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

From: Michael and Christina King <kingcm_at_...>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 11:57:38 -0500 (CDT)

On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Alan Brain wrote:
> Having had a look at what everybody has had to say re squats, I've come
> to the following conclusions, and based on the following reasoning:
>
> Reasoning/Assumptions:
> a) That in 40K Squats won't change a great deal from the current version
> when the Squat Codex comes out.

Jervis and Andy keep saying the Squat Codex will be written after they
find the Squat's niche. Right now in 40K they resemble short Imp Guard,
they don't really stand apart.

> b) That 40K rather than SM2 is the "One True Way" that E40K must try to
> approximate.
> c) That an absolute minimum of special rules be added, hopefully none.
> d) That some simplification is needed: As a guide, look at the Imperial
> Super Heavy Tank.
>
>
> 1. Basic Squat Stats
> Equal to an Ork Boy + Stubborn. The 40K Squat is a little better at HTH
> combat than an Ork, but grossly inferior to an SM. (Correct me if I'm
> wrong). In all other ways, an Ork is a reasonable approximation. Yes,
> this is a change, I had them being given Rapid Fire (mainly cos of the
> additional Hvy Weapons and Squat Engineer stuff).

Squats are not grossly inferior to Marines in H2H. The only reason Squats
don't last as long as Marines in H2H is becasue of the Marines armor save.

The 40K guage of H2H effectiveness is the Weapon Skill (WS)
Aspect Warriors, Marines, and Squats have a WS of 4
Orcs and Imp Guard have a WS of 3

I think the reason that the Aspects have a higher assault than Marines is
that the Banshees and Scorpions will rip up Marines. But Tactical Marines
and Warrior Squats, Assault Marines and Berserkers, and Devastator MArines
and Tunderers are equal. I think the squat base should be Ork +1 assault
and + Stubborn


- Michael
------------------------------
Michael and Christina King
kingcm_at_...
------------------------------
Received on Mon Jun 09 1997 - 16:57:38 UTC