Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Squats (Demiurg) in E:A
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=11241		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  rpr [ Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:22 am ]
Post subject:  Squats (Demiurg) in E:A
Anyone playing these? I was thinking to dust off my old squat figs and start building and testing an army... I am now checking Demiurg Consortium 2.2 - dunno how balanced it is, seems better off than Necron though ;]
Author:  Moscovian [ Mon Dec 17, 2007 1:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Squats (Demiurg) in E:A
Demiurg is quite balanced.  The only things I see as unbalancing it are the changes caused to it by the revisions made (ex. demolisher, MW changes to template weapons, etc.).  

To give you my main concern I voiced to ePilgrim was that many of the WEs had MW BP3 guns with long ranges.  The change of making all MWs hit as AP instead of AT increased these weapons effectiveness significantly IMO.
Author:  rpr [ Mon Dec 17, 2007 1:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Squats (Demiurg) in E:A
In Demiurg list I wonder a bit how this works:
colossus has 3BP MW, 3BP normal and 3BP ignore cover attacks.
If target is in range, do they all have to be put to same location, is latter two always combined (to no IC), etc.
Author:  rpr [ Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Squats (Demiurg) in E:A

(Hena @ Dec. 17 2007,14:58)
QUOTE
You can choose which to fire. Only those abilities that are in all are used. So in this case using multiple weapons removes the special abilities from barrage.

So Colossus weaponload sucks? As there is special abilities on BP weapons which are either lost or other weapons are lost..

In that sense, Thurgrim Squat list Colossus (or Land Train) is much more "balanced" as the Thunder Cannon is not BP
Author:  Moscovian [ Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Squats (Demiurg) in E:A
I believe you will find the list better balanced as a whole.  I agree some of the WEs may not be internally balanced, however.  We played about 20 games with the Demiurg list, about half those with the 2.2 list and only two or three with the MW BP revisions.
Author:  rpr [ Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Squats (Demiurg) in E:A
Now that I have planned some lists I am greatly disappointed at the list... =]

Back in old times I had limited set of Squats. Now with the Demiurg list...
..I have over 3000 points worth of War Engines (1/3 slot) without Cyclops but
cannot wield 2/3 part well for over 3000 point battles (running out of trikes)...  Demiurg heavy armory list, anyone? :]
(IMHO only MCF should be in 1/3 slot, there would still be hard choices...)

Other comments on the list:
- basic infantry seems overpriced when compared to say space marine tacticals..
- tunnellers are very odd and confusing - so, for say 30 points I get eventually 2 extra activations? Why do they stay on board while drop pods do not? Why they are set on the field before garrisons? Why I record target coordinates before the game, but then launch them later on? If I target my half, can they arrive earlier than start of 3rd turn? etc.
Author:  rpr [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:57 am ]
Post subject:  Squats (Demiurg) in E:A

(Hena @ Dec. 17 2007,22:01)
QUOTE
For infantry. Remember that they have the "auto inspire" bonus known as Stubborn.

How much would you value that?
If we value initiative 2+, stubborn, to same as initiative 1+,
then correct cost for 8 Iron-Breakers (warriors) would be something like 200. If we value it same as 1+ and scout, then still you would get 8 units with 4+ armor, cc and ff for 250...

So, either black legion infantry is crossly underpriced or demiurg infantry overpriced. I would say it is between that, Black legion is somewhat underpriced and demiurgs overpriced.

Hm, in Tau list, 3 krootex herds which are even better than CSM cost 75 points...

Anyway, summa summarum, it is obvious that Iron-Breakers are way off - the others are closer-by. I'd say Brotherhoods should cost something like:

Iron-Breakers (8): 225  (+6) 150
Sandhogs (8): 200 (+6) 125
Armsmen (6): 200 (+4) 125
Bikes (6): 200 (+4) 125
(+3 mole mortars +125, not 150)

And this is playing "safe", on the line of BL or Tau Iron-Breakers should cost like 200 or less.


PS: who came up with an idea of a formation which is almost useless if enemy has no flyers... :]
Author:  rpr [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:47 am ]
Post subject:  Squats (Demiurg) in E:A

(Hena @ Dec. 18 2007,09:11)
QUOTE
I value it ~35-50 points as you cannot remove it by killing a specific unit.


Ok, let's play it safe and say 50. If we still stay on higher cost-end, then I could say 250 (8), +150 (6), for Iron-Breakers. Then these buggers are obviously more expensive than BL or Tau stuff - which might be good.

To be conservative and safe, rest could stay as they are - still very expensive, but off not more than 25-50 points. The Iron-Breakers are definately the ones much more off.


Those Thuderfire are nasty to aircraft. Only thing so far that has blown Landa out of air directly (with some luck to be sure).
Thunderfire might be very good against Flyers, but I still dislike something that has practically no other use - ok it can sit on objective but is destroyed so easily. On the last tournament, of my 3 opponents 2 had no flyers at all and the last one had one squadron worth 250..
Of course if you do not play blind games, then things would be different.
Author:  epilgrim [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Squats (Demiurg) in E:A
rpr,

glad to see you are taking a look at the list, equally glad you are pointing out aspects of it you don't like.

Catching up as it were, After having tried the existing Squat lists and finding them disapointing (no brainer to win with) I started this up. Keep in mind the fiction is no longer debated, some like it, plenty hate it, and GW could not care less. I enjoyed writing the stories and giving the list character.

I can see how some units may seem off balance, but having played with this list for nearly two years, I feel they are balanced when played as an army against any of the core armies and most of the other fan lists. Quite simply, they win and they lose.

the main focus on the list is about having a focus on what you want to accomplish in a game, tournament or campaign. Quite clearly you "can't have it all" in a 3,000 point list and even a 5,000 point list requires some sacrifices. Be that as it may the list offers many alternatives for concentrating on the Demiurg strengths.

the Colossus is a series of tradeoffs, the more firepower it applies the more generic its attacks become. its specialized attacks are very powerful but limited.

the Thunderfires and Goliaths are static and as such present real tactical challenges for the Demiurg player, that penalty is offset by making them nasty in their defined roles.

All of the infantry units were tested extensively and they are worth their points regardless of what it may feel like.

I am unsure if you have fielded them at present. If that is the case I hope you give it a go and let us know how they do.

I have always done my best to listen to other people who have played the list and incorporated their comments into the units and the list as a whole. After 2.2 was released, to my knowledge there have not been any issues raised that needed work, althought the more recent rules changes have not taken into account.

I look forward to more comments from you and other players. thanks again for taking a look at the list.
Author:  Moscovian [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Squats (Demiurg) in E:A
Thunderfire might be very good against Flyers, but I still dislike something that has practically no other use - ok it can sit on objective but is destroyed so easily. On the last tournament, of my 3 opponents 2 had no flyers at all and the last one had one squadron worth 250..
Of course if you do not play blind games, then things would be different.

rpr, don't you think that a list should be defined by its weaknesses and limitations as well as its strengths?  I remember ePilgrim specifically building certain limitations into the list on purpose such as this one.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/