles on every page. AND I need it to fit in with a fan supplement with brand new fiction and other lists. My mission is bigger and I can't afford to think so narrowly.

Getting back to the movement (which is where all this stems from). I'm asking for alternatives. I don't like yours (ignore the -1 modifier). Neither do a lot of people. Get over it. Come up with something else. You have no idea how many of my ideas have been shot down that I am (still) convinced would work great. Oh well, I'll live.

If you don't like Curis' idea, come up with something ELSE. Throwing the same ideas up here and the same arguments for those comments will result in one thing: a longer thread. That's it. You like candid responses so hopefully this one will appeal to your style.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Then perhaps consider slow and extremely shooty.
Iron Eagles and bikers can go capture the objectives, just like rough riders and scout tanks do for the siegemasters.

In my mind, Squats have two themes:

- Fat bikers
- Extreme levels of firepower

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

You just described about a third of my neighborhood.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Black Templars are a core list and are deemed balanced and tournament legal and even underwent a review just last year based on a good length of time of tournament play and are as balanced a list as you're likely to find.

Additionally squat have been tested againt other tournament accepted lists from a strict ruling body, including Chaos, different types of Eldar, standard marines and others.

If we're finding and demonstrating these problems that are so frequently occuring in our squat games against a variety of opponents and ours is apparently the only gaming group to have thee issues, then what does that say? Some of our members attend a tournament a month and compete against the bet in the world....

We've been quite tranparent in our reults and methods. They're there for analysis and fault finding. Lets ses some reports from these groups who apparently have no problems, so that the favour can be returned.

Additionally, the tournament-centric mind-set is what tests the balance of lists and their fairness and playability. If you haven't got a good list to work from, then all the fluff in the world isn't going to make people want to play with or against it. Once you've got a good, fair and characterful list then you can knock yourself out with fluff writing or whatever else you like and it'll actually be used and ENJOYED both by opponents and the squat players themselves.

Without a good list though, all you have is apretty book full of cr*p + pictures and fluff and a list that'll only br dug out every once in a while, rather than enjoyed week in week out.

You say tournament-centric, I say list design-centric.

Also, how i coming up with a new idea that won't work better than repeating one that I know will? You've already stated that the only reason it's not being considered, despite all the good, logical arguments for it, or similar rules, is that YOU don't like it and YOU find it boring.

In my opinion, you are a terrible designer of army lists. I include the Necrons, recently been torn to shreds and put back together into a workable list by people who are not terrible, in this.

That's me. Done. Interest fled. I have precious little enough spare time without wasting it banging my head against your wall of illogic, double standards and whimsy.

If Chris wants to write his own squat list (Which I've recommended he do on several occasions) I'll help but I refuse to waste anymore of my precious gaming time, play-testing this atrocious list and banging my head off of your wall of idiocy.

Dummy, well and truly spat out of the pram.