so that's different from any players usual choice of whether or not to withdraw? Or is there an extra "no hackdowns for units within 15cm of an enemy unit" aspect to it, like that particular part of the Fearless rule? I don't think that would be too bad on it's own or particularly hard to explain, although it would preclude the "halve hackdown hits" as that would make them almost Fearless. It also seems fittingly Stubborn, although it's unlikely to be something that will be used all that much (which brings up the point of having it).

The reason we come up with these discussions is to vet the ideas, but -just as one person seems to think it is possible to game- another might see it as a very small issue. As for the bikes, trikes, and Gyros, we could simply limit their withdraw moves to a firm 15cm regardless the unit type.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

On grounds of simplicity it would seem to be better to show the Stubborn rule on infantry unit descriptions arther than an army wide special rule- that would mean that don't have to specify that does nt apply to bikes, trikes and gyros.

We do need to make any Squat special rules simple enough for an opposing player to understand. Thus important to be similar to existing special rules. As per Matt's suggestion on previous page- if stubborn rule is worded similar to ATSKNF then easier for players to get it. Similarly any restrictions on marching ala Necrons.

W_I, those points contradict each other: Making them unit specific and making them army wide. IMO a universal rule is easier to employ, like ATSKNF.

It could be worded like this -
Squats are a tenacious race, stubborn to the core and unwilling to run from a fight, even when it may prove the more sensible option. Broken Squat units with the Stubborn rule may only withdraw up to 15cm instead of two moves (1.13.3). If this withdrawal move ends within the ZOC of the enemy, the units is destroyed (instead of the usual 15cm). In addition, Squat formations add a +1 to their rally rolls.

I don't see this being fiddly or difficult to understand.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

sure, I'm not trying to pee on anyone's ideas, more point out that there are constraints to rule design and that it would make everyone's life easier to stick within them.

As for the version of Stubborn you posted above, wouldn't this seriously gimp the mobile elements of the Squat list, which appear to be vital to the Squat's mobility and ability to capture objectives? Or is it just going to be applied to footsloggers? I wasn't very clear as to whether it would be a universal or unit specific rule.

I'm in agreement with Matt and his 3 options.

I don't, in theory, disagree with TSKNF redux but in practise it's going to be massively overpowered unless the fms get a huge points rise or the fm sizes get slashed down to space marine levels. This doesn't really capture the look and feel of the army for me, so IMO it should be off the table.

Blast marker accumulation is something I do object to massively. It's easily forgotten in the heat of the moment and changes what is a core part of the rules that everyone knows and understands. I didn't like the French 1 more blast marker than units to break a fm, having played against it multiple times and would strongly object to this route being taken.

Bonus to rally seems like the best way to me, be it universal and a slight points boost or conditional ignore enemy within 30 cm. It's simple, practical, easy to factor into points costs and game balance and does feel quite squatty. They either rally like space marines or don't get penalised for enemy close. Squats are not stupid (Or superhuman which would justify TSKNF redux) and will and should make a tactical withdrawl move when they come under extreme fire. Their stubborness is represented by how quickly they return to the fight. Being able to rally fms easier is a pretty good boost, especially around turn 3 when activations are getting tight and both players are doing the objective dance. In addition to that, for me, it just feels right both from a fluff/character stand-point and from an elegant rules design standpoint.

To answer the points made above about it not being practical to apply a stubborn rule of some description just to warriors and beserkers - just include it in the notes section, like Farsight, leader, expendable etc. Easy.

Neil, I think you underestimate just how powerful it is not to be able to shift squats off an objective (And in turn keep you, the opponent, out of 15 cms of it). Especially when dealing with the big warrior fms that are actually quite difficult to beat in an engagement with the amount of 5+s they can roll and all the extra MW attacks and inspiring from various characters and +1-2 outnumbering bonuses etc. Opponents are not going to like it one little bit.

I know that the current idea for 1 retreat move/5cm away rule has caught some of your eyes and looks great from a fluff point of view but it is, in game very impractical and unfair to the opponent. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, trying to find ways to make it work are just going to prove frustrating, circular and a massive waste of everyone's time that could be better spent getting the stats and costs of the individual units worked out.

Hi Mosc

I was trying (and apparently failing) to make 2 separate points:

1) Some people have suggested exempting the likes of bikes, trikes and gyrocopters from any such Squat special rule. I was simply suggesting that for the sake of clarity that, if we went down the route of the special rule only applying to certain Squat units, that I would prefer that we simply note this special rule in the unit description for those units for which it applies e.g. infantry.

2) I was agreeing with Matt's point that it makes it easier for non-squat players to understand the Squat special rules if they can relate it to other existing EA special rules- i.e. ATSKNF-lite.

Cheers

James

Good discussion, but so far I see a lot of people digging their heels in on their positions. When that happens, there is only one way to handle it: playtest.

It is very easy to criticize and bring nothing to the table. The difficult part after identifying problem is finding a solution. Curis has identified a potential problem in the list (10cm move) and has offered a solution in the form of this new special rule. I think we need to give it a whirl. Not everyone has to like it, but that's why we have army champs - to act as punching bags so that progress can be made.

I've heard the opposition to the idea; I disagree that it is enough to dismiss Curis' ideas outright (which is really what is going on here). The rule provides flavor, good/bad elements, and it is shortsighted to not test it.

So, for those who don't like it, if you had to deal with it, what can we do to tweak it? I'd like to have a workable idea to run with for the weekend. I made a proposal above that addressed one of Stompzilla's concerns (bikes and gyros) but now Matttthemuppett thinks it is too much of a nerf. Too much, too little, no satisfying everybody. Still, let's hammer out a solution to try out.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I can set up a situation and provide photos of exactly why it won't work.

Honestly if I thought it'd work I'd be open minded. I have nothing personal invested in which version of the rule gets used and don't really care which one gets used as long as it works. Chris' latest idea won't work though and simple application of applied theory and a bit of math-hammer shows why. There's no need to waste valuable and time consuming playtest time with it. Curis is my pal and we discussed this at the weekend, so I most certainly don't have anything personal invested in shooting down the idea (If anything the opposite is true). It's just not practical and I'm sure Curis will agree once he has the chance to sit down and properly think about the full ramifications - which he freely admitted he hadn't done when he suggested it.

I'm quite busy at the mo but will happily provide said evidence, should it be required, when I have the chance.

Failing that, why not get people playtesting one of the two rally ideas over the weekend and see if it works. It's simpler to implement and roll out and has a decent amount of support and playtesting can begin immediately.

Because it is boring and I think this idea feels better. I don't know what else to say. I'd like to make Curis' idea work in some format and I feel like it is worth checking out. However, feel free to post a diagram. I like pictures and it certainly can't hurt. This isn't MY list though and it certainly isn't YOURS, Stompy-doo. It's the community's list.
--
Everyone, this is a normal process for list development. Some might lose patience with it but IMO it is wrong to dismiss a good idea based on the whim of one person who can shout the loudest. With that said, if you have an idea that you think will work that differs from Curis' proposal, post it.

Think about what people seem to be hungering for: Something distinctive, easy to understand, universal to the list, flavorful. My personal feeling is I like the good/bad nature of the special rule above. The 10cm move was intended to capture the 'feel' of the Squats. If we don't use it, certainly between the many years of experience on the boards here we can generate an idea that satisfies these criteria.

This list will get figured out and it will be good. And most importantly of all it will be a collaboration- a community effort. That may not be the fastest, easiest way of doing things but the Epic community deserves the best. If that requires some hard work, I'm okay with that.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

that's all cool Mosc and I'm sure that the burning hot crucible of Taccoms will forge a truly awesome list, along with some grumpy faces along the way

I think it would be worth summarising the different options, ideally with pros/cons and "fluffyness". I'm pretty sure we're all clear on the desire to get something that represents Squats being a) short b) bloodymindedly stubborn (a bit like Ecuadorians, so I have some experience of this) tough nuts and c) likes guns, the bigger the better.

That way we can begin winnowing the options (or groups of options) down to the point where they can be empirically tested against each other. I'll reiterate again, I'm happy to play with or against Squats over Vassal in the evenings/ EST time if anyone has the time.

Good idea.

--
The movement of 10cm was done to make the Squats ‘feel’ more Squat-like. In other words, the army would move slower. That slowness was to be mitigated by their stout qualities via their stats and the special rule known as “Stubborn”.
For right now we’re exploring the idea of putting all the infantry at 15cm moves and adjusting the stubborn rule to have a larger effect. I’d like us to create a rule that has as many of the following values as possible:
• Easy to balance
• Easy to understand
• Simple
• Universally applied (like And They Shall Know No Fear for the Space Marines)
• Choice based (must make a decision to activate it)
• Something that makes Squats feel slower
• Is both a penalty and a reward (good/bad qualities)
• Lives up to the name ‘stubborn’
• Hearkens to the old game
• Flavorful (or translating into British… ‘flavourful”)

Now we are not going to be able to make a rule that accomplishes all of these bullets, however we can try to get as many as we can in. Here are some ideas from on and off the forum:
• Remove 1 BM each time the Squat formation makes a move that does not involve movement (original idea).
• Halve hack-down kills.
• Change the auto-destroy range from 15cm to 5cm when broken.
• Change the auto-destroy range from 15cm to 10cm when broken.
• Take one more BM to break a Squat formation (# of units +1 BM)
• Ignore the first "hackdown" kill from assault resolution or BMs while broken.
• Ignore the -1 to rally for being within 30cm of the enemy.
• Squat formations get a +1 to all rally rolls.
• Reduce the withdraw move for broken formations to 1 move instead of 2.
• Reduce the withdraw move for broken formations to up to 15cm.
• Squat formations do not take BMs for coming under fire when they take no casualties.
• Halve the number of Blast markers a Squat formation would normally receive for whatever reason, rounding up. For example, a Squat formation that is caught in a crossfire, suffers three Disrupt hits and fails one save would receive three Blast markers (five Blast markers normally, halved and rounded up to three).
• Squat formations receive only half of the extra hits suffered from losing an assault (see EA 1.12.7), rounding up.
• Formations take a -1 for marching activation rolls.
• Formations take a -1 for doubling and a -2 for marching on their activation rolls.
• Squat formations that are broken can forego a withdrawal move and suffer no hack down kills.
That is a list of every idea I can find, broken down into their basic elements. Nealhunt suggested earlier that piecing one, two, or three ideas together might work better than a single idea by itself, a point I can agree with. Curis’ idea that the hack-down kills only happen within 5cm but the Squats can only make a single withdrawal move is a good example of the combo-meal we are looking for.
So, let’s continue, shall we? Which combo would work best?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Possibly, but keep in mind I've been dealing with this same issue in the TSons list for years now. I have a hard time seeing how Squats could be worse, with almost no armor and vulnerability to hackdown hits. Numbers only make up for so much compared to the TSons monster stats.

As far as the "hackdown range" concept...

The abusive abilities on fast units was pointed out. Even if it ends up even with respect to points, it's going to be gamey and feel unfair/unfun.

The other issue raised was that making squats too hard to shift would likely require smaller formations and/or higher point costs to avoid effects similar in kind (even if lesser in effect) to large all-Fearless formations that become impossible to move. Hard is good. Too hard is bad.

The potential fixes discussed:

1) Making it infantry only. There is no easy mechanism in the rules for applying this. Since withdrawals are based on formations, having it apply to only some units is problematic and should probably be avoided. Applying it to only specific formations has to be done in the army lists as the formations are specified, so it becomes an army list rule rather than an overall Squat rule. Applying it to the squat army is obviously not infantry-only.

2) Making it single-withdrawal or fixed distance. This mitigates the issue somewhat, but still allows a defeated Squat formation to press towards the enemy and potentially fence off objectives, even after losing an assault. It would likely cause issues with more mobile elements being unable to retreat/regroup, which might or might not be acceptable - good in that it is limiting, but bad in that the limit doesn't make as much sense in non-assault situations.

3) Making it a choice of 0cm w/o hackdown or normal withdrawal. This gives a sort of "fight or flight" dichotomy and is simple in concept, but writing concise rules for it could be challenging.

==

#1 is right out, imho.

On #2, I think if you combine +1 to rally (or w/in 30cm), the concern inability for the squats to rally is mitigated, while leaving them a bit slow to respond to enemy pressure. That only leaves concerns about an inability to push Squats off an objective. Differences of opinions exist on how big of a problem that is, so I think only playtesting will tell.

On #3, I think it has the advantage of being "Fearless Lite" (as opposed to the talk about "TSKNF Lite"). It's the same choice with the less effective middle ground removed, so I think that even if the text itself isn't easy to write, the existing concept will help players to understand. The same issues about pushing Squats off objectives still exist but, again, playtesting will tell.

I think the 15cm withdraw and 5cm(/ZoC) hackdown range, with +1 to rally covers most of these.

Easy to understand, Simple - all it does is change distance measurements.
Universally applied - affects all units and formations without confusion.
Makes Squats feel slower - cuts Withdrawal moves a lot.
Penalty and Reward - yep.
Stubborn - yep.
Hearkens to the old game - bonus to rally from SM2.
Flavorful - yep.

Easy to Balance - It will take some testing, but I think it won't be a problem.

That only leaves out "choice based."