Re: [Epic] [E40K] Squats -- different list

From: Aaron P Teske <Mithramuse+_at_...>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 22:16:22 -0400 (EDT)

Excerpts from Epic: 5-Jun-97 Re: [Epic] [E40K] Squats --.. by Alan
Brain_at_....
> > (^) Gyrocopters on Flak orders have a firepower value of 1 as they cannot
> > bring their secondary guns to bear.
>
> Too complex for my liking.

You're right, really, but I was trying to find a more mobile Flak
solution for the Squats... and since the Gyrocopter is the only thing
Squats can even remotely call a tank, I don't want to strip it into the
flyer class. Using 'copters as "dual-purpose" craft which must be
declared at the start of the battle might work, though. I was going to
do that, but wanted to see if the points would turn out the same... not
even close. My non-Flak 'copters had a PV of 26, IIRC.

> > (#) Immobile units fixed in place and cannot move; if forced to retreat
> > they are destroyed.
>
> Hmmm.... don't like extra rules, but....

It's not, really. Anyone who is forced to retreat and ends up within
15cm of the enemy is destroyed; TFs just can't retreat. Oh, and if you
take TFs in a "Meeting Engagement"-type battle (where they'd start off
the board), they get dragged on 5 cm and then bolted in place; they
can't fire the turn they move.

> General Comment: Troop types Better than my own, esp ExoArmour. Like the
> 2xHvy Weapons. Not so keen on Gyrocopter specials. KISS.

Right... I like the Exo Armor too, it's supposed to be only marginally
worse than Termie armor so it's a good way to get the Warlord back up to
his +6 CAF. ^_- Of course, the +Save does *nothing* so it should
probably only cost 5 points for the upgrade.

> The organisations I'm less thrilled with. (Why? I'm still working on
> that, but basically too many special restrictions).

Hmm... basically, my feel of the Squats is that they'll have a fairly
rigid structure (see the comments on the Brotherhoods in Warlords, for
example, which I applied somewhat liberally in my notes). Kinda like
the IG, but I didn't want to hose the Squats quite as much... anyone
else think that the second and third IG commanders should cost 25 points
less? <shem> Anyway, I knew what I wanted to get to (either have a
Brotherhood, like the old card, or make a small detachment with a
Hearthguard in the lead) and just manipulated things to get there.

Seeing as I wanted both Warlords and Hearthguard in the command slots, I
decided that they needed some minimum number of troops to take with them
to prevent gangs of Warlords and Hearthguard from wandering the
battlefield. Admittedly, they'd probably cause lots of morale loss
since they could be wiped out fairly easily, but they'd all have saves
and a good assault... it could get nasty. The restrictions are a bit
over-worded, but firly simple, IMO.

Or maybe I just think that 'cuz I designed 'em. ^_^;;

>I suspect somewhere
> between the current web definition, your definition, plus my tunnellers,
> we could have a good basis for GW making E40K (and hence 40K) squats
> early.

Heh... good luck on that one. Incidentally, how do you feel about the
original tunneler rules, where the tunneler made a normal move
underground, which was written down, and it was all measured out when it
came up? I b'lieve the tunnelers got three moves free at the start of a
game, though different rules would apply for an Ambush scenario.
(Tunnelers pop out of the ground right underneath you... <grin>)

One last comment on several of my selections: I've hearkened back to
Ad.Titanicus in several respects, mostly as regards the tunnelers.
Termites are armed as Rhinos, and as such have no immediate impact, but
Moles have heavy bolters and my Hellbore will be armed for bear, and
cost accordingly. (Squats took those silly Imperial Eagles off the
weapons hardpoints and put 'em to *proper* use.... ^_- )

                    Aaron Teske
                    Mithramuse+_at_...
                    Squat Leader, Den'Len Fetch
Received on Fri Jun 06 1997 - 02:16:22 UTC