The barging part could be kind of nice, and fit the background

The not -1 would probably be overpowered if the WE's have 1+ initiative, because that would mean that they always auto-succeeds with their action test even when retaining. If on the other hand you meant it in conjunction with a 2+ initiative, then it seems an unnecessary special rule. Giving them a basic 1+ would give the same effect when they have BM's or when trying to retain (but with the benefit of 1+ when not).



Your proposed stats seems about right. I agree on the inspiring and leader abilities and was going to propose that. As for the commander ability; I was also thinking that he should have it first, but then I thought perhaps it's not that fitting for a (background wise) advisory character. And if we go down the supreme commander route then he could have just the reroll like the Tau Shas'O do and not the actual commander ability.

I disagree that 2+ relentless is functionally the same as 1+. It's only true if you retain OR have BMs, but not if it's a straight activation or if you retain while having BMs. It's a pretty simple rule, and shows that the Squat WEs will do their thing no matter what the enemy does. (1+ relentless would be overpowered, like you say.)

Ancient Wisdom looks nice too, if there is a Living Ancestor in several formations. If there is only one in the army it's pretty underwhelming.

How do you guys feel about the stubborn rule in the thurgrim list? I know there was one list(/earlier version) that had some sort of ignore the first BM rule.

I think squats should have one army wide rule, to represent the old SM/TL high breakage point.

The first one would be my choice of the two because it's an easier concept.

Another idea could be something along the lines of "squats don't suffer BM for coming under fire". That would make them harder to break and more powerful in assaults (because their harder to prep). Just throwing out ideas.

Other suggestions or are you happy with the current rule?

EDIT:


Yeah you're right. it's not exactly the same, But that's not what I meant. What I mean is that it can be represented almost the same with the ordinary rules thru the 1+ ini (actually giving them a greater chance of rallying which I think is fitting). When it comes to special rules I think that less is more. if you can represent something without a special rule then it's easier for your opponent. Of course special rules gives flavour to armies so a couple are good thing.

I of course didn't mean any disrespect towards Ironmonger, I think his enthusiasm for the squats is very good and he throws out a lot of ideas which is great to get discussion going.

Cheers

@Borka: no, the Relentless rule is based on a 2+ Ini rating, not 1+. I'm a big one for the "feel" of an army or unit, and making WE 1+ just "feels" odd. But hey, that's why we're playtesting, right ?

I think that the current stubborn rules is fine (I mean, I think it's good, easy, and fluffy). I haven't found it difficult in the least in practice; it's not complicated, easy to remember, easy to execute. Personally, I think we should leave that one alone.

Another edit for the LA:

LIVING ANCESTOR 1 Living Ancestor Character 50 point unit upgrade to a Warrior Brotherhood

Character 15cm n/a 5+ 5+

Bolt Pistol 15cm small arms
Power Axe Base Contact assault weapon macro-weapon extra attacks (+1)

Notes: Leader, Inspiring, Ancient Wisdom, Invulnerable Save

Special Rule: Ancient Wisdom
Any Squat formation that includes a Living Ancestor may ignore the -1 Action test penalty when they try to retain the initiative. In addition, including a Living Ancestor allows a player to reroll a failed Initiative test (of any type) once per turn.

DOMINATION: During this units activation, instead of a normal activation, you may place up to D3 blast markers on the nearest enemy formations within 30cm. Enemy formations cannot have more then 1 blast marker placed on them in this manner.

I'm gonna try this one out, just to see how it goes!

The more I look at the original Thurgrim list, the ...odder ...I find many of the choices, points, rules, etc., especially the WE/Super-Heavy Vehicle section. Goliaths are WE, but Cyclops are super heavies?! That's down-right odd. That has to change. I'll have completed a list tonight, and I'll post it, but there's nothing 'drastic' that I've done, though some of the changes are significant (such as the relocating of units into their proper sections/types!).

WEs and Super-heavies are effectively the same thing for Epic rules. FYI. Although I agree with you some of the stats and points were just weird.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Yep, it just struck me as weird that you could take two Cyclopses as Support Formations, but they were totally left out of the actual WE section in the list (which included, I believe, Overlord Airships...)

I like this. Originally I was going to make the Living Ancestor the Supreme Commander, but after going back to the original game he clearly wasn't. We poked at some ideas of him being inspiring but that seemed weird since he most likely would not be a front line guy.

Morgan's idea of the Strategy Rating has some subtle problems with it that we discovered in the Necron list. Ultimately most players hated it and we scrapped the idea. At the time I thought it was a good idea too, but experience taught otherwise.

The Stubborn rule, IMO, was a mistake of the current lists. I never liked them even when we were playtesting them. They never felt Squat like. I had two thoughts on Stubborn.

1. At the end of any turn, any unbroken Squat formation can remove a BM regardless of rallying.
OR
2. A Squat formation may shed a single BM after any activation in which they do not move (i.e. overwatch, sustain, regroup).

I am inclined to #2 because it is not overpowering and feels Squat like and creates some tactical choices for a player. Elysians have frequently been criticized for the Iron Discipline rule which ignores the -1 in 30cm rally penalty. While I think it is appropriate for Elysians, I don't think it fits for Squats, and that is just half of the Stubborn rule. The other half which modifies assault resolution IMO can be simply factored into their assault values and/or armor values.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I actually think inspiring fits, even though he's not a front line guy I see him as inspiring in the same way as the Tau ethereal. That is the warriors around him would not break as easily/fight harder to protect him, because of him being an almost "holy man" in their society. I would think it would be a great dishonor for any who break while protecting him(/her?).

cheers

We can give him inspiring too, I just don't think it should be the only special thing about him. Ironmonger's idea is similar to the farseer rule so we can anticipate its impact easily, yet it is general enough to be representative of any number of odd things the Living Ancestor could have done.

It's one character in the whole army - we could give him 2 x inspiring and not unbalance the list. <-- just speaking hyperbolically

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Yeah I agree there's no need to limit a 1 per army character to just one rule, and something more is in line to represent the help with orders that he gave in Space Marine/the background

I'd go one step further with Ancient Wisdom based on the last paragraph from the SM2 unit description:



Given that the ability affected the entire army and not just the Warlord's formation I'd say allow the squat player to, once per turn, ignore the -1 to retain on any formation if a Living Ancestor is in the army. Slightly different from Farsight, but still pretty close.

Given the rarity of these guys a 0-1 might be called for. Were people thinking a character upgrade for this? I think that fits (and it has to be on the SC stand?).

On the whole bit about them giving a 5+ save to all stands within 25cm, that seems doable through "all stands in the formation count as concealed" or "count as having thick rear armour".

Inspiring fits too.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Dave, I was musing over the same idea of allowing him to give it to any one formation, but if that be the case I'd like to have the Living Ancestor relegated to being located in the most expensive formation (most likely a super-heavy) as a character. It would fit thematically too. If the Squats were going to bring their LA to the battlefield, they wouldn't stick him out in some Bezerker formation or even with the Warlord. They'd want him safe.

So it doesn't get lost in the thread.... Any thoughts on this?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

In the background for SM/TL he was actually an advisor to the Warlord and to get your order bonus then you had to have him within 6 cm to the Warlord. I therefore think he should be an upgrade to the formation with the Warlord.

concerning second part of your post do you think the current stubborn rule is overpowered? other than not squatlike I mean

Edit: I like #1 of the two above the most.

Daves suggestion of widening farsight to all formations makes it a lot more usable on a one per army character.

I think given the SM2 text references the Warlord the Living Ancestor should have to go on the same stand.

Here's what I was thinking:



So the Grand Warlord (what SM2 called it) would be a character upgrade to a Warlord stand (4 Exo-armours and a banner guy, as per SM2 again). The Living Ancestor Would be another character upgrade beyond that, which would have to be added to the same stand that the Grand Warlord is on.

On your Stubborn rule, I think 2) replicates how they worked in SM2 better (they just had a higher break point, aka it should take more BMs to break them then normal). I don't think TSKNP is called for here though, and having it take 1.5x BMs to break a formation is too fiddly. The only thing I'd change about option 2 is make it after every activation (failed or otherwise).

So if they sustain, double, engage or whatever, once they're done they remove a BM is they have any. Additionally, if they fail an activation they'll remove the BM they got for it right away too. That simulates it taking more BMs to break them pretty well I think, but doesn't affect broken formations at all. Also, because it's happening in the action phase it'll help them out more than it would in the end phase.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17