In all fairness...

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

I can accept your decision. I think you are reading insult into honest queries. One of the biggest factors I've seen in wargames, is the diversity of 'acceptable' amounts of terrain. This shifts from playgroup to playgroup, and the amount has a fairly significant impact on the game. Even "official GT scenario rules" are vague when it comes to this. The suggested footprints of 15-30cm allow up to a 4:1 difference if some groups favor the smaller and others favor the larger. The Vassal maps I've played (thanks for the work, Chris), seem well below what I'd put down as a standard table. Without any pictures, I was just asking for clarifications, because in our games, being able to keep a 20 unit Ork formation in cover, isn't usually an impossibility. Which would impact on the battlefield effectiveness of the two lists used.

I wasn't questioning your groups tactical expertise. Without seeing a battle report, or having played with any of you, I'd have no basis for such an assumption. I was just trying to understand why your group had a different experience to my group. Without anything to compare it to, I was just trying to make sure we were both on the same page.

The rest of your concerns about inane questions was a disconnect between what you were saying, and what I was hearing, or vice versa. I finally understand your explanation of the perceived mobility exploit. I am not sure I don't consider that a feature, but it is something I'll keep an eye on.


What I actual said was "advance to 20cm". Meaning a single move, that puts them in their own "sweet spot". Meaning either the Gunwagonz then have to move to counter, commit themselves, or accept the assault.

Morgan Vening

I was fiddling around with different list options as I am working an a new 3k list to try playing with as my first attempt got smashed badly by orks and noticed something interesting. There is a way in this list to get to 19 BP in a barrage which is not on the Artillery table because nothing before could get there. The barrage in question is a Land Train with 4 siege mortar cars which gives you 3 BP for the engine and 4 BP for each car. What should we count it as, just another 18 BP barrage?

The list does specify "+ 0-4 different Carriages". I wrote that with the intention that each type of carriage can only be taken once. If I've poorly constructed the Land Train, I would like to fix it.

Morgan Vening

well, you are Australian, so one does make allowances.

Oops. I did not see that. BTW I had another question. Why are the upgrades for the core formations so restrictive? I was thinking about trying a 12 stand forger formation with 2 thunderers and 1 hearthguard in a Leviathan in my next list but lo and behold I find out that Hearthguard infantry upgrades are restricted to only be in the artificer formations. Also as a secondary question, is there any way we can get it so we could have robots be transportable inside leviathans? I agree that they shouldn't be allowed in spartans and gorgons but the Leviathan is big enough that it should be able to transport them. That would have been the other thing I would have tried except that the poor robots would have been stuck outside the Levi when the infantry were inside.

That was for a background reasoning. I intended my list to differ from the "official" one to avoid some confusions. One of the changes I made was the shifting of the society from the Brotherhoods, to the Guilds. Each Guild was responsible for an aspect of the grand designs of the Omniscientists (Living Ancestors), almost caste-like, except without an external heirarchy. Internally, as with all things, there would be, even if just talent based. Each of the four Guilds, have their own elite "special forces". Thunderers for Forgers, Hearth Cav for Bikers, Goliaths for Artillery, and Hearthguard for Artificers. The Guilds each being relatively insular wouldn't really loan out their best, at least not under the direct control of another Guild.

I don't see any balance issues with allowing cross-pairing of elites, it was just something I didn't feel justified with, given the direction I was taking the "fluff".


That makes sense. I'll definately change that. They should probably be allowed in a Hellbore too. Those things are massive.

Morgan Vening

Hi there Morgan - thanks for another squat list to try. Ive been looking at the squat lists (demiurg, thurgrimm) for a while now trying to work out which would be the best to go with for my new squat army. I have to say that I'm excited at the prospect of trying your list with the 10cm movement, as it will make it play differently to anything else. Its a bold move, and i would encourage you to stick with it.

My one issue with the list so far is the stats for the thunderers. The problem is that I am very much a WYSIWYG kind of a guy. Thunderers/Armsmen are typically represented on the tabletop with a stand of infantry including 2 or 3 heavy-weapon wielding stunties (and as an aside, i would like it if the demiurg & thurgrimms could agree on this). With your list though you have introduced the problem of representing a unit of squats carrying a twin-linked autocannon. I have no squats with twin-linked autocannons. And I wouldnt want to represent this with a unit with 1 heavy-weapon, as it would just look like a forger/ironbreaker/warrior.

I understand that you have shaped their stats to match what you wanted their role to be - but I think there is something to be said also for trying to stay close to what can be accurately represented with the miniatures.

Anyway, I guess its a fairly insignificant point. Keep up the good work!

I think I'll revert back to the previous naming convention of "Thunderer Weapons", because yes, the "Twin Linked" does look a bit meh. The numbers are the part that's more important, and with that, I found the current stats to be the best for the role I wanted.

Using 3xAP5/AT6 was encouraging an even more static approach than I wanted, as Sustained became better, but movement became a lot worse. The deck's already stacked for a static army, forcing it just wasn't what I wanted. And there's not a lot of variation when it comes to the raw numbers.

Finally, while there's some concern for WYSIWYG, you run into the problem of people having various interpretations of that. I've seen people base them 3, 4 and 5 support weapons to a base. I used to base them 4 HW, 1 HG, back in Space Marine. A lot of the miniatures I have now, are 4 and 5 to a base. And given the relative rarity of sprues, I wouldn't be surprised to see people using 2 per base.

Morgan Vening

With the lord character upgrades for each of the base formation types - can these only be added to a unit in the base formation, or can they be added to a unit in one of the formation's upgrades?

eg - if i purchase a thunderer upgrade for my forger guild, can the lord/character be added to a thunderer unit, or must it be in one of the forger units?

The way it's intended, it goes on the Forger Unit. From the intended background perspective, the artisans (Thunderers, Hearthguard/Cav) are beyond the politics of leadership, their relevant craft being more important. From a balance perspective, it's to stop putting the Supreme Commander into the Leviathan superstructure (nothing says you can't leave a Warrior stand with the SC in the Leviathan, but he's still susceptible to blast/assault resolution there), or in a Robot (where he would get a 3+ RAInv save). It's mainly to stop the possibility of a Fearless 3+ or 4+RA + Inv Supreme.

I'll make sure to put a note in the next revision. I wouldn't have a problem with it being attached to Thunderers, or even the Hearths, for the most part (RA twice means a bit of waste). But there are several options that wouldn't be right, and I don't want a list of can's and can'ts. So I'll go with the Chaos default and specify it.

Morgan Vening

Hi

I had my first game with this list last monday, usually playing the Demiurg Consortium list. To me the difference weren't that big, but it probably has to do with my style of play and inexperience in cheesy brokeness

My 3000 pts:
1 forgers guild; 12 forgers, Warlord up, robots up
1 Artillery guild; 9 mole mortars
1 bikers guild; half trikes, 2 hg cav
1 Colussus
1 Cyclops
1 Goliaths batt; 2 Goliaths, 1 tf
4 iron eagles

My opponent from memory (first time playing)
1 huge mob
2 blitz brigades w wartrax
1 blitz brigade
2 big gunz
1 stompa mob w mekboy stompa
1 great gargant w sc
3 figtha bommas

Deployment:
I garrisoned my forgers and mole mortars in ruins near his 2 forward objectives. We always use loads of terrain, mostly hills roads and ruins, so there's plenty of places to hide and maneuver into assualt positions.

I'm not gonna go into too much detail, since it was an intro game and a long time since I've played myself. But it was a good game and we got around all the aspects - a quick game also with my opponent being a seasoned fow-gamer.

All in all, my squats performed as usual. I didn't feel any dramatic changes to my old list, although I didn't spam mole mortars and thudd guns, trying to be nice to the new guy.

Goliaths are obviously taken down a notch, which is allright - they are completely broken in the other lists. The mortars bm were also missed, but the ap/at profile is fair, since they ignore cover.

It was also nice to be able to bring 2 mobile fortresses without worrying about restrictions. The support systems makes sense. Without the firepower of a couple of mf's, the squats really stand little chance in a shoot out. And since my opponent sat his gargant on his blitz objective, my mf's were free to roam the board. The cyclops delt with the stompas, and the colussus broke both blitz brigades and a big gunz mob.

I really liked the sizeable forgers guild, perhaps taking hearthguards or thunderers instead of robots next time. My forgers sat and defended my center and all 3 objectives on my half, denying my opponent the opportunity to threaten my artillery. Usually playing eldars, I had to resist the tempation of assaulting a stray blitz brigade, which would have left my forgers vulnerable in the open. The 10cm move wasn't a issue since the forgers sat dug in tight, soaking up gargant fire.

My bikers didn't do much, waiting in wain for an opportunity to engage the stompas. When they were able to cc/ff some big gunz, they oblirated them and then broke under heavy fire from the boyz mob.

The iron eagles lended support fire where needed and made full use of their RA. I really like their ability to sit back and still threaten obejctives with range and move (wonder why ). Next time, I might try 8 IE's in one formation, since I'm facing massive tank and titan armies at our one day tourney in the end of this month.

Although a quiet day at the office, this being an intro game I was able to see how the "new" profiles performed, and the feel wasn't too different from my old lists. Actually, this list plays more fair on the opponents, but then again I didn't cheese out, this being a friendly game.

I have a game tomorrow against orkz again. I'll tweak the list torwards the AT/MW side, having the future tourney in mind. I might spam artillery, but it's not really my style. Might try rapiers also but they seem vulnerable. And HG's in gorgons or termites is tempting. As an eldar player, it is sometimes hard to sit back and wait

Cheers

EDIT:
I mos def have to look at getting more activations, but squats really don't go cheap...

A quick question: Where do I find rules for piercing shot?

Seems relatively solid and covering most of the bases. I'm a fan of a mix of Thudds and MMortars, myself, but that's more an aesthetic issue. Their effectiveness depends on if the opponent is not able to find cover (where the TG's become better), or whether the cover save is meaningless (where they're mostly identical).

I assume it was a 9/12 man Biker's Guild?


Did he have any Zap guns in his Blitz Brigades? TK weapons tend to scare me a bit more when I'm playing with the big toys.


I've tended to find that massed artillery looks good on paper, but even with the massed fire opportunities, an army that can get into assault quickly (particularly air assault/teleport), makes them crumple like a cheap suit. Being Mounted, means that they can't take advantage of Cover Saves, and even with the bonuses of Resolute, it's rare I had a formation survive, let alone win or have enough left to be a significant future threat.


One of the biggest reasons for making an alternate list (besides the three listed in the design notes), was my dislike of MW everywhere, especially on Deployment Zone ranged weapons. The Mortars were similarly changed because firstly, they were hard to balance with BP, they meant there was no point mixing unit types (which I wanted), and I wasn't completely sure that BP was justified. A Basilisk sized weapon is considered the standard for 1BP. Mole Mortars seem too small to really count, and fractionals would have just been bleh.


I disagree that the Dvergatal stand little chance without mobile fortresses. But they definitely provide a means to take out hard nut formations like Stompas or enemy War Engines. Glad you didn't find the Support system too problematic (I hope).


There's been a lot of discussion regarding the speed change of the base infantry. Glad you didn't have an issue with it, but it starts to become noticeable when you lose a few activations, and have to shift position. Which was the reasoning for doing it.

Regarding the Forgers, Hearthguard aren't an option for them. This is a departure from the standard lists, but one I felt better fit the alternate background I was developing. The main change was that unlike the GW concept of Warrior Brotherhoods, and Guild being a quasi-independant faction, the Dvergatal are completely devoted to one of the four disciplines of their society, the constructors (Forgers), artists (Artificers), designers (Architects), and mechanics (Mechanics, naturally), which they also carry across into warfare. Each Clan has some or all of these Guilds, and a Dvergar devotes himself to a single discipline. Those that excel, and become masters both of their craft and militarily, advance into the related elite units. Thunderers from Forgers, Hearthguard from Artificers, and HearthCav from Mechanics. Architects graduate to the larger Goliaths. Anyway, that's how I justified that.


The Eagle formations are a prime choice for one of my playtesters (at least two formations were fielded by him in almost every test), but I tended to keep them to a minimum, or not include them (wanting to see the army work without them). They definitely add a speedy firepower option (like Imperial Vultures), but the staying power is similarly screwed up.


I'm glad you think so. I did try to cheese out several times (large quantities of War Engines), and my other playtester did with massed artillery, but couldn't seem to pull out victories. My choice ran into problems with activations (spending 1800pts on 4 War Engines left little in other units). My opponent had issues with "OK, I've blown up my opponent pretty well.... Now, how do I grab victory?".


The Hearthguard in Gorgons are a very tough nut, and make for an excellent forward push formation. And it took a couple of tries before I felt comfortable with the balance of sitting back and waiting, and pushing forward enough to secure victory.


I've found Overlords, and/or smaller formations of Artillery can boost activation count a little. But yeah, if you want the big toys, you take a hit activation wise.


Piercing Shot is -1 to Armour Saves (so 5+ becomes 6+, 4+Reinforced becomes 5+Reinforced), and causes Critical effects against War Engines on a 5+ (rather than a 6+).

Overall, I'm glad you enjoyed the list, and hope you'll report on any future successes or failures. There's a couple of things I've got to incorporate into the list, like listing Piercing Shot, and adding Robots to transport in a Leviathan (and maybe Gorgon). But I've been happy with the core fundamentals for a while now.

Morgan Vening

As a fellow playtester, I am glad that you found the list as enjoyable as I have found it.

If you think the IE are good now, you should have seen them in their first incarnation!

I would really like to see your feedback on the 2nd game and see if that 10cm move has any effect on the outcome.

Cheers......

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