Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Squat update - Thurgrimm's Stronghold 1.3

 Post subject: Squat update - Thurgrimm's Stronghold 1.3
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:24 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6396
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Way late but better than nothing.

Feel free to poke, make corrections, play away.


Attachments:
Thurgrimm 1.3.pdf [142.51 KiB]
Downloaded 317 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: Squat update - Thurgrimm's Stronghold 1.3
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:53 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1481
Location: Örebro, Sweden
A few things I noted

on spotter:
Quote:
All Squat War Engines may advance, double, or marshal and still fire
their indirect weapons upon an enemy formation. Normal modifiers
for these actions still apply as well as range considerations.


Just to be clear, do you mean that these units may fire indirectly? or just that they may actually shoot at the enemy (without LoF)?
Do they get to double their range (with minimum 30cm)?

If your intention is that they actually get to shoot indirectly, then an alternative wording could be "...marshal and still use indirect fire with any applicable weapons upon an enemy formation." or something similar.


Infantry:
15cm move. :)


Warriors:
The missile launcher is probably a good choice here. The heavy bolter was a bit lack luster.
(On 1 weapon in every two units... the old SM2 fluff said every 5 man unit had a heavy weapon... :P )


Tunnelers:
The termite and the mole both have a FF-value but no weapon, looks wierd. Perhaps Bolters (small arms) like the hellbore? If no weapon then I'd suggest making them FF -


Land train:
The dragon firethrower car does not have ignore cover. Intentional? Typo?

Edit: The unit description says it's minimum engine +2 cars, while the army list says minimum engine +1 car.

(Since it considered one unit were do we measure wepon ranges from. I'd hesitate to add more text do this units description, but it might feel wierd for your opponent if you have a dragon car, like 5 cars down at the back, and measure from the engine. Perhaps measuring for weapons from the applicable train part or perhaps allways from the engine?)


cheers


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squat update - Thurgrimm's Stronghold 1.3
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 695
Location: Geneva, Swizerland
Thanks Mosc.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squat update - Thurgrimm's Stronghold 1.3
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:51 am
Posts: 278
Thanks for the update. Most of the changes look good.

liking the new Infantry with Missile Launchers.
Overlords needed the price increase.
Moving tunnelling vehicles is good.

Quick rules query, though. Under Stubborn it says:

"To represent this, Squats may only take a maximum single withdrawal move of 15cm when breaking.However, Squats only take hack down kills within 5cm instead of the typical 15cm."

Should this read "Can only take a single withdrawal move?" Lots of units in the Squat army are faster/slower than 15cm. Or does this rule just apply only to Squat infantry?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squat update - Thurgrimm's Stronghold 1.3
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6396
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
The Stubborn rule is supposed to be a move of no more than 15cm for everything. It is a negative quality more than it is a positive one; very much like real life.

The train shooting should be from the weapon per 1.9 of the core rules.
Quote:
The method used by the author (and the
default you should use if you can’t agree to
an alternative) is that a weapon is in range
if any bit of the attacking weapon is within
range of any part of the target model (or at
least one of the models on a target stand).


The Fire Thrower should probably have IC to be consistent with other flame weapons.

I finally relented on the Warrior weaponry because at the end of the day I want the list to appeal to a broad range of people. The old models had 1 missile launchfor every 9 warriors so I sucked it up and just did what I had done with the rest of the list which was to make it friendly to collectors. I suppose I could have equipped them with 1 for every stand, but at 45cm they would be shooting twice as much as the IG and that not only feels wrong but increases the price.

I'll poke at the wording suggested above. Thanks, guys!

_________________
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: Squat update - Thurgrimm's Stronghold 1.3
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:23 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4800
Location: North Yorkshire
Decide to have a look at this as I have some new toys to create and army or two of Squats now.
Couple of quick notes;
Does the new Warlord Unit get its own transport?
I don’t see much point in choosing anything other than Overload Airships as my support choice, I like the other units, but the number of direct shots is brilliant. I would like to use the spotter rule, but don’t see the point in the other units when I can use the Overload itself.
No actual game as yet, but I will probably use the following list when I get a chance to test these guys.

1. Berserkers
2. Berserkers + Berserkers
3. Warrior Brotherhood + Rhinos
4. Warrior Brotherhood + Warlord & Rhinos
5. Thunderfire Battery (2)
6. Thunderfire Battery (2)
7. Iron Eagle Squadron
8. Iron Eagle Squadron
9. Guild Outriders (incl 4x Guild Trikes, if allowed)
10. Overload Airship
11. Overload Airship
12. Overload Airship
13. Overload Airship

2985pts

Berserkers protecting the Thunderfire batteries with a general advance of Warriors backed up with Battlecannons from the Overloads and Iron Eagles with a further sweep from the Outriders. As an alternative the trikes might be dropped to allow one of the Overlords to be swopped to a pair of Goliaths for some indirect fire. Testing might have me swopping the roles of the Berserkers and Warriors though.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squat update - Thurgrimm's Stronghold 1.3
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6396
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
I didn't give the Warlord an extra transport - not for any particular reason other than I felt they had more than enough room. :) If anyone can make a good argument for it, I'd consider it.

I love the Overlords, however they have NO cover because of the Support Craft status. This tends to make them floating targets for long range attacks. I wanted them to be WYSIWYG, so they are bristling with weaponry. Maybe they are not expensive enough, but limited experience has seen them with a short life span on the board. Feedback from the community certainly influence this. Your Overload of Overlords will be a welcome list for playtesting.

_________________
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: Squat update - Thurgrimm's Stronghold 1.3
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:19 pm
Posts: 47
I know, I know: I've been right out of communicae lately. I'll be playing against Orks, 2500, in a week. I'll let you know how it goes...

@Mosc: As always, thanks so much for helping our community get our favorite abhumans back in the fight.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squat update - Thurgrimm's Stronghold 1.3
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:08 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6396
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
I think once Christmas has passed we will all have some extra time. No worries.

_________________
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: Squat update - Thurgrimm's Stronghold 1.3
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:57 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:29 pm
Posts: 181
Played 5 games this year with squats using your thurgrimms stronghold list against Eldar and Codex Marines. Played 2000 and then 3000 point battles as the army grew. Felt balanced enough against these oponents but initially I was always pressed against my table edge by these very fast and agressive armies until I started combining layered defences with mobile flanking formations. The lack of scouts really does hurt this army but not so much that they feel unbalanced, you just have to learn to play defence another way.
Here's my feedback about the units:

Autonomon - Makes Robot s a bit tougher but never really impressed me. Ok.

Spotter - I like the new version of the spotter rule. The 45 designator range on the Iron Hawk is ok. The wording is simple to avoid confusion and it promotes movement of the slow WE giving the impression of a big rolling monster firing it's guns as it advances rather than a high armour artillery piece. Also consistant with SM-era Squat WE.
The older rule was ok but this one works much better with the army.

The 10 cm movement never really had much impact on the games I played but I guess keeping things simple (without infiltrator on Bersekers) is better. 15 cm, 10 cm, meh...

Warriors - Better now with the missile launcher. I think they are fine with 1/2 heavy weapon per stand as long as the price keeps low. They are the workshorse of this list. You need plenty of these and cheap. The Rapier and Thunderers upgrades are just right both in points cost and stats.

Bersekers - Felt rather fragile formations. Used them for counterattacks against vulnerable formations. Even with support they always get mauled after a single assault because of their armour making them useless after that. Still, very cheap. The Rhinos are a must for these.

Spartan's/Rhinos - I like keeping things simple, so a Rhino always worked for me since the SM2 days. That being said, I have used them very sparingly (only in one formation per army) just because I think lighter transport vehicles should keep being somewhat restricted for squats. If you need to get around get a proper vehicle like a Leviathan :)

Hearthguard - Their role at beefing up the brotherhood is very well reflected with the inspiring and leader abilites. Their stats don't need to be great for this. Ok right now.

Mole Mortar - Reducing their BP's seems fine for me. A small mortar formation shouldn't have a greater impact than a Colossus in the game.

Thudd Gun - Like Mole Mortar, small cheap formation for harassing with good range.

Robots - I like them, their stats make them tough opponents. The autonomon rules also makes them tougher, to a small degree.

Iron Eagle/Hawk - These I really liked! Fast, great range, the armor and pop-up makes them hard. The price is high but seems fair for all this. 2 Formations backed-up with 2 Overlord make up for a very tough flanking force. Keep out the AA from these. Unnecessary and overcomplicated.

Overlord - At 225 I'd still use them. But it is hard to put a points value on these. What's really overboard with these is their bomb load but the 15cm range and the support craft rule makes it very dangerous to really use them. They always felt very vulnerable but almost always survived the battle. Both because I usually place them on flanks and because my gaming group has a metagame that makes WE and TK weapons rarelly used, You're right, Moscovian, these are very tricky...

Leviathan and Colossus - Both are great WE. The Void shields and armor are adequate making them very tough. They both carry the Doomsday cannon that deserves it's name. The placement of this gun affects everything your enemy does
from placement to where he assaults and what objectives he'll try to take The Leviathan really felt like a cheap way to get an extra doomsday cannon in play to me. Upping the cost to 375 helps this. I have very limited experience with WE so I am hesitating to say that 375 and 450 still fells like a low points cost for these for their impact. But again, I play in a WE-limited environment.



Great job so far! Congratulations to all the team!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squat update - Thurgrimm's Stronghold 1.3
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6396
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Fantastic feedback. Much obliged. I'm glad somebody got the spotter rule into their game because so far I have had little success. I'll try to post more later but I wanted to say thanks while I was thinking about it.

_________________
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: Squat update - Thurgrimm's Stronghold 1.3
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:51 pm
Posts: 55
Played against these last night in what was admittedly an unusual game but will jot down some thoughts later once I've had another look through the list. That said first impressions I think you should consider dropping to 2 support per core, the basic brotherhoods should be the backbone instead it just feels like popcorning loads of cheap activations to support relatively cheap war engines.

Lots of indirect, also some with garrison, felt a bit cheap having nearly half a dozen barrages that could hit my deployment zone turn 1. Overlord and train both felt on the underpriced side (from a marine players perspective...I imagine they're about right for more shooty armies and overpriced vs guard).

Not sure the overlord bombs make sense, shooty army that requires an opponent to soak fire and engage having an 8bp penalty for doing so seems like it's trying to have the best of both worlds.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squat update - Thurgrimm's Stronghold 1.3
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6396
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Meer wrote:
Not sure the overlord bombs make sense, shooty army that requires an opponent to soak fire and engage having an 8bp penalty for doing so seems like it's trying to have the best of both worlds.


Not sure I follow you. Can you clarify this please?

_________________
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: Squat update - Thurgrimm's Stronghold 1.3
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:51 pm
Posts: 55
Moscovian wrote:
Meer wrote:
Not sure the overlord bombs make sense, shooty army that requires an opponent to soak fire and engage having an 8bp penalty for doing so seems like it's trying to have the best of both worlds.


Not sure I follow you. Can you clarify this please?


Sure, writing on the phone while on the move so maybe not as clear as I'd like.

Squats have lots of powerful stand off shooting, so as a draw back are worse in assault. Having a built in counter to the assaults once the enemy has weathered the fire seems to counteract their negative in some ways. In theory those enemies could then be eating 4 BP 8 barrages (4 overlords in an a 3k army) on top of the standard firepower.

I suppose my point is most good lists are built around pros and cons (marines lack mw/tk shooting, orks lack reliable firepower etc.) this seems to paper over one of the cons much like adding a shadowsword to a marine list would.

Feel free to ignore just some thoughts, I don't think the list is overpowered as is but I think it would be very easy to abuse/min max.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Squat update - Thurgrimm's Stronghold 1.3
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6396
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
The Overlords are a problem for me for a number of reasons. Firstly the armament you see on the list is the armament on the Overlord. What you see is what you get. I've tried very hard to not deviate from that WSYIWYG blueprint. Secondly is that the Overlord is extremely powerful in terms of firepower. Shooty plus the bomb rack makes it difficult to approach with assault troops or short range shooters. Thirdly is that they are quite vulnerable. They have no shields and are support craft status, so they will never have cover... ever. Because of this they will automatically be targets for enemy long range attacks.

Thus my quagmire. So far I really haven't seen the Overlords overperform nor heard of them doing so, but I agree there might be room for abuse. I tried taking three Overlords last time and saw a victory, but the playtest was tainted by an absolutely horrible game on behalf of the Dark Eldar - I could have one that game with three feral ork stands. :)

I ask that other players try breaking the Overlords. If they do break, I see two potential fixes:
1. Changing the price to 250 each.
2. Changing the bomb armament from the 8 BP one-shots to something like 2 BP continuous fire.

Thanks for the feedback!

_________________
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  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  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