So, were we to change the stubborn special rule, should it be inclined to helping on hackdowns, rallies, or breaking in the first place? The current rule helps, but it is a very small bump. Actually, I'll open another thread on this because it seems the stubborn rule should probably be discussed at the same time. If the movement is changed to 15cm, I think the current subdued stubborn rule is more than enough. If the movement is kept at 10cm, we possibly need something heartier to take care of our short friends.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

So we have 2 questions:

1) What speed should the Squats be with existing special rules?
2) What speed should the Squats be if we change special rules i.e. Stubborn?

The poll assumes the first question- it is asked in isolation.

E&C is talking about second question. A perfectly valid one. And IF the Squats special rules are changed then maybe the 10cm speed would be warranted. But only if the special rules are changed.

For the moement we can only answer the poll question as asked. i.e. with existing special rules.

Nah, we can talk about both. I added a link above. And one more here for extra volume.

Feel free to bounce between the threads. So far the poll shows an even experience between bad and good with the rule, but a large interest in exploring the 10cm further. If we can answer the concerns of Curis' playtesting group by modifying the stubborn rule, I think the list would be better for it.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Basically, I think it's clear that a majority slow force is doomed. That comes from both experience with Big Gunz formations and with the notorious issues Feral Orks have with crossing the board fast enough to claim/contest objectives. Even 15cm moves is a serious challenge on a corner deployment.

That means if you were to choose to make squats 10cm move, the real effect is to make transports a necessity for nearly every infantry formation. That might be fine, if everyone thinks that is appropriately flavorful. It will just be something that needs to be taken into account in terms of formation size/cost.

That said, I am not sure that it is entirely flavorful. To me, an infantry-centered "stand and deliver" kind of army is quintessential Squats and that would be extraordinarily difficult to use in the GT with 10cm moves.

They have iron eagles and rhinos to move fast?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Experience of such was the basis of my voting it as likely to be a poor idea ("ridiculous" perhaps a little too strong), while acknowledging I haven't played with the 10cm the issues of playing slow 15cm armies would seem to be exacerbated.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

E&C: Yes, exactly. Thus the "effective mandatory transport" comment in my post.

Alternatively, you could give ordinary Squat infantry, that moves on it's own legs, a 10 cm move but ...
allow them to march and shoot with a -1 penalty - there must be an advantage coming from an high G world

Regards
Stephan

hmmm - a kind of epic slow and purposeful?

May shoot after a double with no penalty or shoot after a march with a -1 penalty.

normal: move 30cm, shoot @-1 OR move 45cm

Squat: move 20cm, Shoot, OR move 30cm, shoot@-1


seems reasonably fair.

_________________
My shifting projects

The reason for not proposing a double move/shoot without penalty was that it would be two changes to basic rules, instead of just one "bonus" feature.

Only allowing to shoot while marching or even better just adding a quick step/shoot action for squats is conceptually simpler and feels less "incisive" and is only one thing to remember and for the unsuspecting opponent to wonder (read complain) about.

One thing to keep in mind:

If you allow shooting on a march action all other "march" rules will still supply.
Iy you add a special action, it will not be a march action and will not have the same restrictions.

I don't think allowing special abilities on March moves reflect a force being slow and purposeful. If anything, it's the exact opposite. The Dark Eldar have a rule like that specifically to reflect them being fast and nimble.

'slow and purposeful' is a special rule in 40k - you can't run, but you can move and shoot heavy weapons

_________________
My shifting projects

I agree it is not slow and purposeful, but it's shows their endurance and stamina, forged on high G worlds.

One argument would be:
After a triple move, most races are too exhausted, to hold a weapon straight and hit a target - take biathlon as a reference.
But squats have so much stamina and endurance, it does not bother them at least not too much.

If you follow the time segment school you could argue:
All other races would have to kneel or lay down, to get into fighting stance and there is not time left for that and shooting after a triple move.
The squats can obviously save this time as they are always a "stable" fire platform, having a centre of gravity so close to the ground

I'm not so keen on a special rule for the movement anyway. It takes up a 'slot' so-to-speak in the total number of special rules players are willing to tolerate. If something is necessary or uber-cool I'll put it in, but the nice thing about the movement is that it is something special built into the stats. Does that mean it is viable? Not necessarily. However the army as-is does have the ability to move up.
+Garrisons
+Free Rhinos
+Mine Portals / Pitheads <-- note these are actual terms from mining glossaries - that's why I chose those names
+Bike Formations
+Iron Eagle Gyrocopters
+Tunnelers

What exactly am I missing? That isn't a rhetorical question either. The list is not without tools to achieve objective grabbing. Garrisoned Warrior formations, especially in cover, can absorb a lot of firepower and IMO hearken to IG infantry formations. You don't exactly see them running from the back of a board to grab their opponent's blitz either. Mechanized IG are mirrored with Warriors in Rhinos. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem with the 10cm move in terms of objective grabbing, but I really am struggling to see what it is.

For me, the real question is can the 10cm move be easily exploited in assaults? Curis and his group seemed to identify this problem early on. I've asked them to provide some details to help illustrate the issue, but so far they haven't been forthcoming. Likewise, Morgan Vening has been playing with 10cm moves on the Dvergatel list and has had very few problems, but he has also not shared this information. It is a bit frustrating because I have good players on both sides who give me anecdotal information and nothing more. Personally the games I've played in and seen in our group haven't had problems, but I concede that perhaps those situations have not come up.

If anyone wants to feed information my way that would be great. Playtests or a picture showing how an assault went bad or whatever.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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