If it's +1 to rally rather than ignore nearby enemies when rallying, I'm all for it.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I like this as well! The both good and bad combo has a lot of merit and gives a lot of flavor that a pure beneficial rule don't. I can't see it working in conjunction with 10 cm move though. I'm all for it, if we combined it with 15 cm move and +1 to rally.
Is the -1 to march orders needed though? I'm not against I just wonder if it's necessary, we shouldn't overcomplicate the rule.

A potential problem I can see is scouts zoc.

cheers

I like Curis' idea as well, especially if combined with +1 to rally. However, I agree with Dave's concern about being within assault range. Also, I'd still like to see some sort of save for hackdowns.

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

To clarify, this rule would mean moving all infantry movement to 15cm. I agree it couldn't work any other way. Regarding the march, I put it out there only because it seems to fit loosely with the ideas of Squats not wanting to run, but it isn't necessarily a hinge pin.

Scout ZOC is question of mine as well. My first instinct is to have scouts with their 10cm ZOC cause hackdowns. In other words, the hackdown range becomes the ZOC of the opponent's units.

EDIT: Dwarf Supreme, do you think we would even need those hack down saves given a 15cm move and a 5cm hack down range? I can't imagine many circumstances where it could even apply.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I'd end the withdrawal not within 5cm, regardless of whether you're fighting Scouts. Takes the precedent from the current Fearless withdrawal - only 5cm so you can't end in base contact, rather than the idea you have to leave the ZoC.

What's lost by saying not within a zoc instead of not within 5cm?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

What about interaction with scout rule?

Because scouts would hack down squat infantry more easily than other troops. That seems like an odd boost to scouts to me.

Not really. I think of the French Indian War and how British soldiers were slaughtered ruthlessly by Indian scouts while trying to retreat from the French. The British (and their colonial counterparts) were so regimented that even in their retreats it cost them their very lives. The Indians ran through their ranks, cutting trophies off their uniforms (or bodies) as they went. I could easily see scouts being more effective against a 'stubborn' formation.

I'm not saying it has to be that way, only that it does make sense to work it off ZOC. Besides, I don't know how often a hackdown kill is going to take place at all against Squats. The Squats have to be extremely close for them to get killed in this way, even by scouts.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Honestly? I don't like it. It's a fiddly rule that hasn't been properly thought through and has huge in-game implications. It can be abused in a lot of ways: Sitting on objectives - even if you break you can prevent the enemy from getting within 15 cm of it, if you only have to be 5cm away. Limiting enemy movement across the battlefield and preventing them access to objectives or other positions of value with your broken unit. Anyone who's ever played against Matt Arnold in a tournament will quickly realise how abusable this could potentially be - the man's a master of making use of broken units to screw over the opponent and that's when you have to be outside of 15 cm of the enemy. These are just 2 that flow off the top of my head. Don't forget that the squat list also has some pretty nippy units in Gyrocopters and Bikes. Tunnellers are also a unit that could really cause problems with this rule.

Stubborn IMO is a rule that should just add some flavour and a minor power boost to Squats, and in general, special rules should be kept relatively simple. It shouldn't be a major part of the squats list/tactics - which if statted correctly shouldn't really need any special rules beyond tunnelers (Which is no more special than planetfall). A few little ones are nice though to give flavour - Wisdom of the ancients and stubborn being the only ones that I feel are justified.

The more special rules a list has the harder it becomes to balance and the easier it is to miss potentially broken and overpowered permutations. This also applies to the comp[lexity of special rules. I'd always veer on the side of conservatism when designing special rules for just these reasons.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, ignore the -1 penalty for rallying within 30 cm of the enemy is to my mind, the simplest way of representing stubborness in the face of the enemy and adding a bit of flavour to the army and is simple to implement and remember with relatively little abusability (Given that the army has VERY few 1+ activations). It basically means that they always rally at a 4+ no-matter where the enemy is in relation to themselves. A nice little power-boost, represents what it's trying to represent without upsetting the apple cart too much and has the bonus of being simple and easy to remember.

If needs be, a universal +1 to rally can be tested too but I'd be conservative to begin with and test the ignore the 30cm penalty.

Good point. I hadn't thought through the full ramifications of a 5cm hackdown range.

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

I think that's actually the point. The squats are hard to shift. Even if you win an assault, they might not leave. Staying more or less in place is not a problem in terms of feeling abused by special rules, imho. I also think that's why Tunnelers with this rule would not be a problem.


This, OTOH, is a good point.

Using fast units to rush off and pressure a completely separate formation or area is gamey. This is where I see potential abuse and/or loss of flavor.

Likewise, even an infantry formation that broke and then failed to rally would end up with quite a bit of movement.

===

So... since the issue is broken units moving to impose, what if we made it like the Fearless rule, with the choice to forego withdrawals altogether? The only choices are stay in place or normal withdrawal. That gives Squats the "we ain't leavin'" ability, without all the funky impedance effects.

It would primarily be used in assaults, obviously. However, it could be used in the case of breaking by fire if opponents were within 15cm, or in the end phase in the case of a failed rally with enemies in range.

You could limit Stubborn to the Infantry formations (Warriors, Berserkers, Grand Batteries...)?

I really think that all these different options with hackdown ranges and the like are just going to be super fiddly and hard to explain to an opponent.

In my mind, worthwhile options (and combinations of) would be:

1) halve hackdown hits and/ or require 2 BMs for a broken kill (a la SM)
2) a boost to rallying (ignore -1 within 30cm or universal +1 to rallying)
3) someway of reducing BM accumulation or increasing BM shedding (as BMs are the main "macro" way of representing morale in EA), although we should be leery of fm-wide Leader abilities, especially as that got panned with Eldar.

And for the little stunties not liking to run fast, a simple -1 to March actions is easy to test.

All of the above has some kind of precedent in other lists, with all of the associated play test experience that goes with using them (see objections to "ignore -1 from enemy within 30cm" for a good example). Not only does that mean that the rules and list will be easier to balance, it'll also be considerably easier to explain - "yeah, Squats are tough barstewards, so they halve hackdowns like Marines" "oh right, makes sense". One of the things that struck me when playing against the old Squat lists was the no. of times I had a "WTF moment" as some weird left field rule was explained to me, a couple of which I still don't understand (termites becoming ruins and granting cover saves was a "favourite").

I don't think "may choose not to Withdraw when broken" would be fiddly or hard to explain.