| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:38 am
Posts: 303
Location: Utah, Texas, or some Pacific Island
|
|
First off, you've not counted the Ancestor Lord. That makes four. Not three/two.
Lord=Not a character a unit.
Warlord=Character Upgrade to Lord (For Warrior Brotherhood Only) ONE
Ancestor Lord=Character Supreme Commander (All Armies get one somewhere) TWO
Guild Master=Character Upgrade like Lord Bikers Guild Only THREE
I cannot find these anywhere. Section 4? Where? There are a few references to 'tunnels' in Section 5.
Page 168 in the collectors section
But why do they have weapons? They're not on the models, or in the background. You're just adding them for the sake of it.
A Majority of players asked for it, as I said above, so they were a minor addition. Cosidering the present 'Count As' rule laid down by Jervis the model weapons hardly matter anymore. Can you find the weapons on the Malefactor?
Well, here are the problems:
1. The Colossus, and in fact all War Engines don't require any LoS to perform indirect fire. So the Ironhawk is unneccessary.
2. Since the Ironhawk's in the Colossus's formation, it can't get far enough away to "spot" (whatever that will be) in any meaningful sense.
3. When resolving fire against the Colossus, it causes faff. For starters it's a light vehicle, the Colossus isn't, so working out how to shoot at the formation is tricky ...
I suggest that the Ironhawk is just a decorative model assumed to be zipping around wherever, and having no in-game effect.
Unless the rules are in the correct version you mention.
(1) No they cannot, nor could they in SM/TL. Unless stated in the notes section of a unit's weapon data line that the weapon can perform IDF. Nowhere in the Thurgrimm's list does any weapon on any of the SHTs have the IDF ability.
(2) Players that do buy it for the Colossus, it isn't required, use it to spot targets out of the Colossus's LOS, considering the density of the Terrain in GT battles they find it very handy.
(3) The Epic-A rules clearly state how to deal with mixed target fires dealing with LV, AV, and WE. Consider the Ork Stompa Mob it can contain all three types, and there is no problem dealing with it using them when fired upon. I fail to see how a single Iron Hawk can be a problem in dealing with fire.
Well, the description its given ("it closely resembles the Adeptus Astartes Razorback") makes it sound like you should be using Razorback models, or even Exodus Wars stuff.
A Razorback is a Rhino conversion, and many Squat players that already have Rhinos in their armies just use them. Being a bit pertanical I created weapon mounts for my Squat Rhinos. Once again see Jervis's 'Count As' rule for details in the Epic-A rule book.
So it was a conscious decision? I thought it'd just happened as Thurgrim's was done before the Epic supplements were released.
TRC was working on the Siege list about the time Thurgrimm's was in development, and was released in book form before Thurgrimm's was completed.
he weapons are the ones it had in SM/TL, fair enough. But just do a quick comparison with a Warlord Titan.
Warlord
8xTurbo Laser shots at AP5+ AT3+
4xGataling Blaster Shots at AP4+ AT4+
1xVolcano Shot at MW2+TKD3
DC-8, RA, TRA, Fearless, Walker
6xVoid Shields
Take a Colossus or a Cyclops one on one against a Warlord, and the Warlord will most times mop the floor with them. I know we playtested it more then just a couple of times.
It's a nice rough comparison, as the Squat Super Heavies kinda fulfilled a similar role to Titans in the other armies. Far too many weapons for its paltry cost. I've shied away from the Cyclops as the Hellfury Pulse is rather devestating.
Actually it rarely gets to use the full effect of the Hellfury Pulse on WEs, the only target the weapon is really good against, preferably after the shields have been knocked down.
(1) If the HP is used against a formation of AVs the most it can take out is ONE AV as per the MWTK rules in the Epic-A rule book.
(2) If the HP strike a WE with shields the maximum number of hits it can score is three. MWD3, the TKD3 for each hit is ignored as the HP cannot use them against a target unless it gets through the shields.
(3) If the HP catches an unshielded WE then yes that WE is in deep trouble. But the Cyclops is mediocre against regular formations, again the batrep I posted shows this very well, as in that game it was what it faced for the whole battle (Kinda hard to KIA WE when the opponent doesn't have any)
Well, hear it now from someone who's read the list and used it.
Maybe if you weren't using the SHT's allowing them to carry out IDF when they can't will change how effective you think they are. Give it a try as that is the way they are supposed to be used, as per the rules.
Anyway, my comments are rubbing people up. Well, I see it as debate. I would like to contribute to the next step in the Squat list, so forgive my tone and let me adjust in the spirit of co-operation.
Debate is fine and I have no problem with it, however insulting comments are not debate (Ridiculus, stupid, dumb, idiotic, foolish etc have no place in an intelligent debate and tends to make one not take the speaker seriously)
We are definitely NOT looking for 'pawns that grovel at our every word from on high' so disagreement with suggested changes are exactly what we are looking for. I sure do not think I am perfect, however having worked on Epic-A from its inception I can state with some authority that what something looks like on paper rarely is how it works out on the gaming table (It has come back to bite me often enough). Unlike WH40K there are a lot more subtlties in Epic-A.
The problem with that asked for playtesting is that if the look of the list is dead wrong in ones eyes, then it's hard to summon the energi to playtest it.
When we first started out working on Epic-A, and with all the lists that followed it, we always had to work with first lists that were dead wrong, or broken, in many playtesters eyes.
At one time the Ork Base List had Nobz available in every formation, the results were dramatic to say the least. That same list was too cheap for certain upgrades, and almost limitless in numbers. About the best thing to do was buy a small and build it up as that was cheaper then buying things the other way around. Like it or not it had to be playtested to flesh it out or nothing would get done. Basically you just cannot post a suggestion/complaint without something to back it up with, and the only way to do that is to playtest.
Second, and more importantly, as playtesters it is expected that you also experiment with the list. If you do not like this or that in the list change it to something else, and then play a couple of games and let us know how it worked out. For example if you don't like the Squat, in general, 5+ save for infantry types then change it to 6+, give it a go, and tell us how it worked out. Want to modify the formation sizes, use the base point scales given for the troop types in a formation as a guide for its overall PV, add/subtract units, decide if the new point scale needs adjustment, then give it a go. Of course then let us know how it worked.
That's part of why atleast I am not very active in this. I got my squats, a good bunch of them. But nowhere to dance.
Well if the above has our approval, and it does, then maybe you can dance now (I hope so). One suggestion, just from experience working on this game, try not to stray too far from the base list when making changes. For example yes change all of the Infantry to Armor 6+, but don't change anything else, then get in a couple of quick 'Flash Games'. It will give you a better baseline to determine its effects as you already know the abilities of the other systems in the army (Good or Bad). If it works out then change something else, and give it a go again, and so on.
Both Jaldon and I are glad to see re-newed interest in making the models viable for the community, but we have been very direct about what would be most helpful at present: Playtesting
Hear, hear
Jaldon 
_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC
|
|
