Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 138 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

New Squat List: Thurgrimm Stronghold 1.0

 Post subject: New Squat List: Thurgrimm Stronghold 1.0
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:07 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6396
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Attached is the much anticipated Thurgrimm Stronghold 1.0 list. You will find many notes on why I made certain decisions but it isn't all inclusive. Feel free to look it over, ask questions, and give it a spin. If you find some errors within the list, please let me know.


Attachments:
Thurgrimm 1.0 Complete.pdf [219.7 KiB]
Downloaded 412 times

_________________
Current Fan-made Epic Supplements
[url=http://www.tacticalwargames.net/resources/raiders2.zip]Epic: Raiders 2.0

Epic: Siege
Making your own Epic Supplement
Syncing Forward
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Squat List: Thurgrimm Stronghold 1.0
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:43 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5663
Location: UK
In guilds and brotherhoods the upgrade is called 'Warlord' in squat upgrades it is called 'Brotherhood Warlord'.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Squat List: Thurgrimm Stronghold 1.0
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:59 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:16 pm
Posts: 364
Location: Manchester, England
Thanks for pulling this all together Moscovian.

The notes for Berserkers say "I dropped their price from 175 to 150" but they're still 175 in the list. Which is correct?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Squat List: Thurgrimm Stronghold 1.0
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:36 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1481
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Curis wrote:
Thanks for pulling this all together Moscovian.

The notes for Berserkers say "I dropped their price from 175 to 150" but they're still 175 in the list. Which is correct?


I think the higher price is correct. They were 6 units at 150 points but then it was decided that they should be 5 + hearthguard.
It's now 5 berzerkers but with the higher price, so I think Moscovian just forgot to include the hearthguard unit.

Cheers


Last edited by Borka on Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Squat List: Thurgrimm Stronghold 1.0
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6396
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Correct - the 175 is the right price, but I simply never changed the notes at the top.

Note from PAR which seems it should be posted here...
Quote:
top work i am liking the new list (i should have my squats up & running in a month or so i will give you some bat reps then)

the only thing that strikes me is the now lack of AA weapons making thunderfires a must buy for the list (which is a shame)
i agree with dropping the AA off the gyros but the overlords would benefit with some AA weapons (mabe a short range flak shot on the battle cannons or replacing the atuocannons with hydra style ones)
it seems unlikely/unfluffy that squats would field a huge sitting target with out fighter cover or the ability put out some flak to defend its self & it is called an overlord so it should lord over everything including pesky fighter pilots

i am newish to epic (been playing a year or so) so i have never played epic40k so i have no idea how squats played in the past. so feel free to ignore anything above


I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but felt it worthy of discussion. MNB argued that the Iron Hawk needed to lose the AA because it was unlikely to work in that capacity. I agreed. However, the Overlords could easily carry a small armament of AA weaponry. The price of them should be between 200 and 225, but I don't know what the AA weapon would do to their cost.

_________________
Current Fan-made Epic Supplements
[url=http://www.tacticalwargames.net/resources/raiders2.zip]Epic: Raiders 2.0

Epic: Siege
Making your own Epic Supplement
Syncing Forward


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Squat List: Thurgrimm Stronghold 1.0
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:02 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:19 pm
Posts: 47
You know, here's a question that's been bugging me: why is the Iron Hawk called an Iron Hawk? This isn't in any fluff, to my knowledge.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Squat List: Thurgrimm Stronghold 1.0
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:38 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:16 pm
Posts: 4681
Location: Wheaton, IL
'Cause it's not an Iron Eagle? I'd guess it's an easy renaming for a dedicated recon variant.

_________________
SG

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Squat List: Thurgrimm Stronghold 1.0
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:15 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:17 am
Posts: 715
Location: Agri-World-NZ77
I'm not so keen on the portal.

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator:
Armyforge


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Squat List: Thurgrimm Stronghold 1.0
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:52 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6396
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
I'm trying to avoid commenting till we get more comments from the forum, but briefly...

Iron Hawk was simply used to differentiate the spotter from the standard Iron Eagle. The design was based on the idea of spending money on the spotters only if you want them (i.e. if you have Doomsday Cannons in your list). If the name itself bugs people we can change it, but so far I don't see anything terribly offensive about it.

Any transport discrepancies we can correct, which include exo-armors.

Exo-Armor formations: model availability was an issue we faced, not to mention list focus. Some people have lots of these fellers, but other players don't. I decided that the Thurgrimm list would be a vanilla list and have access to everything, but that access would not become too focused on anything like Bikes, Hearthguard, or Exo-Armors. You can get them, but in limited quantities.

I do have a plan that we will take an Eldar approach to the Squats, where Strongholds will be akin to Craftworlds. What I would like to see are multiple variant lists where we take a different tack on each list for the various Squat fanatics. Morgan Vening and I discussed this and the goal was that we would co-opt the various Stronghold list names and re-image them:
Thurgrimm Stronghold: vanilla Squat list, Berserker friendly
Dvergatel Stronghold: Super-Heavy friendly
Whatever Stronghold: Bike friendly
And so on.
In addition, there is a post-Tyranid list (Trade Consortium) that Borka and I are working on. The goal is to create multiple lists to suit the Squats for any flavored game.

_________________
Current Fan-made Epic Supplements
[url=http://www.tacticalwargames.net/resources/raiders2.zip]Epic: Raiders 2.0

Epic: Siege
Making your own Epic Supplement
Syncing Forward


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Squat List: Thurgrimm Stronghold 1.0
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:26 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:16 pm
Posts: 4681
Location: Wheaton, IL
Looks good overall. A few points:

I still really dislike the CC3+ on the Leviathan et al. I can't see any reason for it, bolter arrays or no. Is there a fluff reason for these stats?

Is there a reason to include the all round arc on the Leviathan battle cannon? It's implied, unless there's something funky going on with the model.

Overlords: There's no such thing as Fixed left or Fixed right arcs in the main rules. I assume you're looking at a 90deg arc to the appropriate side, but it needs clarification. The casemates the cannon are mounted in have about a 120-150deg arc of fire, IIRC, so why not make them plain old left and right arc? Only problem you may run into is that then makes the cost rise, with six BCs and four ACs firing on a formation crossing the centerline.

Mole mortars look... less OP than Demiurg did.

_________________
SG

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Squat List: Thurgrimm Stronghold 1.0
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:37 am
Posts: 568
Location: Manchester UK
VOLATILE COMMENTS EDITED OUT
A few issues here having played against this list a number of times:

10 cm move:

It throws up a number of issues from game to game - squats struggling to escape from lost engagements (It's relatively simple to make sure that squat infantry can't be more than 15cm away from a victorious enemy after a double move).... (edit) ...It also makes the squats pretty weak in a game of maneuver like Epic when they can only march as fast as all other standard infantry double.

in addition it's meant that you've had to tack on solutions...(edit) I am of course talking about Infiltrating beserkers. I can see why you gave them infiltrate - otherwise they'd never make CC with a 10 cm move. But Squat Beserkers moving faster than Eldar Howling banshees? Really? Not very fluffy if that's what you were going for with the 10 cm move.

A 15 cm basic infantry and WE move would be much better IMO.

While i'm on the subject of the infantry:

Firepower:

Is a heavy bolter per stand really too much to ask? Game wise, warrior fms are pitiful as is and fluff wise - are you really trying to suggest that squat warriors have half the firepower of space marine scouts?

Disposable Tunnellers:

I do not like this one bit. It's basically added confusion and also kind of makes the models pretty pointless. Having played a game recently vs the tunneling vehicles actually having stats and a role and many games vs them just being the most pointless markers in the world I definately prefer them having stats. It looks less confusing for the opponent and bulks out the fms nicely making them actually worth taking, in addition it's a chance for the modeller/painter to show off his nice shiny units as well as being very characterful.

Gyrocopters:
A 30+ move skimmer should not have a 75cm range battlecannon. From a fluff perspective it's ridiculous to suggest that a skimmer can carry the main weapon of a Leman Russ tank/ Thunderhawk and it's quite overpowering. there is almost no-where to hide from these guys.

Thunderers:

(edit) If Guard fire support can have 2 x Autocannons, I don't see why Squat thunderers can't.

Collosus and Cyclops:
Personal opinion this one but I think they should defo be DC4. They're clearly not big enough to be 1 DC off a reaver titan. IMO a better way to differentiate the squats and introduce something new would be to stat these WEs at DC4 but also give them 4 Void Shields.

Stubborn:
Not needed. It promotes a static gunline style of army and again feels clunky and feels tacked on. (edit) it certainly doesn't make them feel stubborn. If you want to represent squat's stubborness then why not something along the lines of: ignore the -1 penalty for enemy being within 30cm when rallying? Or allow each unit to have leader ala spirit stones. Pointed correctly it actually makes the army feel just a bit more stubborn.

The Living Ancestor:
This guy is just super uber good. Why would anyone leave home without him? The Ancient Wisdon rule is better than a farseer's farsight, although that being said I do quite like it. EA +1 MW FF, Invulnerable & Inspiring though? (edit) Especially as you can quite happily stick him in a DC 5 WE with a RA 4+ save, granting it an invulnerable save and inspiring on top of everything else. (edit) (edit)

I love the tactical element that he brings to the battle. the living Ancestor rule alone makes him worth his points but I'm sorry the rest is completely OTT.

Ok, so i've been quite negative so far and been pretty brutal in my criticism. I make no apology but do hope that it's not taken personally. It's just my way and no insult is intended.

I do like the rough outline that the list is taking and have had some fun games against it. The army does look good on the table but as a regular Epic-UK playtester and opponent of the Squats I feel that there's definate room for improvement.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Squat List: Thurgrimm Stronghold 1.0
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:47 am
Posts: 1434
Location: State College
a few comments:

so, Spotter is essentially Tau Markerlights? I know that special rule is Tau specific, but could you co-opt or reference the wording?

Mine Portal - like others, I'm not sure about this, but in particular the rule about no more than 3 fms per portal is superfluous. No one in their right mind would put more fms off board than they can bring on in a standard 3 turn game.

Shouldn't the Ancient Wisdom special rule be with all the other special rules?

Thunderers - there's not much point have twinned AP only weapons as you won't be split-firing them (the main benefit of twinned weapons that I can think of), so I'd just make them 2x AP4 instead.

Mole mortars - rather than have the IG autocannon method of reducing shots/ BP, why not just have the no. of models you have in a fm and up their stats (armour, specifically)? Is it because you want them to be more resilient; i.e. 1BM = no reduction in firepower, >4BM needed to reduce it to 1BP? They're still going to be a beyatch to shift from forward garisonned positions in cover.

Iron whatsits armour - if you're going with AR4+ because they're heavier, then they should be slower. So AR4+ with 30cm move, AR5+ with 35cm.

Tunnelers - glad to see that all cleared up. Players with the carriage models can always keep them on the side of the table like spacecraft. Also happy to see the "tunnelers turn to rubble and confer cover saves" thing disappear.

Overlord airship - agree that they should have some AA, even if it's only 30cm AA5+ something. Also, the whole left right arc thing is bloody fiddly and prone to arguments "according to my rule and pythagorean calculations, this thing I'm firing at is exactly on the centre line of my Overlord, so I have 6 shots" "no it's not, it's ever so slightly point thisaway, so you only get 3 shots". Might seem persnickerty, but the model's only 5 or 6cm long and you can shoot at something 75cm away. Just simplify it and give it fewer shots all round. Ditto for the Leviathan's lascannons.

Goliath bigwilly price is fine - 300pts is a lot of 3BP and 450pts is a big chunk of change for artillery.

Dragon car on the Land Train - why no IC on a giant flamethrower?

that's about it for me. no real comments on price until it's been tested a bit.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Squat List: Thurgrimm Stronghold 1.0
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:47 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Good to see some more progress on this, thanks. Will examine in more detail when I have time.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Squat List: Thurgrimm Stronghold 1.0
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6396
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
For anyone who missed my notes on the list...

This list was the result of ten Squat players who showed above average interest in the list. I wanted it hammered out off the forums so we had something playtested as opposed to theory-hammer vs. theory hammer. As you may have guessed, 10 people didn't agree on anything. Not one thing. However, it was played and discussed a lot.

There are a good number of points I am not going to comment on yet because I don't want to shut people's voices down. However, when it comes to unit stats, we did our best to make them WYSIWYG. So things like the Iron Eagles are WYSIWYG. The battlecannon is what the unit is armed with. The speed is supposed to be very quick (like a Valkyrie). Those things are not going to change. The size of the formation helps mitigate their abilities and the price is flexible.

Same thing goes for Thunderers. Most of the core playtesters wanted the Thunderer stats as you see them now. They are as close to WYSIWYG as I felt comfortable. They are what they are and that isn't going to change.

Everything else is on the table. Continue discussion.

_________________
Current Fan-made Epic Supplements
[url=http://www.tacticalwargames.net/resources/raiders2.zip]Epic: Raiders 2.0

Epic: Siege
Making your own Epic Supplement
Syncing Forward


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 138 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net