Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 195 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next

Squats: Thurgrimm Stronghold v1.5 DRAFT

 Post subject: Re: Squats: Thurgrimm Stronghold v1.5 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 8:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:29 pm
Posts: 181
You can spam the thunderfires, it's true. But against anything except aircraft they'll still be utter crap. As regards to transport, you can just explain their 0 move imagining that they can be moved but the effort and time required would mean they would be out of action for the rest of the battle just as some of the really big guns during WWI.

I've only tried the tunnellers once (the hellbore) but it did seem that the tunneler rules and points cost could be revised for simplity's sake.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squats: Thurgrimm Stronghold v1.5 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:27 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5375
Location: Bristol
Thunderfire should be 0cm move and I have no problem with them garrisoning. They're very fragile, obviously, but 2 x AP3+/AT3+ is pretty good shooting power for a cheap unit, particularly when it garrisons as well. I can definitely see them being good in large amounts, even if the enemy had little to no aircraft. A load of them on overwatch could protect an area by multiple of them shooting at an enemy, even just by clay markers for coming under fire.

I prefer the version in the 1.4 list, where they have longer range battlecannons but cost 125. I'd cost the additional Thunderfire at 50 at most though, quite probably 25 would be fine, as either way they break if one dies and can't run away. Additionally I'd prefer Thunderfires to be 0-1 per warrior formation, to prevent spamming them or having high activation super-AA armies.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squats: Thurgrimm Stronghold v1.5 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:37 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:11 am
Posts: 36
I think GlynG suggestions for range, costings and formation restriction have merit.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squats: Thurgrimm Stronghold v1.5 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:45 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4845
Location: North Yorkshire
GlynG wrote:
Thunderfire should be 0cm move and I have no problem with them garrisoning. They're very fragile, obviously, but 2 x AP3+/AT3+ is pretty good shooting power for a cheap unit, particularly when it garrisons as well. I can definitely see them being good in large amounts, even if the enemy had little to no aircraft. A load of them on overwatch could protect an area by multiple of them shooting at an enemy, even just by clay markers for coming under fire.

I prefer the version in the 1.4 list, where they have longer range battlecannons but cost 125. I'd cost the additional Thunderfire at 50 at most though, quite probably 25 would be fine, as either way they break if one dies and can't run away. Additionally I'd prefer Thunderfires to be 0-1 per warrior formation, to prevent spamming them or having high activation super-AA armies.

I can understand why you are making your comments here, but in the games which I have played with multiple Berserker and Thunderfire formations to boost my activations I have never done well with them. Yes, you can spend you time placing all the Thunderfires on Overwatch, but this just allows you opponent to move up into positions to hit you next turn. I have found that my forces have been rolled up from one flank or the other. Yes, multiple formations can shut down the sky for your opponent, but what they then do is to start formations garrisoned up the table and advance/double/march up to you. And let us not even start to look at the havoc scouts do to Thunderfires (however berserkers are good at clearing them).

_________________
_________________
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: Squats: Thurgrimm Stronghold v1.5 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5375
Location: Bristol
I'll have to try them myself sometime and see. Another argument for 125 is that it's the same cost as the Heavy AA Guns in the Krieg list (which I've used and are great), and a formation of each scores one AA hit at 60cm on average.

There were never any crew models with them, perhaps Thunderfires could be taken to be robotic and to have autonom? Could make them a little more survivable, particularly if combined with making the upgrade one a more sensible lesser price like 50.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squats: Thurgrimm Stronghold v1.5 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:55 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4845
Location: North Yorkshire
Continuing on with this and I think Moscovian will chip in here and agree that you are raising the same style of questions that I had at the beginning of my testing on this list. One of the problems that I have found with playing with lots of Thundefires is that my opponents place the DtF objectives in my half of the table away from any terrain where I could hid/gain cover from my Thunderfires. This results in them either being placed in my deployment zone (usually out of cover) or off my Blitz and limiting there zone of fire. If I push them forward and garrison off the objectives in the open I'm just placing a bog sign over them to come and get me. I'm then stuck having to drop transports to garrison infantry up the table to defend them or exposing my Iron Hawk's to try and protect them.

I agree that the Krieg heavy AA guns are great, but I'd play them with fortifications with gives them cover and equals the save.

_________________
_________________
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: Squats: Thurgrimm Stronghold v1.5 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6397
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
I like the idea of the thunderfires being autonoms, but IMO they are a steal at the price they are at right now. I wouldn't want to give them that option unless we bumped their cost up. Anyone else?

_________________
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: Squats: Thurgrimm Stronghold v1.5 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:48 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4845
Location: North Yorkshire
Doesn't float my boat, but I'd rather see the option to double the size of the formation for double the cost.

_________________
_________________
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: Squats: Thurgrimm Stronghold v1.5 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6397
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Double? Don't you think four of those would be hideous? That is a lot of firepower.

_________________
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: Squats: Thurgrimm Stronghold v1.5 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5375
Location: Bristol
No response to any of my other many questions and suggestions Mosc? Did you miss them on the previous page?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squats: Thurgrimm Stronghold v1.5 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6397
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Yes, yes I did. Sorry! I will go back and read them.

_________________
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: Squats: Thurgrimm Stronghold v1.5 DRAFT
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6397
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
GlynG wrote:
I've had a good read over of the list today and have some feedback.

Question: why isn't there a Squat spacecraft in the list? We know they're a spacefaring race and they obviously have some to get about from planet to planet to fight, trade, mine, ect. Every other spacefaring race has spacecraft in epic and it seems lacking without them. Don't let a lack of model stop you, people could convert/scratch build a model or just use the FW Demiurg ships.


Simple: I didn't want this list to be dependent in any way on any models outside of Epic. I suppose I could throw in one from the Imperium just to make people happy, but let me ask this: does the list feel like it is lacking spacecraft? Scouts, sure. Speed, sure. But spacecraft. To have one just to have one seems like an effort in the mundane.

Quote:
Towing Thunderfire. Logically there must be some way for them to be moved. Towing them with Rhinos would be utterly ludicrous considering they are multiple times larger and heavier than them. Suggestion: make a new 'Transport Car' or 'Thunderfire Car' for the Land Train....


I agree they must be moved somehow, but I don't think we should box ourselves into the concept that they MUST be moved during the game. In the end, it may be that we leave them as they are. I don't want to force the issue.

But this brings up something that has been gnawing at me about the models for the Squats: nobody should be making decisions based on the relative scale of these models. The Cyclops and all the SHTs, the Overlord expecially, even the Thunderfire model size were not made with any real forethought of scale. Overlords should be Warmaster Nice Zeppelin size and still be DC3.

Quote:
Land Train movement: I don't know that it really needs a special rule but if you're going to give it one I can think of a couple of possibly better options: 1. list it's movement as 15cm (20cm) and have in the notes 'a Land Train's first movement each turn will be at 15cm, any subsequent moves will be at 20cm'. Represents it building up speed. OR 2. list it's movement as 15cm (20cm) and have in the notes 'a Land Train with 2 carriages has a 20cm move, one with 3-4 has a 15cm move.' It seems a fair trade-off and to be logical for one pulling twice as much to be slower.


I'm fine with either of these. I think they have as much merit as my idea. Any other thoughts?

Quote:
Tarantula: Tarantulas are armed with a single twin-linked weapon in 40k. Why have you separated them to be two shots here? They are twin-linked in the Apokrypha and IF lists and it would be better to match existing 40k and epic precedents.


I don't use 40K for my benchmark any more than I have to. We used the old stats on most of the units as much as possible, although TBH I can't remember how we arrived at the stats. the questions I have back at you are 1) are tarantulas over/underpowered, and 2) do they need to be changed?

Quote:
The twin-linked Lascannons on the Leviathan have 30cm range, please tell me this is a typo? You shouldn't have different stats for them here from every other twin-linked lascannon in the game. If you particularly must have a 30cm AT gun rename it to something new instead.


I'll look at it.

Quote:
Thunderfire Cannons: these set off serious balance alarm bells to me! They are move 0cm so can garrsion forward on overwatch. I would definitely spam and abuse them in lists (I wonder if people haven't been because the models are rare, but there's always proxies), 8+ formations would be a good number. If facing air assault list you could group your army together into a tight group and on average rolls you would cause 2 damage to a 4+ Reinforced Armour Thunderhawk or 5.3 damage to a 5+ Reinforced Landa. You can easily have multiple powerful WE in the list and still have high activation numbers and excellent AA. The spam could be taken further too – consider a list consisting of 6 x Berzerker Brotherhoods (one upgraded with extra Bezerkers and Warriors for a BTS) plus 18 x Thunderfire Cannon formations, 24 activations for 2975 and a nightmare to play. It's otherwise pretty universally true in epic that adding extra upgraded models to a formation normally has those extra ones cost the same or less than the cost of the core ones, as it's better to have more formations. Here the opposite is true and the extra one is more expensive, why? I assume you don't want to make the formation size 3 as standard as the models were originally in pairs and I understand and agree with that. Suggestion: add two squat warrior stands to the basic formation (assume them to be guards) and cost it at 150 points instead.


It's been brought up before. Like a LOT of debates here on the forums, I tend to take the spamming arguments with a grain of salt. I can't think of a spamming list that ever consistently won in Epic. Not the SM Scout list, not the Elysian Walker list, not the Necron Monolith spammer's favorite, none. Regarding this for the Squats, I'm forced to say "show me".


Quote:
Goliath Mega Cannon: you've missed out the stats, I don't know what it does.


I'll look.

Quote:
Termite: very serious problems and confusion with the rules for these! 'Note: Unit is no longer part of the formation'. Taking this literally suggests each Termite is no longer part of the formation, but a formation all of it's own, so that that warrior formation with Termites pops up and becomes 6 seperate formations. A Termite is a unit with CC and FF, it's own zone of control and presumably can contest and capture objectives. Even if the it were to be changed so that all a formations Termites got seperated and became a formation of their own together you would get two formations on the board for 175 points – the enemy would need to target and destroy each seperately and large portions of the board could be blocked off and objectives covered by lots of formations (taken to an extreme you could have 34 formations on the board on turn 2). Then 'treat as ruins upon surfacing', so it's a unit and ruins at the same time? Huh? I'm not sure how you play scenery but the rulebook says to be generous and myself and UK players count an infantry model as able to claim a -1 and cover save if it is touching a piece of terrain (it keeps it simple and helps avoid problems with buildings that don't have flat rooves you can place models on). How many rectangular epic bases can touch a single Termite model? I don't have one but imagine it would be 5-6 or so. That's a LOT provided a -1 and a cover save. I know each Termite only carries two units, but you could pop them up turn 2 to provide cover in an otherwise empty area of the battlefield by an objective and use a different formation (one in Rhinos say) to move forward and use it as cover. The precedent for all vehicles is that they only provide a -1 cover same to infantry ducking down besides them, why should a Termite provide radically greater protection by giving a cover save as well? It's an enclosed transport vehicle designed to travel underground, not some mobile fortification that large amounts of troops could be inside and fire out from. Possible suggestions: if you want Termites to be units just give them expendable so that if the formation moves away it doesn't take blast markers for doing so (problem with this is expendable troops are a huge boost to take off as casualties in an assault). Or have it so that Termites are not units at all but are placed and can provide a -1 to hit (no cover save) to anything touching them, without being able to attack or be targeted.


Whoah there, Charlie Chaplin. Let's take a deep breath and go back to the beginning. You make a big assumption that the termites remain as units. It doesn't say that; it says they become ruins.

There were some good reasons to do this and I've talked about them in previous threads. I don't want to repeat them all here, but the primary reason is what you talked about - expanding the size of the formation. But getting back to the Termites, I think once you accept that the rule was written pretty simply (termites become ruins) it works out the way it should.

Quote:
Mole: the Mole has a transport capacity of 10!?! You have got be kidding me. I own one and the model is really not very big at all. Please re-think this! Make the Mole an AV with transport capacity of 5 for +25 points instead. You can carry a Berzerker formation in 1 then or use 2 for a Warrior Brotherhood. The Tuneller rules allow for a formation of tunnellers (first one places, extra placed freely within 15cm of it). Next problem: it's attached to and part of a formation but has a critical that it breaks - doesn't it seem ludicrously harsh for an entire formation of up to 18 infantry stands to auto-break just because one of their transports has had a critical? Expendable for the transports would be too good, but having them as separate formations has problems of its own. Could all 3 tunneling transports be changed to be units that are an remain part of their formation (Termites and Hellebore being part of the formation too), but have a special rule or note that they don't cause blast markers for being removed due to being out of formation? They make the formation bigger and tougher, due to the extra numbers and armour, while allowing the Squats to move off and abandon their transport for the moment without having to suffer for it.

See comments above on model size.

Quote:
Stubborn: I agree you should change it so that the units can make one move (of whatever their speed is) rather than it just being 15cm. Please could you also repeat the 'All formations rally on a 1+' in the text of the stubborn rule as well to make it more obvious (I missed it at first).


Thanks for the support. As for the 1+ I removed it because it is easier to digest now. Rather than making a special rule I simply made it part of the Initiative. All formation initiate on a 2+ and rally on a 1+. Simpler.

Quote:
I haven't really been keeping up that much with Squat development, issues with the transports aside, how balanced and tested is the list? It is fairly stable or still very changeable? Do you think the list is ready to try to push it towards being approved Mosc or still some way off?
In all honesty I think it is balanced enough, but I am in no rush to put a stamp on it. I'd rather tweak it to get these bits taken care of first.

Quote:
I had a small part to play in playtesting the tyranid list and it was great to see it approved for the tournament pack recently. The minimum of player's from 3 different groups getting 6 playtests each really isn't that hard and I want to work to get the remaining core lists approved this year if possible (I plan on spending however long getting the titan legion list approved first then switching to squats). Myself and Marconz in New Zealand are pretty active playtesters and could agree to get you at least 6 playtest reports posted up over the course of a few months easy. If Tiny-Tim could do the same in the UK and you do the same with your own group Mosc (games over Tabletop count for if you're struggling to find local opponents - I'll get a Squat army pack done for Tabletop at some point in the next month or two) then the list could get approved and in the tournament pack (and used by a wider audience as some players/groups/tournaments only play approved lists).


Well any and all help is appreciated and encouraged. I'm sounding short here I am sure but I am in a rush to get to work so don't take the tone of the message wrong here. I look forward to your help.

_________________
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: Squats: Thurgrimm Stronghold v1.5 DRAFT
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:07 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4845
Location: North Yorkshire
Moscovian wrote:
Double? Don't you think four of those would be hideous? That is a lot of firepower.
Not really 4 shots for say 200pts. Range has been chopped and where AP/AT3+ is brilliant, they are still only firing one shot per turn.

At 4 for 200pts I'd be tempted to garrison up the table with a supporting Warrior formation, but at the moment they are just free points to my opponent when I do that.

_________________
_________________
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: Squats: Thurgrimm Stronghold v1.5 DRAFT
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:12 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6397
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
3 x AP3+/AT3+ @ 60cm is nasty, and adding a fourth is only going to add to their resilience. I'm hesitant to put that into play, but I'm open to listening to anyone who drops it into a playtest to see how it performs (and more importantly, how it was received by the opponent).

_________________
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: Squats: Thurgrimm Stronghold v1.5 DRAFT
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:12 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4845
Location: North Yorkshire
Took my Squats out for a further test last Friday against EUK Krieg.
I took:
Berserkers (& Hearthguard)
+ Berserkers
+ Rhinos

Berserkers (& Hearthguard)
+ Berserkers
+ Rhinos
Overlord x2
Overlordx2

Guild Outriders
Guildmaster
+ 0-1 Grand Warlord
Guild Bikers
Guild Trikes x3

Iron Hawk Squadron
Upgrade to Iron Eagles x1

Iron Hawk Squadron
Upgrade to Iron Eagles x1

Thunderfires (2)

Goliath (2)

Cyclops
+ 0-1 Living Ancestor

And faced a Krieg force with three companies with pairs of gorgans, grenadiers with Gorgon, Macharius, Shadowsword, Warhound, Thunderbolts and two formations of AA guns.

Game started off well for the Squats as the initiative was won and the Cyclops proceeded to destroy the Shadowsword; Macharius and Warhound were out of sight on the other half of the table, but plenty of Gorgans were ready to advance towards the Cyclops.

Goliaths picked on the Reg HQ killing enough infantry to break the formation.

Tom advanced, doubled and marched formations forwards whilst I doubled the two pairs of Overlords forwards and to try and removed activations off the Krieg I fired at the AA Guns. One set were broken, the other shrugged off the fire with only a BM.

Berserkers doubled forwards ready to get into the action whilst the Iron Hawks supported them on one flank and tried to block off the Warhound on the other.

Second turn and the squats won initiative again. Iron Hawks fired on the Grenadiers causing an infantry casualty and then the luck ran out. Berserkers failed to engage with the re-roll. Warhound advance and destroyed one of the Goliaths & breaking the second, it never rallied. The Macharius moved and fired on the second Berserker formation killing a load & breaking them.

The Overlords continued to fire, but the Krieg had reached the ruins and they were making plenty of saves. One infantry formation engages the Overlords bringing them both down on resolution and roll-off.

Cyclops killed the Warhound.

Turn three could have gone either way, but the Krieg won initiative which put the Squats on the back foot with both Berserkers being broken again. This included an engagement where I’d left one of the Iron Hawks intermingled thus this formation was drawn in and wiped out. However, the Cyclops and second formation of Hawks were preventing the Krieg from winning & just for fun the Cyclops popped a Gorgon.

Turn four and the end of turn 3 suicide run from the Krieg Reg HQ paid off as the Krieg got to go first again and the Reg HQ engage the final pair of Overlords. No wounds to either side, Krieg up +3 (Commissar and Double Outnumber). My highest roll was a 3 compared to Tom’s 6, Overlords wiped out.....
Game continued but neither side could gain enough for a clear win. However, it was an obvious points victory to the Krieg.

A good if ultimately frustrating game. I can say though that although pairs of Overlords are frightening when they get within 45cm and get to advance or sustain, they are not a problem for your opponent to deal with if they have the shooting ability or numbers to engage. Plus the lack of fearless coupled with support craft makes them very fragile once broken.

_________________
_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 195 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  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