From the discussion here, I wanted to open up discussion on the stubborn rule as it relates to the 10cm movement.

Currently the Squat infantry have a 10cm move and the discussion is whether or not that is viable. Think about that in conjunction with the current Squat stubborn rule:



There have been previous discussion about the stubborn rule, but since the movement is a key factor in assaults and specifically hack down kills, it seems necessary to revisit this now.

My personal feeling is that the rule above is very easy to use and has a subtle but noticeable effect on the game. Were we to find the 10cm move unworkable (for whatever reason) I'm inclined to keep it as is. However, if the 10cm move is retained, does it need help?

Folks have offered up some good ideas for stubborn alternatives:
*Ignoring the -1 penalty when rallying within 30cm of an enemy unit.
*Making each formation a leader (spirit stones for Squats).
*Modifying the hack down kills for formations that break.
*Ignoring the requirement for adding a BM when coming under fire.
*Others...

As I see it, there are four different ways to capture the Squats being stubborn:
1. By modifying their stats. The benefit here is there is no special rule involved.
2. By making it more difficult to break Squats. This may be done by removing BMs or changing the way in which BMs are accumulated.
3. By mitigating the disadvantages of breaking (such as hack down kills).
4. By assisting the Squats in rallying (ignoring penalties or adding bonuses to rally rolls).

Were we to change the stubborn rule, the modified version would be one of these four or potentially some combination of them. We should strive for something eloquent. Something that you can read once, memorize, and not have to refer back to the special rule every time you activate a formation.

No poll here - just input from the community. This is brainstorming time, so don't be shy about throwing your ideas up on the table.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

My suggestion for stubborn: halve hackdown hits, and change the auto destroy range from 15cm to 5cm when broken.

That feels like a rule that will work with a 10cm move, and also show the character of the army more than "we like to sustain fire". A huge no to ignoring enemies within 30cm when rallying, as that can be "gamed".

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I'll pretty much always take an incentive-based approach, like WAAAGH! for the Orks, to a hard restriction. Let the player decide if an otherwise suboptimal choice is worth the risk in a particular situation. To that extent, I like the "bonus for not moving" as a way to model their slow-and-steady approach than a penalty to move rate.

I also like the idea of keeping the special rule thematically consistent. Overall, TSKNF works on the "halve BM effects" principal. It would be nice of Stubborn was the same.

If you wanted to go with a "they are steady in the face of the enemy" idea, then a reduced range for all the "enemy close" penalties would provide a benefit in a variety of situations and could be thematically consistent. The size of that bonus could be modified based on how much those "danger close" ranges are reduced. So, you could reduce the range of the rally penalty and hackdown range for Withdrawal moves.

Or, if you would prefer an "Ignore the last BM" thematic approach, you might go with something like 1) it takes one more BM to break a Squat formation (# of units +1 BM), and 2) they ignore the first "hackdown" kill from assault resolution or BMs while broken.

I played a game last week and the current rule only came into effect ones (we didn't get to play the third turn though due to time constraints). I think it's effect is to small, it didn't give me the feel of a stubborn army like squats used to have back in the days when I played SM/TL.

I think the stubborn rule should most of all benefit the infantry formations and these you often want/need to move/manouvre with. In my game it was mostly the artillery that would have benefited if they would have had any BM.

I'm also against the current rule for thematic reasons. I picture squats(/dwarfs) as being equally stubborn on the advance going to avenge whatever their pist about (think fantasy resolute).

My personal favorite from the suggestions so far is the "no -1 to rally for being close to enemy". It would help mitigate some of the disadvantages of the 10cm move.

Some kind of ignore BM rule or no BM for coming under fire would also be in my liking compaired to the current rule.

Another suggestion could be to give them a straight +1 to rally (probably to much, perhaps attached to Warlords and Guild Masters only? They used to give +1 to morale in SM/TL). I'm not really sugesting this, just brainstorming, my favorite is still the no -1.

cheers

What about dropping the idea of Stubborn being an all-encompassing morale rule, like TSKNF, and going with a couple pieces?

For example, use the Iron Discipline rule from the IG to get general BM resistance and their "taking it to the enemy" mentality, then add something like "Stand and Deliver" with the -1BM if they take an action where they don't move, that captures their affinity for static fire positions.

I think a combination would work great, although what two pieces to put together is as much a mystery as ever.

What about this...
Squats remove 1BM on the roll of each successful activation; the BM being removed prior to the activation itself. In addition, broken formations take hackdown kills only if within 10cm of an enemy unit.

The 1BM removal is a variation on the current rule but doesn't encourage static play. In fact, it encourages players to act quickly (retain?) to obtain the bonus and forces opponents to retain when 'prepping' Squat formations for an assault. The hackdown modification shows the Squats standing stalwart in the face of the enemy and helps mitigate the 10cm movement.

Not the tactical choice the current rule is, but it certainly is an improvement. Too much?

Brainstorming some more, here are some other ideas. They aren't meant to be all together, just seeds for discussion.
Squats rally at a +1.
Since most of the Squat formations have an initiative of 2+, it would give them essentially a 1+ initiative for rallying. This simple rule would be an easy one to justify and remember. Broken formations would rally in the face of opposition. This is more powerful than the Iron Discipline option.

Squats do not suffer a penalty in assaults when greatly outnumbered.
Seems kinds stubborn.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I think your suggestion is a big improvement.

On another note;
A variation of the "no BM for coming under fire"-suggestion could be that they don't take BM for coming under fire as long as no casualties are inflicted (basically no kills=no BM, 1 kill=2BM etc).

Borka, that's fittingly stubborn, but it would also make it nearly impossible to prep Squat fms for assaults or break Squat WE, both of which are fairly central to the basic game mechanics.

For stubborn, I think a mix of a bonus to rallying and something to mitigate hackdown hits would work well and be pretty flavoursome. I think the "ignore enemy within 30cm for rallying" and "halve hackdown hits" would be pretty stubborn without being overpowering. After all - it's stubborness in the face of the enemy that I think you're trying to represent, so global benefits such as a uniform +1 to rallying don't really represent that. I think the 1BM auto removal would be a bit fiddly and raise more than a few eyebrows (something the old Squat lists did pretty well ).

Spit balling.

TSKNF-lite:



So rather than accumulated BMs as normal, and then halving them for the purposes of suppression/assault/etc, you halve as you get them. The result is a less powerful TSKNF, at the expense of doing math every time a squat formation is fired upon, rather than when it activates. It represents their higher break point from SM2.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Sounds simple and avoids too much in way of rules complications.

I like this suggestion. But Daves also has merit in my opinion.

This from Curis...



I like this. The more I think about it the more it appeals to me. In fact, I'll probably try it out on the next game with Squats at a 15cm move. My only thought on it right now is I'd like to see Squats get a (-1) to march activations in conjunction with this idea from Curis. It was a suggestion from before that didn't seem to have much oompf.

Stubbornness is one of those qualities that is both bad and good, depending on its timing. Most special rules have centered around stubbornness being a benefit, but what if it weren't? What if it was a good/bad combo? This intrigues me and IMO feels very Squat-like. It potentially means repricing and redoing stats for the Squats, but I am not so married to the list that we can't do that.

Curis, what are your thoughts on scouts? Would their 10cm ZoC cause hackdowns to the Squats fleeing?

What does everyone else think about Curis' idea?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

That seems pretty tough on the Squats. They'll effectively be within engage range of the formation they just assaulted and lost to. If that formation hasn't activated for the turn it can chase after them with at least a +1 to its assault resolution which will completely wipe the Squats off if the enemy wins. The squats will also have a tougher time getting outside of 30cm for rallying.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Which may account for them being eaten by the Tyranids. "We lost the last five engagements, but I'm thinking six times lucky!"

His idea is embyonic, but I think it is worth fleshing it out, warts and all. Maybe combine it with a +1 on all rally rolls? <-- this is virtually the same as giving Squat warriors a 1+ initiative, but only for rallies. It also improves the Super-Heavies to a standard that many core playtesters were itching to have them at.

Can Curis' idea work, either in its raw form or a modified form?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

That NFNS proposal is comparable to the Rubric rule on the TSons, which seems to be working (from the modest feedback I've received so far). Of course, Rubric units are fully Fearless, so hackdowns from BMs and wipeouts from lost assaults are not a vulnerability.

It is definitely flavorful. +1 to Rally and reduced Withdrawal both fit the "Stubborn" descriptor. I like it being not entirely positive.