Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Spotting Rule, removing it, replacing it, or revising it

 Post subject: Spotting Rule, removing it, replacing it, or revising it
PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6396
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
I'd like to finish up the Thurgrimm Squat list, and with only a few dangling issues, I'd like to get this one resolved.

There is currently a spotting rule that allows the war engines to fire indirect while moving when a spotting unit has LOS and range to a target. It's an okay rule and is pretty easy to get your brain around, but the more I think about it, the less I believe the list needs it. The rule comes into play so seldom. And then there is the (valid) argument that it is way better than the Tau spotting rule.

The idea behind it was to touch on the old Colossus Iron Eagle landing on its back and doing cool things. Yeah, that's cool - I get it.

I have three ideas on how to deal with this:

1. Remove it. It's gone. Take the spotter ability from the Overlords and remove the Iron Hawk unit. The benefit is that it streamlines the list with one less special rule and -let's face it- reduces the eye rolling from opponents.

2. Revise it. I hadn't even thought what to replace it with, but whatever it is would have to be just as easy or easier to implement. I'm open to suggestion, but wary we may open a can of worms.

3. Remove it, but replace it by adding a little fun option to the Colossus. Add an Iron Eagle to the Colossus and make them a formation. The only rule exception would be there is no unit coherency between the Colossus and the Iron Eagle. You could technically have one unit on the other side of the board from the other. They would still fire on the same formations, still collect blast markers the same way, still get suppressed front to back.

Benefits would be you could draw crossfires easier, have a little extra fire power, and get to land your Iron Eagle on the Colossus once you have secured your victory. Drawbacks are that you could potentially open up your Colossus to an assault by attacking the lone Iron Eagle. You snooze you lose.

Anyway, it's a fun little idea that would mean a single line item saying "Iron Eagle spotter does not need unit coherency with the Colossus." I'm not married to the idea in any way, just trying to satisfy some old school Squat players while making the list easy to play (and play against).

_________________
Current Fan-made Epic Supplements
[url=http://www.tacticalwargames.net/resources/raiders2.zip]Epic: Raiders 2.0

Epic: Siege
Making your own Epic Supplement
Syncing Forward


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Spotting Rule, removing it, replacing it, or revising it
PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:31 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4412
Location: North Yorkshire
If we are going to go with a change I'd say remove it.

Could look at marker lights and coordinated fire. But this would push the list back.

I don't think indirect fire is an option either.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Spotting Rule, removing it, replacing it, or revising it
PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 10:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1368
Location: Örebro, Sweden
I don't really play the list any more, but here's my 0.02$

I like it to stay, it's fluffy.

But if you remove it, then perhaps just add a gyrocpoter to the colossus with the scout rule, which has been suggested earlier. That keeps the staying close to the old background without using any special rules.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Spotting Rule, removing it, replacing it, or revising it
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2014 1:11 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:54 pm
Posts: 304
I'm mostly in favour of keeping it, but find it worthy of a brainstorming discussion.

I think about
1) How does it affect the overall list?
2) How does it affect the big three war engines (levithan, colussus, land train)

1) Overall I find that the squat list has an overabundance of AP fire, but really misses out on AT and MW. If I'm up against a lot of heavy tanks (landraiders, leman russ) I've either got to go heavy on the airwing battle cannons or use the doomsday cannons on the big three.

I find the macroweapons on the doomsday cannons my main 'tool' and if we were to weaken it with the spotter rule removal then I'm going to struggle more against vehicles and WE

2) Leviathan: I find it a bit sub-par. It's got decent doomsday cannon but it doesn't get to use any of the lascannons until it's within 30cm. It can transport infantry, but most of that infantry has free rhinos/termites. I would rarely take it.

Colossus I use a fair bit more often. It's a decent all rounder that can focus on a warmachine with the battle cannons. It's my main anti-tank.

The Land train I don't use as much, although it has the best doomsday cannon when it takes a Rad Bomb car to get the precious 4BP MW shot.


I use the spotter rule in three situations:

1) Getting plain of Indirect on the cannon to double the range and hit guys behind cover when sustaining

2) Advancing to get close to use the secondary weapons.

3) Getting indirect when Marshalling.

Of the three, I find #1 the most useful.

If you wanted to simplify the spotter rule you could make it "Doomsday cannons are able to Indirect Fire" and leave out the other three actions. It would weaken the war engines slightly and make them more static and would take more Sustain options.

But at the moment I find the War Engines to be pretty okay. When I place down my Colossus I simply tell my opponent "It's pretty much a slower Reaver Titan" and they're ok with that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Spotting Rule, removing it, replacing it, or revising it
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:04 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:54 pm
Posts: 304
In fact, when I'm evaluating a war engine I usually compare it to the Titans in the Titan Legion List. It's probably the most popular "Non standard list" around here.

Colossus Vs Reaver Titan
Move : 15cm Move : 20cm
Armour: 4+ Armour: 4+
CC : 5+ CC : 3+
FF : 4+ FF : 3+
DC : 5 DC : 6
VOID : 4 CC : 4

The Doomsday Cannon is exactly a Quake Cannon
The 4 Battle Cannons and a Thunderer are 5xAP4/AT4 which is a crappier Gatling Blaster with 6xAP4/AT4
And the spotter rule is s.ightly crappier Carapace Landing Pad that is reliant on fragile aircraft being in range

(I'm ignoring the Plasma Missiles as I rarely find a reason to fire them)

All in all it's a pretty balanced War Engine, and can be explained as "A slightly crappier Reaver with a Quake Cannon, Gatling Blaster and Carapace Landing Pad."

The other two War Engines are the same, but weaker.

What is it about the spotter rule exactly that opponents are complaining about?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Spotting Rule, removing it, replacing it, or revising it
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:32 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:05 am
Posts: 810
Would I be yelled at for suggesting removing the spotter rule but adding some sort of air cover weapon ( AA 5+/AP 5+/AT 6+ perhaps?) to the Iron Eagle? It brings it's own mobile air cover (which the list should have, if only to facilitate some sort of option other than a squat death fortress army), but with all the points from the no-coherency formation suggestion included.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Spotting Rule, removing it, replacing it, or revising it
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:13 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 4703
Location: Bristol
Moscovian wrote:
then there is the (valid) argument that it is way better than the Tau spotting rule.

Huh? No it's not. Tau Markerlights (which I assume you are thinking of) give +1 to hit a target if it has markerlight(s) within 30cm. That's a huge bonus and better than just this indirect fire the Squats have.

Definitely not option 3. Unsure on dropping it or keeping it as is.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Spotting Rule, removing it, replacing it, or revising it
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2014 10:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:48 pm
Posts: 678
Location: Australia
I think we raised this in some 1.5 feedback mid year but what if spotter applied only to the fortress missile systems, in a similar way to seeker missiles on tau.

I find some of the objection is due to model themselves.. It doesn't look like arty, it looks like a siege assault gun, hence when it's lobbing out MW barrage as it drives along the "eye roll" effect occurs. I certainly felt that way when first exposed to the squats.

Keeping it to the missile type weapons, and maybe the thunder/mortar might make these secondary weapons more useful/valued.

In short, happy for rule to remain in part, but as discussed in 1.5 thread I think a revisit of some weaponry is required to better synchronise their effects when fired together.


Last edited by ortron on Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Spotting Rule, removing it, replacing it, or revising it
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 2:54 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11084
Location: Canton, CT, USA
Tiny-Tim wrote:
I don't think indirect fire is an option either.

Giving IF to the Doomsday cannon would be a simple way to replicate how the Colossus played for SM2, which might satisfy Squat veterans like me.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Spotting Rule, removing it, replacing it, or revising it
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:15 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 4703
Location: Bristol
ortron wrote:
some of the objection is due to model themselves.. It does look like arty, it looks like a siege assault gun, hence when it's lobbing out MW barrage as it drives along the "eye roll" effect occurs. I certainly felt that way when first exposed to the squats.

Keeping it to the missile type weapons, and maybe the thunderes might make secondary weapons more useful/valued.

I agree - it seems fine for the missiles to fire indirectly, but the Doomsday Cannons on the Leviathan and Collosus just don't look like indirect fire weapons. The Leviathan in the Cadian list doesn't allow it to fire indirect for what it's worth.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Spotting Rule, removing it, replacing it, or revising it
PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6396
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
I agree. As much as I like mimicking the SM2 stats, I would prefer to keep the list balanced and fun to play against.

Maybe I'll just add 1-2 Iron Hawks to to the Colossus (scouts) and be done with it. Yay! It can land! Oh crap, Thunderbolts! They came from behind....

_________________
Current Fan-made Epic Supplements
[url=http://www.tacticalwargames.net/resources/raiders2.zip]Epic: Raiders 2.0

Epic: Siege
Making your own Epic Supplement
Syncing Forward


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Spotting Rule, removing it, replacing it, or revising it
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:29 pm
Posts: 181
I've used the spotting in several games and it was useful but it was not that easy to use when the spotting came mostly from the iron hawks. However, when the overlord moved to support it became much easier and common to use it AND the colossus.
I like how the spotting works right now. It's another unique rule for the squats adding character. It's simple to understand how it works. Promotes more mobile squats WE as was the original intention.
None of my oponents complained about he spotting rule. They complained only about the toughness of the squats war engines (not many titans used around here).
I would suggest keep the rule. If you think its overpowered consider reducing the range of the spotting for the overlords to 45 cm as well. Should make it using it much harder.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Spotting Rule, removing it, replacing it, or revising it
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:41 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 910
I'm pretty keen on spotter, it doesn't seem overpowered. In fact I've only actually used it a few times but it does drive a squat army forward more which is both a good thing in terms of balanced play and fun. On a side not, yes to AAs on Iron Hawks that someone mentioned earlier. I think it would be pretty balanced, especially as opponents tend to really go after them because they're the only scout and fastest unit in the army. I don't see it upping their survivability but might help the list overall. At the moment, I'm pretty much stumped as to how to play any army with serious air support & teleporters.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Spotting Rule, removing it, replacing it, or revising it
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 4:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:29 pm
Posts: 181
AA on the Iron Hawks would be too much. It would make AA too available and mobile to squats. If extra AA is needed (has not been a problem with me) perhaps we should look at another unit. Perhaps the thudd guns could have AA6+. Just throwing around an ideia here.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Spotting Rule, removing it, replacing it, or revising it
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 910
Having played a few games over the holidays, I have to say I'm a fan of the spotter rule. It's easy to explain. Means you can play a more mobile army, and doesn't seem overpowered. The thing I don't like when playing squats is having to castle up around goliaths and thunderfires, playing with spotter and the new land train AA car meant I could attack reasonably effectively. Also, the lower barrage and AA output with spotter meant that you do sacrifice a decent bit of firepower for mobility but get something back in terms of better positioning. Also it opens up a more tactical game instead of the can you get through my goliaths and thunderfires before I do enough damage cliche. So a big request, keep spotter.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net