Yes, with my recent experiences with the Overlords I am coming to the feeling that the previous increase in cost that I campaigned for might have been wrong and that they could come back down in price. However, they are still DC3 skimmers with 4+RA and a stack load of shots, recently though they have died with just a whimper. I had hoped that the inclusion of the Colossus, Cyclops and 2 Leviathans would have distracted my opponent more, but in the end half of my war engines fell to some poor saving throws from my part.

We shall see, the Overlord and Leviathan now have an increased option for use IMO and I'll need more games with this list to get a better feeling them.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

I disagree. The Overlords are very vulnerable, true. But it's still some crazy firepower and some AA umbrella there for 250 points. The price is even more justified now that they don't compete with the rest of te WE for the points. I believe the firepower/vulnerability are well balanced at 250 points.
Sometimes they do die horribly...

They are giant balloons in the sky raining death from above. Was there any doubt in anyone's mind that they would die horribly?

I'm inclined to leave the price as is to see how their move to support affects the list and their usage.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Very good, your example...
Lets look...

Our handsome Gimli (Brotherhood Warrior Unit) is alone and broken. Not like this puny hummies he didnt run away. He just go few steps back, because he is so fearless and stubborn (unit can only withdraw 15cm). He is a little bit shaken and can not attack or shoot (unit is broken).

Now its Saurons turn. He activate a goblin Archer (enemy unit) with sustain fire. The arrow did not kill Gimli, the arrow even didn't hit him, no scratch sir. But Gimli get now an Blastmarker for getting under Fire.

Whats happen now with our brave and honorous Gimli...

The answer.

He turn around and start running...not only into cover, for regroup...no he is running back to Ered Luin or Bruchtal. Or he is so much shocked, that he bolt his head against a rock and fall down the stairs..or maybe commit suicide (For every Blastmarker the broken formation lose on unit without saving throw).

And thats the end of Gimli the brave.....

If i hear stubborn Squats, i see warriors with balls of iron. They are broken but bounds of Honour courage force them to hold the line. Only the biggest casaulties force them to break their oath to their ancestors.

And how you can simulate that?

2 Things:

(Space Marines Style) Broken Squat units only lose one Unit for 2 Blastmarkers

or

Broken Squat units always ignore one Blastmarker. Now the enemy player must kill units to get make loses by Blastmarker.

Or...

They can get a +1 to their rallies, have lots of other benefits to the army, and the player can use them carefully, knowing full well what will happen if he doesn't.

I understand your frustration, but the stubborn rule has been playing very well for quite some time. The reasons why are because of the following:
1. It is simple. The description is very short and easy to comprehend. You may think adding another layer of blast marker modification isn't that big of a deal, but it is especially annoying for an opponent unfamiliar with them.

2. The rule isn't all ball crushing. A +1 to rally is not to be underestimated, especially when you consider that the formation had to become broken first to be subjected to the onslaught you mentioned. When that formation is rallying on a 2+ with the enemy at the gate it is a huge boon. When it automatically rallies, it will make your opponents grumble.

3. The rule provides the player with unique challenges. Large formations of infantry. Robotic units. Huge war engines with shields. Floating platforms of death. Long range AT and MW weaponry. Rallying made easy. I don't think we need to make it any easier. If you know what the rule is ahead of time, it will encourage you to think ahead and to weigh in the scales if you want to leave a formation unsupported up on the front line. Even the noble dwarves fled in the face of Smaug.

4. Balance. Just like stubbornness has its benefits and drawbacks in real life, for the Squats their strength becomes their weakness when they overextend themselves.

You may disagree with this assessment and that's fine. But given the games that have been played with the special rule, I don't feel a need to change stubborn. There are rules I disagree with in Epic, but I deal with them and realize that, at the end of the day, they are game mechanics and will never be perfect. I am sure you will be able to learn to deal with this one.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

The only thing that frustrate me, is my english...

For what it is worth, I think your English is pretty good!

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I managed to do two 2k games with the current list today vs. a friend. I shared my thoughts already in the battle report, but to sum things up, I would like to mention a view things:

Overlords
In our opinion much too powerful, or too cheap. I would suggest to make it at least 350 points per piece.

Spotter
Too powerful - I mean MW barrage weapons are already powerful, but indirect fire even after moving?!

Infantry
The second game we played was without any war engines. even though the Squat infantry is quite weak, I found myself almost winning the game (A single land speeder managed to rally in the end to make it tied). Keeping in mind, it was only my second game with Squats I would recommend spending some thoughts on how to include the massive amount of powerful war engines, without having a poorly balanced list with overkill war engines.

For the stubbor rule
I think this rule is really cool. I had my doubhts about it after the first game, but the occured situation seems to happen only rarely. Overall it levels the strength of the list slightly while creating a nice Squat feeling - wouldn´t change that.

With no further words here is the link to the first battle report: http://darkarchivum.wordpress.com/2014/ ... e-marines/

Edit: here is the second short battle report: http://darkarchivum.wordpress.com/2014/ ... -progress/

_________________



My Specialist Games blog: http://gemana.wordpress.com/
My youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UClbU-8oQsI7kdtt-eoF6VTQ

Thanks for the batrep. I made some comments on the separate thread, but to address some issues here:

A 2K game is not what tournaments are balanced for. Some lists are going to be more powerful at that range while others will be too weak. I honestly don't know about the Squats because all of my games have been played in the 3K-5K range. When you get into the 2K range, the dice can take a serious toll on you, not to mention you can get away with things that would not be possible in a 3K game (assuming you are playing a 4 x 6 foot board).

I'll take a closer look at the reports later but I appreciate the interest and hope to hear more from you.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Take them as first try outs to get warm with some special rules and the list in total. The second game without any War engines is definitely not the way the list was intended to be played but a personal try to define where probably some balance issues may lay. I will try to get my friend into at least one standard 3k game per month to push the list development a little further. If some things in detail need to be tested, just tell me.

_________________



My Specialist Games blog: http://gemana.wordpress.com/
My youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UClbU-8oQsI7kdtt-eoF6VTQ

Much appreciated. I agree that a lack of war engines in this list will be a detriment.

As for the units, let me get the 1.5 list finalized and I'll post again.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Played Biel-Tan Eldar last night with Thurgrimm 1.5 list. Eldar Victory 2-0, close game. Will continue to playtest and give better feedback/battle reports as I massage the force composition.

Getting a bit fuzzy in my memory now as we had this game a week ago. However, last Friday I played a 4k game of Squats vs E-UK Dark Eldar under Console Avenging Angel’s control. The game finished in three turns with a 3-0 win to the Squats. This followed the DE failing to rally several formations at the end of turns 1 & 2 and also the Squats winning the strategy roll-off at the start of turn 2. That roll saved the BTS Cyclops and broke the Archon’s Cabal and rallied Executioner.

The main reason for the game was to test two pairs of Overlords and see how they fared. One formation was set up on the right flank and one in the centre. The formation on the right flank was broken by a formation of five Ravagers which managed to kill one, darned failed armour saves. These were then reduced to a single vehicle by the Cyclops. The remaining Overlord rallied at the end of the turn and due to the way the game was going was not troubled for the rest of the game. Although a Vessel of Pain could have had a go at it in turn three.

The central formation shot at the Executioner, a Warrior Cabal and a Vessel of Pain. Basically the shooting that these can do in a pair is frightening, the volume of shots against the Executioner stripped the Shadowfields and allowed it to be broken. It was definitely interesting to see Tom struggle with where to hide a permanently popped up WE as I have with Overlords. However, this formation was lucky, they were shot at time and time again with all the titan killing shots missing and the regular shots being saved.

I will need at least another game with them at 4k, but I can see an argument for the reduced cost in multiple numbers being dropped (now that they are a support option and not part of the 1/3 WEs). I will also need to try them out in a 3k game as they just might be too good. However I do go back to the view that against a Reaver/Warlord titan, Shadowswords, Eldar Scorpions or even massed fire they are still very weak so it might just be a scissors/paper/stone formation.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

I've had a good read over of the list today and have some feedback.

Question: why isn't there a Squat spacecraft in the list? We know they're a spacefaring race and they obviously have some to get about from planet to planet to fight, trade, mine, ect. Every other spacefaring race has spacecraft in epic and it seems lacking without them. Don't let a lack of model stop you, people could convert/scratch build a model or just use the FW Demiurg ships.

Personally I'd be perfectly happy to use the Demiurg one(s) but if I remember right are you going in a direction that has the Demiurg being different from Squats despite the heavy hints they're the same thing? If so then I'm not sure if a name for a Squat spaceship was ever mentioned in the old background (could be good to look through the original version of BFG, Spacefleet or whatever it was called, to see if there's any mention of Squat ships in the background). Even if there isn't just make one up. There's no planetfalling craft in the list, so it would just be for shooting, but I like to see spacecraft in the list.

Towing Thunderfire. Logically there must be some way for them to be moved. Towing them with Rhinos would be utterly ludicrous considering they are multiple times larger and heavier than them. Suggestion: make a new 'Transport Car' or 'Thunderfire Car' for the Land Train. Each Transport Car can carry a single Thunderfire - do NOT allow a single car to carry more than one, the cars aren't very big. No carrying infantry instead either, the car would be specifically designed to carry the Thunderfire. Would 25 points be too cheap for a transport carriage with no guns at all? If you think so you could make the upgrade two transport carriages for 75 points.

Land Train movement: I don't know that it really needs a special rule but if you're going to give it one I can think of a couple of possibly better options: 1. list it's movement as 15cm (20cm) and have in the notes 'a Land Train's first movement each turn will be at 15cm, any subsequent moves will be at 20cm'. Represents it building up speed. OR 2. list it's movement as 15cm (20cm) and have in the notes 'a Land Train with 2 carriages has a 20cm move, one with 3-4 has a 15cm move.' It seems a fair trade-off and to be logical for one pulling twice as much to be slower.

Tarantula: Tarantulas are armed with a single twin-linked weapon in 40k. Why have you separated them to be two shots here? They are twin-linked in the Apokrypha and IF lists and it would be better to match existing 40k and epic precedents.

I'm fine with Exo-Armoured troops being relegated to the other models on a Warlord stand. Please make them take up two transport slots though! This is normal for similar units like Terminators, Mega-armoured Nobz, ect in other lists.

The twin-linked Lascannons on the Leviathan have 30cm range, please tell me this is a typo? You shouldn't have different stats for them here from every other twin-linked lascannon in the game. If you particularly must have a 30cm AT gun rename it to something new instead.

Thunderfire Cannons: these set off serious balance alarm bells to me! They are move 0cm so can garrsion forward on overwatch. I would definitely spam and abuse them in lists (I wonder if people haven't been because the models are rare, but there's always proxies), 8+ formations would be a good number. If facing air assault list you could group your army together into a tight group and on average rolls you would cause 2 damage to a 4+ Reinforced Armour Thunderhawk or 5.3 damage to a 5+ Reinforced Landa. You can easily have multiple powerful WE in the list and still have high activation numbers and excellent AA. The spam could be taken further too – consider a list consisting of 6 x Berzerker Brotherhoods (one upgraded with extra Bezerkers and Warriors for a BTS) plus 18 x Thunderfire Cannon formations, 24 activations for 2975 and a nightmare to play. It's otherwise pretty universally true in epic that adding extra upgraded models to a formation normally has those extra ones cost the same or less than the cost of the core ones, as it's better to have more formations. Here the opposite is true and the extra one is more expensive, why? I assume you don't want to make the formation size 3 as standard as the models were originally in pairs and I understand and agree with that. Suggestion: add two squat warrior stands to the basic formation (assume them to be guards) and cost it at 150 points instead.

Goliath Mega Cannon: you've missed out the stats, I don't know what it does.

Termite: very serious problems and confusion with the rules for these! 'Note: Unit is no longer part of the formation'. Taking this literally suggests each Termite is no longer part of the formation, but a formation all of it's own, so that that warrior formation with Termites pops up and becomes 6 seperate formations. A Termite is a unit with CC and FF, it's own zone of control and presumably can contest and capture objectives. Even if the it were to be changed so that all a formations Termites got seperated and became a formation of their own together you would get two formations on the board for 175 points – the enemy would need to target and destroy each seperately and large portions of the board could be blocked off and objectives covered by lots of formations (taken to an extreme you could have 34 formations on the board on turn 2). Then 'treat as ruins upon surfacing', so it's a unit and ruins at the same time? Huh? I'm not sure how you play scenery but the rulebook says to be generous and myself and UK players count an infantry model as able to claim a -1 and cover save if it is touching a piece of terrain (it keeps it simple and helps avoid problems with buildings that don't have flat rooves you can place models on). How many rectangular epic bases can touch a single Termite model? I don't have one but imagine it would be 5-6 or so. That's a LOT provided a -1 and a cover save. I know each Termite only carries two units, but you could pop them up turn 2 to provide cover in an otherwise empty area of the battlefield by an objective and use a different formation (one in Rhinos say) to move forward and use it as cover. The precedent for all vehicles is that they only provide a -1 cover same to infantry ducking down besides them, why should a Termite provide radically greater protection by giving a cover save as well? It's an enclosed transport vehicle designed to travel underground, not some mobile fortification that large amounts of troops could be inside and fire out from. Possible suggestions: if you want Termites to be units just give them expendable so that if the formation moves away it doesn't take blast markers for doing so (problem with this is expendable troops are a huge boost to take off as casualties in an assault). Or have it so that Termites are not units at all but are placed and can provide a -1 to hit (no cover save) to anything touching them, without being able to attack or be targeted.

Mole: the Mole has a transport capacity of 10!?! You have got be kidding me. I own one and the model is really not very big at all. Please re-think this! Make the Mole an AV with transport capacity of 5 for +25 points instead. You can carry a Berzerker formation in 1 then or use 2 for a Warrior Brotherhood. The Tuneller rules allow for a formation of tunnellers (first one places, extra placed freely within 15cm of it). Next problem: it's attached to and part of a formation but has a critical that it breaks - doesn't it seem ludicrously harsh for an entire formation of up to 18 infantry stands to auto-break just because one of their transports has had a critical? Expendable for the transports would be too good, but having them as separate formations has problems of its own. Could all 3 tunneling transports be changed to be units that are an remain part of their formation (Termites and Hellebore being part of the formation too), but have a special rule or note that they don't cause blast markers for being removed due to being out of formation? They make the formation bigger and tougher, due to the extra numbers and armour, while allowing the Squats to move off and abandon their transport for the moment without having to suffer for it.

Stubborn: I agree you should change it so that the units can make one move (of whatever their speed is) rather than it just being 15cm. Please could you also repeat the 'All formations rally on a 1+' in the text of the stubborn rule as well to make it more obvious (I missed it at first).

I haven't really been keeping up that much with Squat development, issues with the transports aside, how balanced and tested is the list? It is fairly stable or still very changeable? Do you think the list is ready to try to push it towards being approved Mosc or still some way off?

I had a small part to play in playtesting the tyranid list and it was great to see it approved for the tournament pack recently. The minimum of player's from 3 different groups getting 6 playtests each really isn't that hard and I want to work to get the remaining core lists approved this year if possible (I plan on spending however long getting the titan legion list approved first then switching to squats). Myself and Marconz in New Zealand are pretty active playtesters and could agree to get you at least 6 playtest reports posted up over the course of a few months easy. If Tiny-Tim could do the same in the UK and you do the same with your own group Mosc (games over Tabletop count for if you're struggling to find local opponents - I'll get a Squat army pack done for Tabletop at some point in the next month or two) then the list could get approved and in the tournament pack (and used by a wider audience as some players/groups/tournaments only play approved lists).

And the rest:

Why does the Rapier in the Squat list have slightly better stats than the Rapier in the Barran list? They should be changed to be identical, KIS. The differences are the Barran Rapier having FF5+, no save and no CC attack at all. The same gun in a different list should have the same FF, 4+ is a mistake and disproportionate for the gun. Squats and IG infantry both wear flak armour, but it its appropriate for the Squat warriors to have a 6+ save due to their toughness 4. The difference for two gun crew would be so negligible that it should be ignored for the epic stats. The similar sized small artillery pieces in the Death Korps normally have 5 crew (as per their Imperial Armour books) yet the epic stats for these guns have no save. 2 Squats and a gun don't deserve a 6+ save if 5 DK and a gun don't have one. The arguments for CC are similar - Squats have higher WS in 40k though lower I so Guardsmen attack before they get a chance to. If 5 DK and a gun have no CC attack whatsoever in Epic then neither should 2 Squats and a gun. Also please can the Rapier's gun be correctly named the 'Rapier Laser Destroyer' as it is on the Rapier in the Barran list? The Epic Spartan Assault Tank has quad lascannon sponsons on each side (which have 2 x AT4+ stats) and its better not to have two guns named the same with different stats.

Similarly the Squat Thudd Gun should have no armour and no CC, so that it is identical to the Barran Thudd Gun for the same reasons. For consistency the Mole Mortar should follow suit too.

Well, you've had five of us in this thread that are against CC4+ now, is that enough to make you reconsider it? CC 4+ on tracked WE is reserved for those that have specific CC weapons - giant rollers on ork forts, giant spikes, tentacles and such on the BL Decimator. WE without specific CC weaponry normally get 6+ CC, examples include:
Baneblades and the like, Eldar superheavies, Machariuses, Warbarques, the Leviathan in the Cadian list, Ordinatus Majoris,
ect. I don't think the unit is in any list currently (sadly) but the stats Jervis proposed playtesting for the Capitol Imperialis had it at 6+ too.
I would ideally have the Squat superheavies at 6+ but 5+ would be a good compromise. 5+ is the same as the 6DC tracked Cathedral of Purification in the Sisters of Battle list. If players complain their Squat superheavies are vulnerable in close combat then TOUGH, that's as they should be. Its a vulnerability and counterbalance to their immense firepower. Players should need to use other squat formations to screen and protect their war engines where CC is a risk.

Exception to the above: the Cyclops. Due to the huge spiked ram on the front this is justifIed in getting CC4+.

Why would anyone take a Mortar Car, ever? You'd loose the MW from the carriage's doomsday cannon. Maybe it should have 2BP?

Surely the Colossus's missiles should have a frontal fire arc? It doesn't seem like they are designed till be fired behind it.

The list is unclear: is it only Doomsday cannons that can fire indirectly with spotters or any WE indirect fire weapons?

Wow the Cyclops is powerful, as it should be though. The Colossus seems poor by comparison.

The spotter rule is unclear. The WE can use their indirect fire weapons when say doubling. Is their range still doubled or not?