I can only note that that's not what Squats had back in the mists of time. If the limits of E:A required it, that could of course be ignored.

As far as I can tell (I do not have a copy of SM2 to hand, only NetEPIC) they had the same ranged shot stat as a Tactical Marine base, and Thunderers had 3 shots to a Devastator base's 2 shots.


Ways those kind of firepower stats could be kept at 300pts or below:

- Get rid of the "free" transports (really included in the formation's basic cost)
- Keep their speed @ 10cm

Either of the above would keep them to below a 300pt points cost IMO. Compared to the Steel Legion, they'd have more ranged firepower than a Company (10 shots vs. 7 - I'm assuming the Heathguard get a ML too), but less units, a 6+ save, and no Commander.

I wouldn't see a 15cm move formation without transports as being abusive at 275pts, indeed possibly a shade overpriced.
A 10cm formation without transports would certainly only be worth 250pts at most IMO, and possibly 25-50pts less.



Too granular for Epic, IMO.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Perhaps, but it's not without precedent, you can choose different weapon loadouts for Gorgons in the Krieg list for example, it's not much different than having different blends of aspect warriors is it?

maybe I'm missing the point....

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

I think that since 8 Chaos Marines + a Character upgrade are ok at 275 then maybe 10 ? Stands of Squats would be fine.

Maybe drop the 'free' Rhinos, giving the option to take them as an upgrade, so you can build Garrison formations with arty upgrades, or Mechanised depending on taste.

Moscovian - we tried out the NFNS last week with Tau, didn't get a feel for it as I was taking a whimsical Iron Eagle heavy and Warrior-less army. Further testing required.




I always think of engagements are 40K style games, with troops blasting away from hilltops at enemy huddled in the woods, with a few people running up and hitting you with axes in true 40k-style. Yes, I feel stylistically Squats should make frequent engagements. Core troopers with lasguns suggests a conventional playstyle much like Guard.

I do think E&C's suggestion for 10cm move with vastly superior ranges is workable (though I still prefer 15cm moves).

For brainstorm purposes, here's a fullish list of how to reduce Squat movement, many of which are unworkable:

- low strategy rating
- restrictions to marching (initiaitive modifier, outright ban)
- restrictions to doubling (initiative modifier, or removing shooting ability)
- limit countercharging
- limit consolidation
- limit disembarkation
- reduce garrisons
- reduce 15cm set up
- limit withdrawals

*********

Half a Missile is a good start, but it only puts them on a ballistic level with Guard infantry. I'd prefer a shot each and a reduction in the size of the Warrior formation to 8 (or fewer) stands towards the top end of the 200-250 price bracket (not factoring in Rhinos).

Compare Eldar Guardians (8 stands for 150), Aspect Warriors (8 for 300), Tau Fire Warriors (8 for 225), Black Legion (8 for 275).

IIRC Mosc was quite negative on the idea of giving 10cm move Squats 60cm Heavy Weapons ("Squat Missile Launcher").


I actually really like the sound of this one.

Squats being banned from marching strikes me as psychologically/stylistically wrong for the Dwarf archetype, but Dwarf infantry being disinclined to move (fast) and shoot at the same time feels kinda right?


Stylistically I feel like Squats should have a noticable preference for ranged shooting, but shouldn't be slouches in Engagements if nessesary, especially defensive Engagements.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Yeah, though rather than "breaking" a heavy weapon you could just call whatever's on the stand a "Squat Heavy Weapon" (like the French List), or give it the stats of something with 60cm the 40K versions had access to. E&C - I'm sure you can oblige us with an example from your exhaustive Epic wargear knowledge.

To brainstrom doubling you could:

- negative initiative modifiers for attempting a double
- -2 to shoot on a double instead of -1
- No shooting at all on a double (though you could still lend supporting fire)
- No supporting fire on a double (like marching)

Pretty much nothing matches the requirements AFAIK.

"Blacklegion" is much better on 40k-Epic stat comparisons than I am, better to ask him. I'm somewhere in the middle between the "stat crunch" style and the "feel-only background be damned" style.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I'd actually go for 10 for 275 with a Missile Launcher each and no transports (or maybe steal from the FW's and say 8 in Rhinos or 10 on foot?)

I disagree "they're not all dead" as being a good reason for having Warrior formation numbers so high (10-30 stands). Are you arguing they're a horde army? 10 base in a formation is like Orks - are you arguiing Squats are a horde army? Just because they're almost extinct post-invasion now doesn't mean you can take a core formation of one hundred individual Squats pre-invasion.

Regards 40k equivelants - Man (or abhuman, or alien) portable heavy weapons pretty much max out at the 48"(45cm) bracket in 40k. For Guard equivs that would be Missile Launcher, Autocannon, Lascannon. You could fudge the 60"/60cm range for missiles by saying Squats are able to bear heavier loads, so their missiles have a somewhat larger propellant charge/motor.

I think the first step need to be to get them to 1 AC/ML per Warrior and 3 per Thunderer per E&C's suggestion, and see how it affects play. We can then increase range if neccessary.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

That is the sort of list that is worth doing as a separate poll.

Personally I quite lack the restrictions to marching - Squats are natural sprinters!!
That way they still have the same base move as humans and Eldar but find it harder to move long distances quickly.

With increased firepower (as discussed above), some sort of stubborn rule and 15cm movement is package what I am hoping for. Take away the transport as automatic upgrade to keep cost of formation down- keep it as an optional upgrade in the same way as Orks.

Cheers

James

_________________
My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts
My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs
My Epic trades list

+1 for this suggestion

_________________
My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts
My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs
My Epic trades list

I don't disagree, they're supposed to be good weaponsmiths too so it's not unreasonable that they could make better missile launchers IMO.

However I'd start with testing normal missile launchers.

On reflection I'd venture to say that Squat Warriors as they are currently are a fair bit overpriced for what they deliver.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

If you end up going the shooting/defensive engagement routes (that is, not inclined to initiate engagements), heavier ranged weaponry combined with 10cm move could do the trick - 10cm or 15cm has no effect when engaged, but it penalizes engaging (as Curis showed).

Great discussion, although I want to avoid the 60cm missile launcher. Squats shared a lot of their technology with the Imperium and vice-versa. Fluffwise is is a terrible idea to have all these weapon systems be identical to IG and then deviate from something so basic like a missile launcher.

I'm really torn on removing the free rhinos. They were made free for two reasons: one was obviously to compensate them for a slower movement base. The other was because the price of Rhinos to this day is still argued over. I didn't want to open up an old wound on a new thread. If I had to choose between a high priced Warrior formation and hashing out Rhino prices, I'd choose the former.

The List
- low strategy rating -1 already has that
- restrictions to marching (initiaitive modifier, outright ban) +1
- restrictions to doubling (initiative modifier, or removing shooting ability) ambivalent
- limit countercharging -1 (if there is one time the Squats would be moving fast, it would be a counter charge)
- limit consolidation -1 (I can't see limiting it more than it naturally is)
- limit disembarkation -1 (I can't see limiting it more than it naturally is)
- reduce garrisons -1 (this feels wrong)
- reduce 15cm set up -1 (tied to the Tournament Scenario)
- limit withdrawals +1 (obviously I like this idea)

A lot of points were brought up, but quite frankly the movement/Stubborn rule needs to be hammered out before anything else. All other topics hinge from that decision and -while discussion is good- it is a bad idea to make a decision on armament, cost, transports, or formation sizes without those two issues locked down tight.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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