I'm back after a long summer and will play at least 2 games tomorrow. Opponents will be 'nids, CSM and Chaos Knickets so no need for AA, only loads of firepower
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=134&t=25428 |
Page 4 of 8 |
| Author: | Moscovian [ Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
Good feedback. Dave, Tim is correct. I need to update the list and correct/clarify. Doomscape, I like the fact that you are struggling a little on your builds. Putting together an army shouldn't be easy; it's part of the game itself. Side note- While the number of games I've played over 3000 points are limited, my gut is that the Squats become more useful as the points go up, very much like the Imperial Guard. Let's talk Warriors: Dave is right that the Warriors are there to take hits - bulk one out and you can use it as a hard-to-kill BTS. They are actually close to decent at CC and FF and I'd place them somewhere between Imperial Guardsmen and Orks. Berserkers: I'm not going to open up the infiltrator can-o'-worms again... I don't need any more snarky posts with arrows. Scout? Were they ever scouts? I'm not saying that's a deal breaker, but we've been trying to get the list close to what it used to be. Personally I like the Berserkers - they are cheap mobile formations that can also fit into tunnellers. For 175 points you can bring up a 6 unit strong formation on somebody's blitz. I call that utility! Leviathan: Yeah, I get that it is slow. Squats are slow. But there is more to transportation than speed - you have the best cover in the world. Shields, armor, and believe it or not I've made it work. Use roads - they are your friend. I do disagree that Overlords are the must-have unit. Same thing goes for Goliaths (which are also accused of being a no-brainer). Overlords have massive firepower, but because they have no shields and are support craft they are floating targets. However, what to do about AA? Truth is there is nothing to do. The Squats suffer from AA deficiency, no doubt about it, but they don't have any AA anywhere else. The units simply don't exist. Iron Eagles are not planes no matter how much we want them to be. The Overlords were a stretch for the army because -I agree- they needed something else. I suppose we could add Hunters as an upgrade, or add an AA shot to the war engines maybe? I dunno. |
|
| Author: | Oberst Lynild [ Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
I'm back after a long summer and will play at least 2 games tomorrow. Opponents will be 'nids, CSM and Chaos Knickets so no need for AA, only loads of firepower
|
|
| Author: | Tiny-Tim [ Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
So with the UK tournament scene rapidly coming to its conclusion I'm able to get some more games in with the Squats. What do we need to test? |
|
| Author: | Mark W [ Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
Some feedback on the squats: Love the update to Iron eagles/Hawks. Scouts really helps this list a lot and removes the need for boosts elsewhere that look un-fluffy (Infiltrating bezerkers!) I think the Land train does look more balanced now. Players can use the land train as a 'counts-as' Leviathan or Colossus if they really do like these units better. Personally I think the Land train will now work best as a cheap WE or with lots of cars. Either are nice choices to have. One suggestion on AA - how about having thunderfires as attachable to warrior units with transports pulling the thunderfires(Like Baran Siegemasters.) Since people don't seem to like Warrior units and are worried about AA, this kills a few birds with one stone: 1) Thunderfires add to warrior squad firepower(especially if you add thunderers as well.) 2) Warrior squads have (a few) more numbers and are harder to break 3) Thunderfires can have more protection from the enemy attempting to take out Squat AA. I know thunderfires didn't attach to warriors in lists gone by, but for the here and now this could sort a few problems? Thoughts? Mark |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
It's an intriguing idea about attaching Thunderfires to Warriors. I'd have to mull it over. Anyone else have thoughts on the towed thunderfires? |
|
| Author: | doomscape [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
Well, my two cents; I think (barring proxying) that Thunderfires aren't exactly cheap, and from a new guy perspective it might be nicer to put something like Hunters in with Warrior detachments. I mean from a fluff perspective we're limited anyhow, and I'd rather convert up one of the zillion Space Marine plastic rhinos than endlessly troll Ebay for overpriced Epic models. That being said, if Thunderfires are the way folk want to go, I'm totally sold in that it makes our AA remotely defensible. Though at current points, that brings up a useful Warrior squad, plus Thunderers, plus Thunderfires, to a pretty high level just to get the Warriors and AA into a workable position. |
|
| Author: | Tiny-Tim [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
Being able to increase the size of the Thunderfire formation (or adding them to another formation) would certainly resolve one of the main headaches with the list. Currently mine spend most of their time hiding on over watch and when they do shoot only one can see due to the cover LOS restrictions. For testing I see two ways to go follow Mark W's suggestion and giving the current Thunderfire formation the option to add Warriors to it (say 6 Warriors for 175pts). With my opponents permission I'll try the first choice tonight and combine a Warrior formation with one of my Thunderfires and drop an activation. |
|
| Author: | Borka [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 8:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
Yeah I like Marks suggestion as well. |
|
| Author: | Mark W [ Sat Oct 19, 2013 9:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
@Doomscape - Thunderfires are very pricey on ebay! Personally I've gone for proxies, and I think most 10-15mm anti-airguns are fine. Lots of companies sell these. "A warrior formation may take either two towed thunderfires at 125pts or a hunter at 75pts" doesn't sound overpowered, if it makes things easier for peoples collections. I like the idea of playtesting thunderfires with attached warriors for 300pts as well. I take it this would remain a support formation though? Another idea could be Warriors + Thunderfires + Thunderers as a fixed price core formation that gets a slight discount when you take the 3 together. (Again, drawing from examples in Imperial guard lists) I think this could be a very nice formation, were it just a bit cheaper than 575pts 
|
|
| Author: | Tiny-Tim [ Sat Oct 19, 2013 9:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
Tried out Warriors with Thunderfires last night. The game was 3k against Death Guard with only one formation of Hellblades. I garrisoned the warriors half way up my table half in cover. Over the course of four turns the warriors shot, regrouped, lost a combat ( wiping all out bar one warrior) and was broken again by being in support range. During the first turn one in suppressed Thunderfire shot but in turns 2 & 3 the Hellblades failed to activate and so no further AA was needed. Initial thoughts were mmh as the formation just didn't seem to do much and I would rather have had the additional activation. Having slept on it, I think they provided a hard point that the enemy needed to wipe out and were forced to concentrate a lot of firepower on which left my smaller formations the chance to spread out and win the game. (It was a very lucky win as well as the DG should have won in 4 turns. ) I'm tempted next to try the warriors with three Thunderfires, but this will make them expensive and potentially a soft BTS. This does also raise the issue of the other options warriors can take and will they be worth it or not. In all my games so far I have not upgraded my warriors with anything other than Rhinos or more warriors. Have any of you guys found the upgrades to be of value? |
|
| Author: | doomscape [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
I won't go anywhere now with Warriors that haven't got a Thunderer upgrade, with rhinos of course. I wouldn't want them, the thunderers, and the thunderfires as my BTS though. |
|
| Author: | Mark W [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
I've found Thunderers a good upgrade. I've also found just warriors on their own to be fine so long as they stay in cover, hold an objective and you give the enemy other target priorities. (Land train, Overlord, Cyclops...) |
|
| Author: | settra [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
I also use the thunderers often. The rapiers are also useful. |
|
| Author: | nafets [ Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
dear gentlemen ! In order to increase their durability at least a bit i take three thunderfires place them in cover and most of the times they defend my blitzkrieg. Placing them somewhere in the frontline (garrioson) makes you loose them in the first turn  By defending the blitz you face the problem, that their aa range is restricted (eventhough 60 cm is a great value) They are immobile, and killing them is not that difficult ... i am wondering why there was the need to increase the units costs (+25) The option to pimp the unit The warriors; i like the thunderers but tey are very pricy. In big games i am willing to afford them, in small games they never make it into my list. Warriors+warriors + warlord +rhinos...that is a big thing ...and i use these guys in an offensive way (unsing cover of course) kind regards stefan |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
I've tried every add-on to the Warriors there is, and have even transported them in a Leviathan. They remind me of IG in that they absorb BMs and hold objectives. As you make the formation larger they start to become very Ork-ish in their role and the Squats have managed to take up that middle ground between Imperial Guard and Orks both in style and stats. |
|
| Page 4 of 8 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|