| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Deep Strike Vs Tunneler Rule Problem http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=21624 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | scream [ Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Deep Strike Vs Tunneler Rule Problem |
Hi, a bug seems to have been caught on Tunnelers: General Deep Strike Rules say: NetEpic Gold Rule Book wrote: Some units start the game off the board and arrive by teleporting, tunneling, flying in from orbit or being summoned from another dimension. These are all one-time effects, and the units will use their normal movement for the rest of the game. If a player chooses to move one of these units onto the battlefield via Teleportation or Deep Striking, it is resolved in the Compulsory Movement phase. On the turn they arrive the troops must be given Advance Orders and may be activated in both the Movement and Combat Phases of the turn they arrive. I do not understand why tunneling is present in the deep strike rule whereas there's a special rule for tunnelers on page 21 that perfectly explains how tunnelers arrive on the table. Moreover in the Squats & IG codex, each tunneler unit (exception for the RAM in squat codex) has in its description the sentence: "They are Tunnelers and may initially appear anywhere on the board as per the Deep Strike rules." So: 1) is it a bug ? 2) can tunnelers reach the table following deep strike rules or do they have to follow the tunneler special rule ? |
|
| Author: | scream [ Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Deep Strike Vs Tunneler Rule Problem |
Nobody can confirm that any tunneler must reach the table following the tunneler rule ? Or is it OK to let them appear with deep-strike rule ? If so, just remove the tunneler rule from Rule Book, this will let some place for a nice picture... |
|
| Author: | robroy hawkman [ Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Deep Strike Vs Tunneler Rule Problem |
Quote: Moreover in the Squats & IG codex, each tunneler unit (exception for the RAM in squat codex) has in its description the sentence: "They are Tunnelers and may initially appear anywhere on the board as per the Deep Strike rules. Only for the squats, not the Imperial Guard, except for Hellbore. |
|
| Author: | zap123 [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Deep Strike Vs Tunneler Rule Problem |
Remove the deep strike bit from the Squat unit and Imperial Hellbore descriptions. The Tunneler rules are far more comprehensive for the situation. Also for completeness and avoidence of confusion, remove the word tunneling from the teleport and deep strike description box. |
|
| Author: | scream [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Deep Strike Vs Tunneler Rule Problem |
Thanks Zap, I was surprised when a player told that squat tunnelers could arrive with deep strike rules. Appearing with Deep strike rule is surely more accurate than with tunneler deviation... |
|
| Author: | robroy hawkman [ Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Deep Strike Vs Tunneler Rule Problem |
I don't understand... In the codex Squats V5, squats tunnelers could use deep strike. In the codex gold, they can use it too. In the tactica V5, there is the sentence "The Squat tunnellers are more accurate than the imperial equivalent and thus will surface close to the intended point." (p. 18) So, if it's not by the deep strike rule, by which mean are they more accurate ? |
|
| Author: | ulric [ Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Deep Strike Vs Tunneler Rule Problem |
Quote: In the tactica V5, there is the sentence "The Squat tunnellers are more accurate than the imperial equivalent and thus will surface close to the intended point." (p. 18) So, if it's not by the deep strike rule, by which mean are they more accurate ? This sounds interesting |
|
| Author: | zap123 [ Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Deep Strike Vs Tunneler Rule Problem |
Not sure I've ever seen the old Tactica used as a setter of precedence  The deep strike rules are a poor way to represent this should we choose to do so. They do not cover the bredth of possibilities the tunneler rules do. If we did decide that this was indeed an intentional move, then perhaps a modifier to the scatter dice for the Squats would be more appropriate (?). |
|
| Author: | scream [ Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Deep Strike Vs Tunneler Rule Problem |
I've dug in the mailing list and the squat tunnelers with deep strike seems to have appear with the V5(.0 ?). Unfortunately, if this was an intended change, this should have been worded better somewhere in the rules...as this change looks more like a typo than a rule modification... |
|
| Author: | robroy hawkman [ Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Deep Strike Vs Tunneler Rule Problem |
Don't you find strange a typo which appears in all the tunnelers description, and only for Squats ? Who is the codex squats author ? Maybe we could ask him? |
|
| Author: | scream [ Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Deep Strike Vs Tunneler Rule Problem |
robroy hawkman wrote: Don't you find strange a typo which appears in all the tunnelers description, and only for Squats ? This usually appends when a unit is shared in several codex and author just do a copy/paste of the text. Players who discussed in the past (about 10 years ago now) about thoses modifications do not seem to be on the board anymore or if they are, they do not discuss about NetEpic Rules anymore :| |
|
| Author: | robroy hawkman [ Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Deep Strike Vs Tunneler Rule Problem |
But these units are only in 2 codex, Imperial guard & Squats, and the text are differents between them. IG tunnelers don't deep strike. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|