Gents,

I'm glad Matt has made the effort to propose these changes for play testing. I know my opinion probably holds very little validity as i'm far from at the level of you guys, but I did happen to play and get absolutely rolled by Squats twice at CanCon after achieving 3W/1D...

Reading over the list itself post cancon and trying to figure out just where I went so wrong in my games, I'm having trouble finding much to disagree with what you've proposed, especially the overlord changes :
225pts
WE DC3 20cm 4+ Reinforced Armour
[] 3 x Battlecannons AP4+/AT4+ (not fixed arc)
[] 2 x Autocannons AP5+/AT6+
[] Small Bolter Array EA(+1)

Cyclops - an instant bump to reaver points cost, is probably a bit much, but increments until it feels right sounds better, starting at 525 ~ 550??

smaller critical effect on the goliath just makes sense

Thanks

_________________
Epic hobby blog
http://fuddshobby.blogspot.com.au/
https://www.facebook.com/FuddsEpicHobby/

One thought that just came through is that an Overlord has to be internally balanced against the Gyrocopters.

4 Gyrocopters come with
ATx4 35cm 4+ Armour
[] 4 x Battlecannons AP4+/AT4+ (not fixed arc)
[] 8 x Autocannons AP5+/AT6+

Sure it's not Reinforced Armour, but they are faster, can actually hide as they are not Support Craft and come with Scout and Spotter

At the moment Gyro's are the weak choice as the Overlord is plainly better. Nerf the 'lord to much and it will just become Gyrocopter city.

Gyrocopters are currently a brilliant unit. They're by far the best objective grabber in the Squat army, I can see the argument for giving them battlecannons as standard (a la UK list) but I've never regretted investing 200 points in them. They perform a very different role than overlords. Also, they're tasty for unexpected clipping assaults.

_________________

I'm in favour of dropping the Spotter rule completely and removing the indirect fire option of the Doomsday Cannons.
If Squats want artillery, they should take Goliaths and not get it for free on some of the best WE's in the game.

Matt made a lot of very good points and I'll just add that his record on list design/approval success rate speaks for itself.
We need more of his type of analysis and less hanging onto fluff over playability.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Just on the point of Thunderfires - they always came two to a blister, so it would be preferable to find a way to include them at that number to hopefully avoid invalidating anyone's collection.

If spamming is an issue (as the word seems to have been used as the stick to beat the army based on three main sources of complaint within a tournament setting) then deal with the issue through list limitations. No taking more of any other formation in the army than the number of Warrior formations present. One Thunderfire formation per core warrior formation, one Overlord per core warrior formation, one Berzerker formation per... You get the idea. Force warriors into the army (as they damn well should be) while providing a structure and a slightly more limited place for those iconic, beloved (and historically somewhat overpowered) units.

Balance the perceived 'hatchet job' with list changes first. Worry about the fine tuning once a strong, logical (and fluffy!) structure is in place.

What came in blisters, and honestly, what people have in their collection, or the old fluff from when Squats were even a race, should never be used when trying to work out or develop a functioning balanced list.

I love fluff in my armies, but it should always come second to list design

Would dropping the spotter rule kill 2 birds with 1 stone?
Drops a major bonus of the Overlords and brings Squat Colossus and Trains into a appropriate price band for their Doomcannons?

We should trial it!

- Kendall

Fluff predetermines the list, then the design comes to make that basic shape into a functional whole. If we ignore that without trying to get something working we might as well all just go play Tactics 2 or any other not-epic game.

And the important part, made with all due respect as I can only assume it slipped your mind - protecting what people have in their collection has already been used as reasoning against changes in multiple times in multiple (now approved!) lists.

Well obviously there is a middle ground here.

For example the Eldar list: you only got a few jetbikes and one stand of wraithguard and rangers per box. Night spinners, wave serpents, falcons came in arrangements that don't match, etc etc. Likewise imperators weren't in the original lists at all - they lived only in the collector's section.

So model collection is of course a factor but clearly it is not the only or most important factor (Doomkitten did use the word "preferable"). I don't think you can say that any of fluff, model collections and balance are totally unimportant ("...should never be used"). Fluff and model considerations have to be traded off against each other on a sliding scale: removing a model from the list is obviously worse than including it in threes instead of pairs.

We do have to recognise though that some things are not on the table: if the list is to be NetEA Approved it must be balanced. You can try to make pairs of thunderfires work (and AFAICT you have tried) but in the end if they aren't balanced then they will be changed. How you do that (sacrificing model count or fluff considerations) is of course a matter for personal perspective.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I'd agree with kyrt. Also, thunderfires are one of the easiest units to find alternative models for (eg 6mm aa guns).

_________________

So obviously, I couldn't resist having a crack with 5 overlords. Here's a battle report using epic uk lists. http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=30894&p=583982#p583982

_________________

Elsaurio, I'm just trying to get my head around why the Spotter rule is necessary. Is Indirect Fire not enough to hit long range targets? Is the reason based around Squat movement deficiency that they should get to move while IF'ing? I know the old SM Squat list used a spotter so is it a historical thing?

The thing is, with Ironhawks having a 45cm weapon range they can stand off quite a distance from the target (outside of assault etc thus avoiding danger to a degree) so the rule, to me at least(on paper after the first read), just seems to "bend/break" the IF rule of having to take a Sustain Fire action. Tau Markerlight units have to come within 30cm for a bonus thus being at risk of being assaulted and eventually removed. I know the rules are completely different in terms of effect but the bonus seems quite a good one given the types and numbers of weapons the Squats field.

Cheers

The new playtest WE rules (which hopefully will become part of a 1.6 list) have currently removed the spotter rule and stripped Indirect from most of the Squat WE weapons.
Speaking of 1.6 lists, any sign of a review on the rest of the Squat formations in the near future?

First of all, the spotter rule (like everything in this list) is a rule that has been copied from the original 2nd edition Squat rules. In that edition, the Colossus war machine came packaged with a Gyrocopter that used to fly around and 'spot' for it.

The spotter rule is weaker than having pure Indirect Fire. Sure, you can move and use it, but:
1) You do not double the range.
2) It forces you to move up your fragile gyrocopters and war balloons into enemy range and line of fire. These units can be shot down to remove the war engine's spotter ability.

I admit have a fondness for the spotter rule and want to see if I can work it into the new list. It encourages the squat war engines and gyrocopters to keep moving forward. If instead they had just Indirect Fire the whole army would be encouraged just sit back out of cover and sustain, which would be incredibly one dimensional.

I think it can certainly be re-worded and worked to make it fit better. I've left it until 'absolute last' on the things to fix as it is more of a 'army wide effect' than an individual unit.

Also Overlords are currently giving me headaches in the local meta. I'm not going to play with spotter until the overlords are looked at. *shakes fist at overlords*

you're better off just stating in the specials that Indirect Fire doesn't double range and call it good. I'm all about trying to keep units moving (EA is a game of maneuver warfare after all and gets a bit crap when units only work well sitting and sustaining) but I'm a fan of making things easy as well. If you wanted flavor you're better off just thieving the marker-light mechanics from Tau.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!