I do find the original rule overpowered. The assault modifier makes a big difference; it is markedly better than making every formation inspiring because it averages an extra 2 1/2 pips to your resolution. That's for every assault. Besides, how does this represent them being stubborn? Then the -1 modifier for being within 30cm is yet another benefit. Not even talking about balance here, the iron discipline is an in-your-face special rule that seems appropriate for an attacking force.

Squats being stubborn should be defensive. They don't want to give up what they have, they don't want to move from the ground they occupy, they snarl when shot at.

It is possible #1 (modified or otherwise) might be where we end up, but it is clearly stronger than Option #2. When making changes I'm usually inclined to start with the weaker of two options and then build up. As for allowing them to remove a BM after every action, it still doesn't feel stubborn.
"Look at me marching my Warriors up the road, I am being stubborn!"
Or,
"My bezerkers assault as infiltrators, racing across the battlefield at double their movement. They are incredibly stubborn!"
Or,
"Gee, I better retreat my thudd guns to a better position so they don't get wiped out. Fear my stubborn Squats!"

I don't feel it in my soul.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

How does everyone else feel about having the Living Ancestor and the Warlord in the same stand?

I am not keen on it, personally.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

So long as I have the option of putting it on the SC stand I'm fine. If I had to rank the options it be like this:

1) in the SC formation
2) in the BTS
3) in the formation with the most stands

I think 1 would be the simplest and wouldn't tie it to the GT scenario. Then again we could phrase it like the Ork Warlord rule "must be in a super-heavy or warlord stand". I don't think we'd need a rule for placement of him however, just let the army list enforce where he can go.

Point taken on the marching Stubbon squats. So:

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I'm definitely not keen on trying to shoehorn the LA into a Warlord stand; let's try to remember the K.I.S.S. rule as much as possible here. He was always an upgrade stand to a Warlord unit, let's leave home there. That said, I'm still very much up in the air about # restriction on him: there could easily be a handful of Living Ancestors with a large squat force on the battlefield. Oh, and no upgrade to a WE: feel unfounded and weird, and seems more like a 'game mechanic' then background or original list dependent.

I'm playing against irks tomorrow, and will be using the LA as we've been talking about over the past few days, as well as trying out Relentless, and the option #1 for Stubborn. I'll post the list, and maybe get the energy to post a bat rep;) any other suggestions for the list...noes the time.

Dave, I was thinking that, only with Stubborn spelled with an 'R'. Of course, that is totally untested and just from the recesses of dwarven brain, but it feels stubborn to me. Of course when I test it I may say to myself, "Boy, this feels stubborn, but it also sucks." I don't know.

Ironmonger, would you be willing to try the #2 option first?


It's a playtest method where you start off with the weaker of the methods. The reason why is two-fold;
Firstly, it is easier to giveth than to taketh away. Spirit Stones were ingrained into the Eldar culture and were very difficult to remove, even though the army was overpowered.
Secondly, the person you are playtesting against is more likely to come back and help you test a 'weaker' army rather than come back and play punching bag when you stomp all over him.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Just call it stubbon. Dwarves are pretty stubby to begin with.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I'm not too keen on it either. Actually, I don't like it at all. The LA has always been a separate unit. In SM2 if it began a turn within 6cm of a Warlord, then it could provide extra benefits, but the LA's primary role was to provide psychic powers like a Marine Librarian.

As for Stubborn, I'm with you Mosc; try option #2 at first and bump it up if needed.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Will do, #2 it is.

He's always been a separate unit though because in SM2 there were no characters...

If he had to be within 6cm of the SC that could be abstracted out into him being a character. I don't care where he's allowed to go, so long as there's an option for me to put him with the SC.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Did you go and model him with the Grand Warlord already?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I played twice with him yesterday as a separate stand, and didn't have a problem using him. Putting him as yet another upgrade to a Warlord/Grand Warlord feels like one upgrade too many. I could see it is you were able to have multiple Warlords, and could upgrade to either a Grand Warlord OR a Living Ancestor, but not both. Just seems funny.

Domination and Relentless worked out just fine against Orks twice (though we were playing small games, and I lost the first ). Domination, especially, was kinda fun to have the Orks get just out of your zone, and then throw an extra BM on them, though I was poignantly aware of the non-activation it caused. The extra reroll is fine for the cost. I think the Living Ancestor is about where he should be, but I'll keep play testing, and I suggest others do as well, posting their findings...

Void Shields function just fine on the WEs, especially with a point bump... as well, the point adjust seemed to work fine.

Surprisingly, the biggest issue I had was with the Goliath Mega Cannons. They're too cheap. I'll adjust the points and go from there with the next game.

Interestin to hear your thoughts on the goliath. I've thought the same thing, so interesting to hear you think that after playtesting. Perhaps also make them à compulsury 2 cannons in the formation, it's possible in the current squat list spam 6 of them in individual formations. That's 12 ignore cover templates each turn, that's not really fair on the opponent.

A price bump and 2 in each formation should take care of them.

All this discussion makes me really want to start playing som squat games. But I'm still aquiring squats on ebay (the stupid 17 year old me sold all my Squats ), so I will not be able to start playtesting in a while.


Cheers

We went in a different direction with the Goliaths as well. We gave them a 5cm move back (which they should have - they have tracks and were described as slow, not immobile). We reduced them from DC3 to DC2, removed the reinforced armor (they had the same armor as Rhinos), and took out the Macro-Weapon shot. So they still have BP4 IC. For that load out we made them 200 points each, 1-2 per formation.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Sounds interesting, which list are you refering to? Is it one you've developed, or an older thurgrim version?

I've always felt that what has become the Resolute rule is perfect for Subborn; allowing saves against hackdown hits and kills due to BMs when broken.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread