Well, you and I liked choice-based stuff, but I can bear to leave that aspect if you can.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Agreed with this. All-fearless armies aren't even causing this issue in EUK tournaments, let alone platry "stubborn" armies managing the same thing.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

For my own personal choice, I'd go with:

+1 to rally
halve hackdown hits
-1 to March activations

Covers the good/ bad aspect, makes them tougher and slower(ish), can't deal with the Choice aspect (which is a tough one I think).

I think 3 attributes is a good number. 2 might not get the feel or balance between good and bad right, 4 starts to feel a bit long winded.

I'm with mathew on this one. I'd like to test the following.

[*] +1 to rally

[*] halve hackdown hits (rounded down, up goes against the convention in epic to round things down).

[*] -1 to March activations, possibly even disallowing them like for necrons.

I am not sure about an unconditional +1 to rally for formations that are already 1+ Initiative.

ah, I forgot that some of the WE are 1+. Mosc - why are some of the WE 1+ but not others? Why are they 1+ at all? Is it to mimic Titan initiative?

Some of them used to have a special rule in SM/TL that you didn't have to give them orders. They always moved and always fired in the first fire segment. So they were "easy" to order in the old game.

We wanted to represent that someway in their rules. We agreed that 1+ initiative was a good way rather than introducing an extra special rule.



Someone suggested that it could be a "squat formations count their intiative as 1+ for rally test" that's an alternative. Personaly I like the +1 better.

My thought on this is that the only ones with a 1+ initiative are the big super-heavies (Trains, Colossi, Cyclops, Leviathans). Other players have felt that these beasties deserve an extra somethin' to feel more unstoppable.

MikeT had suggested an 'implacable advance' rule to allow it to move/shoot even on a hold.
Ironmonger had suggested a 'relentless' rule to ignore the -1 on initiative rolls.

While neither of these rules took hold in our discussion, they do reflect a desire for players to make the WEs feel more unstoppable-er. A +1 to their rally would be an interesting way to reflect that and keep the universal rule. This means the big guys will have the following rally points:
BMs with no enemy within 30cm: automatic (no change)
BMs with enemy within 30cm: automatic (+1 improvement)
Broken with no enemy within 30cm: 2+ (+1 improvement)
Broken with enemy within 30cm: 3+ (+1 improvement)

If we don't, I am not sure how we can make a universal stubborn rule that incorporates that +1 modifier. Make everything, including the big WEs, a 2+ initiative? I'm open to suggestion.

The WEs are divided into two groups, much the same way titans and SHTs on the IG list are. It was an arbitrary decision I must say, however. If the 1+ initiative and a +1 to rallies is too much, we can just make everything 2+. It would give everything in the list a 1.5+ Average Initiative (rallies and activations). I don't think that has ever been done before but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Piggybacking on Borka's comments, the 1+ initiative was hand-in-glove with the 10cm move. If we move them to a 2+ initiative, I would be more inclined to put all the big WEs at 15cm moves.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

hmm, that makes sense and you're right, it does have some weird, although not necessarily bad, interactions with a +1 to rally. I'm not really sure how to get around that as the arguments for having the big WE as 1+ are pretty convincing.

I think keeping the Machines at 1+ is fine, the auto from BMs with enemy within 30cm (and the others) while having a 10cm move helps convey the sense of them being unstoppable lumbering monstrosities.

Played some games with the Squats with the Curis stubborn idea, +1 to rally, -1 to march, AA on Overlords, and a modified shooty warrior formation. I'll try to get a batrep up soon but the end result was a 2-0 win vs. Dark Eldar. Initial feelings on the Squats were...
+1 rally made a noticable difference in shedding BMs for non-broken formations and rallying broken formations.
Single withdrawal moves greatly hampered formations retreating including Gyrocopters (bikes didn't have a chance to break). I played the games without the 15cm cap and it still made very little difference.
Super Heavies at a 2+ initiative. The one seemed fine.

The single greatest change to the game was the missile launcher to every warrior stand, which turned it into a beastial shooting force.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

That sounds like SQUATS to me.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I priced them at 300 for the 10 stands plus Rhinos, although I am wondering if the price was off.
Mechanized Imperial Guard = 400 points for 12 infantry + 6 Chimeras
7 Autocannons @ 45cm AP5+/AT6+
7 Heavy Bolters @ 30cm AP5+
7 Multilasers @ 30cm AP5+/AT6+

Squat Warrior Formation = 300 points for 9 Warriors, 1 Hearthguard + 5 Rhinos
9 Missile Launchers @ 45cm AP5+/AT6+
1 Heirloom Weapon @ 30cm AP5+/AT5+

EDITED PER E&C post below

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

That should be 7 of each on the IG shots & 7 Chimeras.

Don't forget that they also have a Commander, which the Squat formation lacks.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

With War Engines being 1+/2+, I thought that big single War Engines like that always had an extra pip of initiative to represent they're just one entity. It's hard to command a formation of one hundred troops and their associated vehicles - there's a certain amount of inertia and communications breakdown. But when it's just one guy in the cockpit pressing controls.

Unsure if I was just inferring this now.