Re: [Epic] [E40K] Squats -- After Review:

From: David Dresser <lemming_at_...>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 01:14:05 -0700

Aaron P Teske wrote:

> As I've said before, the Colossus is a *far* superior fighting machine
> to the Leviathan, as well. And the Cyclops, while closer to the
> Leviathan in general firepower (weaker, in fact), has the Hellfury
> Cannon. If you keep 'em seperate, then we've got a list of five SHVs so
> far. (3 Chassis, Overlord, Land Train.) Yes, that's more than any
> other race. But you also need to keep in mind that the Squats don't
> have any kind of normal tank -- the SHVs are their specialty. Let 'em
> keep 'em.
>
> Hrm, six. Forgot the Hellbore, but that's not a very serious addition
> anyway. (How many Squat players have one? Er, besides me.... ^_^;;; )

Good point, war engines are the variety in a squat force. Wouldn't want
to repeat the mistake that happened with ork everything ->
battlewagons.
 
Hellbore is the cowardly lion of the superheavies in 2nd ed. though.
I'd like to see some tunneler rules that allow them to be played more
aggressively. Suggestions appended.

> I'd actually say that we're quite close to a canonical list; the points
> of contension right now are:
> 1) Thunderers (which will, I b'lieve, end up as standard heavies)
> 2) Flyers (involving Overlords & 'copters)

Thunderers as heavies (3 fp?) seems fine.

Flyers..
Well, I really think the copters are skimmers, not fliers.
And I can't see the overlord zipping around like a flier at all. It's a
blimp, not a whoopie cushion.

> Issues that haven't been resolved/discussed at all:
> 1) Specific stats for:
> - gyrocopter (see above)
> - all the SHVs, barring the Lev.
> - Thunderfire Cannon
> - Thudd Gun/Light artillery (barrage vs. 2 FP)
> - Goliath (Hvy. Barrage vs. Mega-Cannon)
> - Tunnelers (as in 1st or 2nd edition Epic?)
>
> OK, so that's most of the Squats list. Still, versions are out there
> for all of the above, so it's not like we're discussing these blind.
>
> 2) Rules for tunnelers:
> - as Drop pods (has established rules, but too random IMO)
> - as in 1st edition (has precedent, but no comments from anyone that
> I've heard.)
 
I've read all the previous proposals for tunnelers, and would like to
suggest this:

Instead of 1st ed secret moves for tunnelers the models are placed on
the table by themselves (subterranean) or on their carrier (aboveground)
as per the scenario. A carrier on special orders may launch it's
tunneler, which is given separate orders. The carrier may not move
while on special orders. A tunneler on board it's carrier is destroyed
when the carrier is destroyed (no 4-6 escape). The tunneler may move at
up to triple speed (march orders) until it surfaces.

[Fluff: technology in the 41st millennium is advanced enough to allow
tunnelers to go where they want and not get lost, heck a gps unit from
radio shack costs less than $1,000 and supposedly can determine position
to within 50m. Tunnelers aren't at all quiet though, and even crude
seismic detection devices allow the opposition to locate them fairly
reliably, thus they are not hidden.]

While underground a tunneler can't fire or be fired upon, assault or be
assaulted. Subterranean tunnelers cannot engage in firefights.
Tunnelers may surface at their current location during the assault
phase. Thus they may be assaulted or engaged in a firefight on the turn
which they surface.

Normal transport rules apply, so units may only embark or disembark
during the movement phase. Units may still escape a destroyed transport
on a 4-6.

A tunneler which has surfaced may not go subterranean again during the
battle.

Transports which move at the same speed as the troops they transport are
more than a little silly imo. I'd like to see tunnelers with a base
movement of 15, and their carriers move 25.

The carriers should be purchased separately from the tunnelers, they
don't have much of a battlefield role. It was mentioned that there are
scenarios where they should be taken tho (ambush?).

Surfaced tunnelers on roads getting a bonus seems a bit silly, a house
rule against it might be appropriate.

-Lemm
Received on Mon Jun 09 1997 - 08:14:05 UTC