So far I haven't played a list that had more than two Warrior formations and not a single list that had more than one non-mechanized formation. The movement is certainly an issue but let's put this into perspective... A typical 3000pt Squat army is never going to have four or five or six infantry formations at any movement, 10 or 15cm.

I must say I'm more inclined at this point to change the super heavies to 15cm movement than the infantry.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I think changing the movement of super heavies to 15cm is a good idea.

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

I'm also considering moving the one-shots on the Super Heavies to regular indirect shots. I'm open to suggestions at this point.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I played a game last week (it's up in the battlereport forum). The 10 cm move in the WE made me not want to move them, instead chosing to sustain basically all the time with my train. For example that made the dragon battle car worthless I don't think I'll use it again. The collosus didn't get to move because it was termie-assaulted-broken-immobilized-turn2-destroyed, but I don't think I would have moved it either.

My opponent and I both agreed that the 3+ to CC on the collosus seemed way to good and we played it at 4+. Someone mentioned 5+ being more "realistic", but I think all the point defence bolters they used to have in SM/TL could justify 4+.

Both me and my opponent agreed that the train could use some adjustments to it's cost. I played a 7DC and 7 shields triain



And it only cost me 500pts (not counting the Ancient dude). That seemed rather cheap. There are some obvious synergy effect to the durability the more cars you add. Perhaps a increasement in cost for later cars. Like perhaps the third(fourth?) car cost plus 25 extra pts, the next one +50 extra? and so on. It will make the train building process more fiddely though. Max 4 cars could be easier?

Eagles were my MVP formations. They put out a lot of hurt on adavance/sustain at 45 cm. I'd like to try them again at 300 pts before deciding, but I felt like they might need a pts increase.

Can't really make game based comments on the 10 cm move. My infantry didn't really get to move due to failed initiative tests and having to end the game prematurely.

The stubborn rule only came into effect ones during the game and I really disliked how it felt (I've made a longer comment on it in the other thread).

cheers

Can you explain how the Land Train's designed?

Engine with six Berserker Battlecars gives a DC8 VS8 War Engine with:

- 8 basic FF/CC attacks
- EA +18 CC
- EA +12 FF

Giving it a total of 38 attacks.

Bargain at 500 points.

The Train has a 15cm move, but overall I am leaning toward changing all of the Super Heavies to 15cm. Given that IG SHTs move 15cm I really can't justify them moving any faster, however. We can change the CC value.

What do you think about lowering the Land Train shields from 2 to 1? Or maybe give the engine no shields at all? That would have an effect on all of the trains, regardless of size, but it may end up punishing smaller trains - not sure. Your train would have had 7DC and 5 shields at that point (which is spot on with Reaver and Warlord Titans). Thoughts?

You can already tell I am considering changing the stubborn rule, but most of that decision is based on the movement discussion. Once again I have a lot of feedback (via the poll) telling me it doesn't work from people who have played, yet none of them comment with the information I ask for . On top of that I have three players from my group that refuse to come onto TacComs for a variety of reasons. So that number for the 10cm move is +3.

So far, I have one bit of information which is Squat infantry can't base-to-base Scouts. Given the various ways to deal with Scouts, I don't know if that is a huge drawback, and especially since Warriors FF and CC at identical values (5+).

Iron Eagles. If they are overperforming I would rather up their armor to 5+ than change their price. The armor debate was left up in the air anyway so I'll keep that one in my back pocket if they continue to overperform.

Thanks again for the good feedback.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I like them as single shots. I don't find tracking things like that to be a pain on the bigger stuff.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Well, you were there when we designed it, so I don't think we need to address the concept of the extra attacks or the fact that we all missed identifying this as a problem. For newcomers, however, the extra attacks represent the transported Berserkers as opposed to giving the train transport capacity and actual Berserkers (it was a simple way to handle it).

Let's look at the math above, however. We have an 8 DC WE that has 6 Berserker cars, each at +1 EA (a total of 6). That is a TOTAL of 14 FF attacks, not 20. The CC would have +2 EA x 6 cars = 12 CC. That's a total of 20 CC, not 26. With all that said, I think we might still need an adjustment.

I believe the question you should be asking is how do we fix it. Obviously that is a small mess and needs correcting. We had the price at 75 points and I impromptu dropped it to 50 points (mistake #1). The fix on the shields (see post above) could correct the trains overall.

As for the extra attacks we have few options...
-Changing the number of extra attacks
-Changing the FF and CC values
-Limiting the number of cars
-Leave it to the price bump (which would take this train from 500 points to 650 points)
-Some combination of the above
-Other???

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Well, tracking the shots wasn't my concern. The Cyclops and Colossus just don't have the firepower to do much, at least what I have experienced so far. Maybe that is related to the movement and not to the weaponry but it is a concern of mine.

The Overlords I'm leaving with the bomb rack. They die so gloriously but I love them anyway.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Which reference sheet are you working off? I'm using the one in this thread. (Which also gives it a 10cm move.)

Ops missed that. My bad.

How about limiting the CC to +1 as well? I don't really think it's needed though. The berserker car spam build seems rather theoretic. With move 15cm I don't think a lot of people will go down that road. You will be waisting all those points at least first turn, probably second too. You might get into an assault turn 3 perhaps. Probably not worth the points. I took two in my game mostly for self defense reasons and to up the DC/shields with the cheapest available car.

I think lowering the shields on the engine to 1 and upping the cost of the berserker and dragon car to 75 (basically making 75pts the minimum) would be a good start. My train for example would then have had only 6 shields (which might be to much as well) and cost 575 pts. Basically making it impossible to take both a 7 DC train and the collosus in a 3000pts game.

I was working off the datafax - I must have screwed up the reference sheet. No biggie. Both are wrong on the speed for the train. Missed that too.

Good catches though!

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Personally with the trains I’d take a more prescriptive route. Just as the other GT lists don’t let you tailor Titans’ weapons, just fix the length and statline of the Land Train.

Looking at the list the Overlord is the small choice. Leviathan chasses are the medium choices. Make Land Trains the big choice – analogous to the Warlord/Great Gargant/Warlock Titan. Design it for the 850 point slot.

I'd be fine with that except for the limited model availability for some folks. Some people might not have the Cars. It's the same reason why I finally agreed to get rid of the exo-armor formation.

Can you think of anything else that might work?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Some people only have Titans that they built in the '90's using configurations that were legal at the time. They're forced to use counts-as.

I don't really see the logic in deleting exo-armour just because some people don't have the original gw models (there are plenty of proxies available these days, surely).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter