| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Squats http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10790 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | bama [ Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Squats |
What is the most up to date squat army list for EA and where can I get it? |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Squats |
Every existant army list, from experimental up to fully official, can be found on this page: http://www.tacticalwargames.net/wiki....y+Lists |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Squats |
The demiurg list, despite the fact that the fiction idea was shot down by SG, is probably your best "Squat" list. Good unit balance and just the right amount of flavor. I've played against it many times and it feels right. Some of the others are - well you won't lose with them easily that is for sure. 
|
|
| Author: | TheLimey [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Squats |
So what is the latest on the Demiurg list? I ask, because my wife, bless her, fed my Epic addiction with a good sized infantry force of Squats for Xmas. (She told me she lost the bid on the 'nids, but won this one, then woried for days because she then found out that they 'officially' don't exist in 40K any longer). So, is this list fairly well bedded down now? |
|
| Author: | rpr [ Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Squats |
Now that I read the Necron list I think the likewise balanced version of Thunderfire in Demiurg list should be something like 3x AA2+ range 120cm (and still much weaker than Pylon) (but I?m quite alone in thinking that Necron list has very very broken war engines) |
|
| Author: | Crabowl [ Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Squats |
(rpr @ Jan. 04 2008,12:10) QUOTE (but I'm almost alone in thinking that Necron list is very very broken) Fixed |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Squats |
(TheLimey @ Dec. 26 2007,10:55) QUOTE So what is the latest on the Demiurg list? ... So, is this list fairly well bedded down now? I think so. It has been awhile since I played it but there were few problems with it. ePlgrim and I are fairly well matched against each other and I saw the Demiurgs lose as often as they won. Looking back over the list there are some things I'd love to see changed, however. The new MW barrage rules (making all MW shots on the barrage table hit as AP) unbalances the larger WEs (which all happen to be at the critical BP3). My guess is they should be dropped to BP2. Tunneling rule is coherent but after going over it again with fresh eyes I can see why people don't like it - it is unwieldy. I believe the rules can be simplified while still accomplishing what ePilgrim wanted to do (use the models). Fiction. As beautifully as it was written it was a gamble on ePilgrim's part that the Demiurg would be the new Squats. He got a confirmation after submitting the list the Demiurg are most certainly not Squats. With that said, I think another run at the fiction could be made, keeping them as Squats and removing the Demiurg references (other than maybe as trading partners or allies). Speed. There are a few units that I don't like being as fast as they are. Not because of the balance per se but because of the fluff of heavy gravity worlds. If you lived in a heavy gravity world you most certainly wouldn't have anybody who wanted to go fast. Falling 10 feet could be a deadly fall! I also don't like the idea that Gyrocopters would be used on heavy gravity worlds. Balloons? Yes. Copters? Nope. I think some new units could be added such as those giant city WEs that were put out by... (can't remember right now). They would make excellent additions to the list. I'd also like to see mine exits as an option for the Squats (place to exits to a mine to replace objective markers; troops can travel underground in the mine to avoid combat and such, measuring movement as normal. Something to that effect. All this I've been throwing at ePilgrim off and on for the last year but with my recent move to Pennsylvania gaming has been at a premium. |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Squats |
(Moscovian @ Jan. 04 2008,09:44) QUOTE Fiction. As beautifully as it was written it was a gamble on ePilgrim's part that the Demiurg would be the new Squats. He got a confirmation after submitting the list the Demiurg are most certainly not Squats. With that said, I think another run at the fiction could be made, keeping them as Squats and removing the Demiurg references (other than maybe as trading partners or allies). Fluff-wise I prefer them being Squats, rather than Demiurg. |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Squats |
He won't change it but I keep poking at him to do it anyway. The name really isn't the driving force behind the story anyway; it is the genetic experimentation that I think justifies their existence better than the previous gravity-makes-them-shorter fluff. Take out the Demiurg references, add in more ties to the Imperium to explain the persistence of cross over technology and you're done. Everything else still meshes well. Balance wise the list is far better than the Thurgrim's list and the other one (we played them both a couple times and they were ridiculously overpowered). |
|
| Author: | epilgrim [ Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Squats |
Since GW itself now regards the name "Squat" as little more than an unfunny toilet joke, I saw no need to hold to it either. I based the name Demiurg on the two FW spacecraft and a Jes Goodwin sketch of a short dude in a space suit. I did some research in the Greek mythos of Kthonians and the term Demiurge. I sprinkled in some sci-fi themes and backed into the xenophobe history of the Imperium and "Squat" was added back only as a pejorative. I am more than content with the fiction, regardless of anyone's opinon. As for game play, I think they work quite well. I do agree that the tunnelling rules are a bit of a chore, but they were the result of a lot of playtesting and in the end they offer something quite distinct that is not a surefire game winner. I espcially like that this list has no true armor and offers extreme choices. It encourages balance force selections and rewards combined arms tactics. Next to my IG, this is my favorite army (go figure ?  ) |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|