Most of the infantry in SM/TL had a 10cm move, now they're nearly all 15cm.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Ah, that makes sense, in a way. Same thing happened between 2nd and 3rd ed. 40k.

Yeah the Living Ancenstor was special in a few ways and I think don't think the supreme commander rules covers all of that. The rules were that he gave a 5+ save against psychic attacks to all friendly units within 25 cm, which of course would be rather hard to represent in EA. The other, and major, thing he gave was that he allowed you place a D6 extra order markers (in SM/TL you put all the orders down at the beginning of the turn hidden) if he was within 6cm(!?) of the Warlord. This meant that the dwarf player could give two orders to a "formation" and then he could pick the one he wanted/best suited after orders were revealed.

I don't really have a clear view how this could be represented in EA, perhaps giving the formation with the Warlord +1 to initiative if he joins them? I do think that the living ancestor should have something more/other than just supreme commander (possibly giving that to a Warlord instead).



I concur with this. I do think when looking back at the SM/TL stats/rules that they should be ini 1+.
The colossus also clearly lacks it's bolters it used to have 16 bolter attacks 6+ to hit, which I think should give something like (15cm) small arms +3 EA. Sort of like the Leviathan which used to have only 12 such attacks and currently has +2 EA, which probably is fine IMHO.

EDIT: I just thought about that perhaps this discussion is a bit premature and we should wait until the new AC has been appointed in a few days.

He could have SC in addition to the Warlord. AFAIK no current GT list allows multiple SCs, so it would be unique to Squats, and require no special rule.

The SC should go to the Warlord/Grand Warlord, not the Living Ancestor. He's awesome in the Homeworld mythos, sure, but he was only ever played the role of advisor. I'd say something along the line of my rules suggestion for the WE: if the Living Ancestor is within 6cm of the (Grand) Warlord's FORMATION, the ignore negative penalties for Action/Initiative tests. Not exactly an Ini buff, but will be very handy when the shells start flying and the BM start accumulating...

WE in 2nd did have quite alot of bolters, acting as anti-infantry. No reason they can't get them back with your suggestions, Borka. I'll make a few changes, see how they work, let you know! Rememeber, whoever ends up with the AC, we want playtesting and community and the ability to compromise to ensure that our vision of the Squats are both playable and have teeth whilst maintaining their character.

Personally, I would be happy with whomever ended up with the AC; as long as the Squats get love, I can play them regular, and there's a general consensus about the rules, I'm more then happy to either be the AC or have another fill the roll.

Proposed rule:

Implacable advance: Units with Implacable Advance (i.e. any of the big-ass war engines) may make a single action rather than a hold action on a failed activation test.


that would mean that, even if one of the war engines failed an activation, they'd still move forwards 15cm and fire all their guns. Seems simplest as long as an extra army specific rule is OK.

It seems hard to justify the Implacable Advance when titans don't have it.

Don't worry about there not being an AC. The fact that we have an active group of players interested in getting the Squats moving again is good news and any AC will be happy to jump into that (compared to not having anyone caring at all).

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Could you please clearify, I'm not sure that I understand you here. Do you mean that they would be able to make any action rather than a hold? Then there's no reason to even take the initiative test. That seems like a very overpowered rule.

I do believe what you mean is that they'd be able to make an advance action instead of a hold action. Is that correct? That still sounds to good IMHO and breaks a fundamental design in the EA rules.

Agreed, but there are a lot of other good ideas floating around so feel free to keep them coming.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I missed this before I think the idea has merit! It's simple, like you say no special rule, and gives a big bonus to the "ordering" part of the game to tie it in with the old SM/TL rules. Might be a bit to good though, hard to judge without playtesting of course.

I'll playtest with the Living Ancestor upgrade having SC; still doesn't feel quite right, but I'll give my impressions.

While we're on the subject of playtesting, what do people feel about the size/number of stands in the basic brotherhood formation? Good? Bad? Other number suggestions? I was going to playtest a command stand + 12 units; the command + 11 seems kinda... odd? in keeping with other unit conventions.

EDIT: what if the Living Ancestor had Commander, Leader, Inspiring, Inv. Save, and bumped the Strategy Rating of the Army if taken to 4? Would be an easy patch, no point adjustment, and would be VERY fluffy, mirroring what Living Ancestors were like in 2nd ed/40k. Also, what about "psychic powers?" Having MW enough? I think so, but was just curious. Maybe a neat little thing to have them do would be to once during their activation place a free blast marker on a unit in range...?

DOUBLE EDIT: I'm making up a nice word doc of the Thurgrim list (with VERY minor, housekeeping-type changes!) that mirrors the army lists and reference found in official GW epic publications, that will be available foe download, should some of you other developers wish to make changes and playtest on the fly, so to speak.

GETTING TIRED OF EDITING: I was rereading through the Eldar rules from Swordwind, and came across the special rule: Farsight. Quite similar to the Living Ancestor rules I've been throwing around on here, maybe do a weaker version called Wisdom of the Ancients, where the unit doesn't get to try steal the initiative twice. So then, my interpretation of the Living Ancestor would look like this:

LIVING ANCESTOR 1 Living Ancestor Character 50 point unit upgrade to a Warrior Brotherhood

Character 15cm n/a 5+ 5+

Bolt Pistol 15cm small arms
Power Axe Base Contact assault weapon macro-weapon extra attacks (+1)

Notes: Commander, Leader, Inspiring, Ancient Wisdom, Invulnerable Save

Special Rule: Ancient Wisdom
Any Squat formation that includes a Living Ancestor may ignore the -1 Action test penalty when they try to retain the initiative.

---

And the other special rule I"l be play testing:

Special Rule: Relentless
Squat War Engines do not suffer the -1 penalty for Action or Initiative tests caused by Blast Markers or Retaining the Initiative.
Squat War Engines may move as normal while Engaged or in an enemy's Zone of Control. The War Engine may 'Barge' any non-War Engine units while moving in this manner as though it had performed a Charge Move (see 3.3.1 for details on "Barging" units aside).

I feel as though those two special rules and their application are spot-on for translating some of the more prominent spacial rules that Squats had in 2nd ed; very fluffy, and useful, without making them anywhere near cheese-level of fandom...

I initially incorporated the Strategy Rating change into the Living Ancestor in the Dvergatal list. I removed it very shortly into development, mainly for the reasons brought up when the same concept was active in the Necrons thread. Points costs of formations are primarily valued on their statistical line, but the effect of Strategy Rating and Initiative does tend to influence that cost. Which means things will either be overcosted if you don't take the Living Ancestor, or undercosted if you do. It might not seem like much, but an extra point of Strategy Rating will likely influence at least one significant turn.

If it's an approach that people do want to try, I'd advise making the Living Ancestor compulsory, and having the costs factored in from the start, and the loss thereby being a penalty, rather than having it as an option.

I used the 2 Supreme Commanders idea, and with all units being 2+ Initiative (ignoring single BM's), and it's worked fine for every game I've taken the pair. Sometimes I just take one, and it works well too.

Morgan Vening

Some interesting points, there. I can see your position on the SR, but'll have to think about the compulsory selection of the Living Ancestor; I mean, they were essentially always taken in larger games (3+ Companies), but don't know about any precadent for compulsory selection in the current rule set. For the time being, I'll just edit out the SR increase; I think that as they stand without that or the SC ability is fine for 50 points.

Again, I'll play through the SC trait on both the (Grand)Warlord and the Living Ancestor, but... it just doesn't feel right. The Living Ancestors were always advisors, giving buffs as order machines. Nowhere I can think of or find in the entire catalogue of background and fluff for the Squats (in any system) are the Living Ancestors/Ancestor Lords/Spirit Masters described as anything close to a Supreme Commander; they popped up in Strongholds and went to war to advise, not lead.

My 2p.

Let's keep this dialogue going, though; progress is progress, even if slow

Also, I've really been thinking about trying out a kind of Domination/Force Dome "psychic power" with the Living Ancestor. Maybe:

DOMINATION: During this units activation, instead of a normal activation, you may place up to D3 blast markers on the nearest enemy formations within 30cm. Enemy formations cannot have more then 1 blast marker placed on them in this manner.

What do you guys think? Maybe something to think about for the future???

The old SM/TL warrior brotherhood card had them as Warlord + 9 warriors. The card also had detachments of berserkers and thunderers.

I think anything more than Warlord + 9 warriors for the basic formation is to much (I mean a larger formation will be to expensive and especially so with upgrades). I'd go with either the Warlord + 9 or perhaps with Warlord + 7, both of course with the possibility of upgrades of berserkers, warriors and thunderers like in the current thurgrim list. The latter (Wrl + 7) would have the benefit of not getting prohibitively expensive with upgrades, but still being able to get 10 warriors through the upgrade like in the old SM/TL card.





I think the idea is nice in that it reflects the old SM/TL thing with being able to get a bonus on your opponent when it comes to orders, I agree with Morgan though that the LA would have to be compulsory. But the double SC still seems easier to me (edit: actually thinking about it supreme commander lets you have the commander ability which I don't think is fitting for an advisory character, he could have just the reroll like the Tau Shas'O do).