After much badgering from Frogbear ("Do it! Do it! Do it!), I'm finally posting an alternate take on the Squats. The list was in development for over a year, Test Version 2 being stamped 24/9/09, and has been at this release stage for since June. Some of the background has been done, and I know where I want it to go. But me being slack, and then taking stewardship of the Knights, I shelved it, until now.

I found the existing Squat lists to be too much "Imp Guard" for my tastes, and so set about developing one that fit my image of a Squat army. The general design principle was that of a very defensive army. Summed up, "I win on my side, I lose on your side". Obviously, that's not consistently true (or it'd be boring), but that's where I wanted the focus to be. By using slower but harder formations, limiting AA to very slow or hard to deploy forward formations, and making some choices with artillery, I achieved the desired results in playtests. It's proven fairly durable under robust playtests, and nothing to date has been found "broken" that wasn't immediately fixed. If you find it, let me know.

Currently the naming conventions are all over the place. Some have been adapted, while others retain the old Squat name. When I finish the background, these will all be corrected, but for initial ease of play, they've been kept.

While I'll happily debate any criticism, I'd just like to head off some potential arguments in advance.

First, this is not being put forward as a replacement for an official Squat list. It's purely an alternate version, and arguments about how it should conform to the official list is likely to fall on deaf ears.

Second, while I'm happy to discuss almost any part of the list, the list was created to fill certain issues I had with the lists already out there. Those issues were Infantry speed, Infantry armor, and sacrificial troops (Berserkers). Be prepared to have a difficult if not impossible time having me change them.

Anyways, that's it. Once I've got the Knight List to a stable level, I'll probably complete the background stuff, but the Knights take priority. Though I'm quite prepared to play with the numbers, when argument sways me.

EDIT: Only change in 1.01 is renaming Laudon to Land Train. Don't bother redownloading just for that, unless you're an obsessive, like me.

Morgan Vening

Well it's about bloody time!

How long has it been? 6 months worth of badgering from me to get it out?

I modelled the Chaos Squats on this list before going onto the Chaos route so you may see some similarities yet nothing the same.

I have played Morgans Squat Dvergatal list quite a few times (with dismal effect) and played against it as well (to also dismal effect). As I am an assault player, I appreciated this lists ability to teach me patience and further strategy. After the 5th game (I think), I really started to understand the list and design more. I then put them up against an Imperial Guard army of mine. Morgan quickly showed me that those engineers in tunnelers with Lance were a foce to be feared when placed against muy poor formation of Baneblades.

At first, the list may be hard to understand. Read through it and it will all start to make sense.

At first, that 10cm move is a killer. Think outside the square and use the formations for what they are best at. Things will start to fall into place.

These are not Imp Guard or Marines. They are not so much a "good at all things" but rather "masters of the specific". Comparrisons to Eldar for specialisations can be made, yet not the glass hammer.

The Resolute rule works well to represent this force.

I will leave this now to others feedback and ideas. I have placed Morgan through enough nagging for him get the list to this point!

Well done Mr Vening.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I don't mind the look of it MV. Not sure about the name though. Can I ask what a "Laudon" is? What would you say the weakness is? Speed?

Dvergr is the Old Norse name for Dwarf. This lead to Dvergar for the singular (man), Dvergen for the multiple (men), and Dvergatal for the racial (mankind). It stemmed from a discussion a long time ago, that Squats wouldn't call themselves Squats, in much the same way Eldar wouldn't call themselves Pointy Ears. So, I did a little research, discarded choice number one (the self-referential name for dwarves in Tolkien being Khazad), and settled with the Norse.

Laudon? Ahh. Stupid me. That's an old holdover name for the Land Train. I thought I'd removed all references. And there it is. Eight times. Woot for my self-editing skillz! Yeah, Laudon = Land Train. New version up now.

Not sure what you're asking about regards weakness, so I'll cover both bases. As a list, it's significant weakness is it's ability to project forward. Everything in the list is approximately 5cm slower than normal. This makes taking opposing objectives harder, even denying They Shall Not Pass to the opponent can be hard, and a difficulty in changing gameplans hurts. Long range artillery is impressive, but limited and fairly easy to neutralise, and no aircraft is a fairly significant penalty.

If you were meaning the Land Train, it's fairly easy to break at a low size, and once you start adding carriages, it gets expensive quickly. It lacks the customizability of an AMTL Titan, but fits the role between a heavy Warhound, and a Warlord, depending on how the player puts it together. As it says in the back of the list, it's the one thing I don't feel has been properly developed. I'm curious how others feel about it on the battlefield.

Morgan Vening

My goal (once I stabilise the list - not that far away), is to pit the World Eaters against this force.

Pure aggression against a stalwart defence. It is a game that I am looking forward to.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Interesting. I may take this list for a test drive.

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

I had one game with and one against Morgan's list and it's certainly an interesting one. They're seriously slow, unless tunnelling, though they'll last a while til they get there and they need to be played completely differently to pretty much any other army I've played. The key I think is to try and stop your enemy from keeping you in your own half, because once you do, you're stuck there for the rest of the game.

Other than that, I don't have any concerns that I haven't already aired to Morgan (mostly just about the RA on the characters) and I can attest to the artillery looking far nastier than it is.

Can you still have two SCs? That and the fiddlyness of Resolute seemed absurd.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I don't have time at the moment to read it properly but I approve of having them 10cm move with a more different playstyle from IG.

oh yeah, 2nd what Dave said - 2 SCs is an issue and the whole "they have enough BM to be broken but they're not because of Resolute but are they all suppressed?" thing. All the characters have Leader anyway (amongst many other things) so is the "ignore 1st BM for activation purposes" necessary? I'm trying to think of another way to represent their toughness within the current game mechanic that isn't fiddly. Not coming up with anything though

Both the 2 Supreme Commanders, and the Resolute rule work in concert, to allow a degree of scale between Initiative 1+, and Initiative 2+. I could have accomplished this with other rules, but the SC thing seemed both fluffy, and solved most of the other problems, if you're prepared to pay the cost. To get 2 SC's requires the expenditure of a minimum 625pts, in two separate formations. Then, trying to protect these becomes a factor.

I'm not sure what you mean about "they're not broken, but they're all suppressed". If there's 6 units, with 6BM's, it's counted as 5BM's for Broken AND Suppression (2nd and 3rd effect). With the exception of the first effect regarding activation, it's "And They Shall Know No Fear Lite". Instead of halving for all purposes, it's -1.

Leader doesn't affect the Initiative Roll, so a single BM on any formation causes it to act on a 3+ (4+ when retaining). That'd be incredibly harsh, even if the dual SC was retained, and it becomes an even bigger problem when formations are broken. Given the lack of speed, formations tend to find it difficult to get outside 30cm of the enemy, and having multiple formations rallying on a 5+ isn't fun. With only a single, often not-difficult to neutralise SC, even less so.

While I'll take the criticism on board, it does need to be noted that a change, especially to Resolute, would mean a fairly significant re-evaluation of all units, especially the SuperHeavies. It's because of Resolute I made them a 2+ Initiative, which is a fairly significant downside.

Morgan Vening

In the end, if you and your group are happy with it, do what you want. If the intention is to put this in a supplement though I would really stop and think about the payoff with respect to all the extra special rules.

I remember playing the list with Matt and when I asked him what Resolute did I started starring off into space and thinking "Is he still talking?" In the end I just stopped him and said whatever, just point them out as we play.

Re: the two SCs, I can't think of any armed force that would benefit from a command structure like this. Units can't have orders coming from two separate sources, things would go FUBAR real quick.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I thought you said your internet connection broke down? <sob sob sob> you don't love me any more <sob sob>

if you want the stunties to shrug off demoralising things, why not make it +1 to rallying/ marshall actions? Be alot simpler.

A save against hackdown hits is by far the best idea I've heard for resolute/stubborn/whatever