I would start with one and if it works add the possibility for another.

2. It counts as a non-mobile ML

I think that makes sense. Limited numbers, only deployed on the Tau side of the board. However, if the MLDS is going to replace the objective, then there is no need to mention garrisoning, is there?

My two cents...

I second the question for need of Deflector shields. When they were 6+/5+/4+ it was an interesting if clunky mechanic. Now they're just an Invulnerable save that is... better. Why not make it standard Invulnerable save and make them cheaper as Zombo said?

(I must say that I hate the guts of invulnerable saves in 40k and right now it seems that every 2 out of 3 models have 4+ invulnerable... if we add a unified deflector shield mechanic someone's going to want Deflector Shield (4+) for some list in the future and that road never leads anywhere nice)

I hate to rain on your parade vytzka, but Eldar *already* have "Deflector Shields (3+)" on their Titans!  

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

But not in addition to armour saves* unlike the tau deflector shield.

I'm just not sure on the need for a deflector shield special rule when we already have the invulnerable save rule available for use. Make them slightly cheaper and we've cut another special rule from the list.






*Yes, I know, reinforced armour...

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

With regard to the objective/Sentry Turret swap - I'm not in favour of turning the Sentry Turret into a unit that can't be destroyed (as Wraithgate).
Why would the enemy want to move near a ML?
If the Sentry Turret can be destroyed, then once destroyed, there is no objective to capture.
It doesn't work for me, sorry.

I'm not in favour of the difficult terrain idea either. Just seems kinda unnecessary.

The reason the Turret Formation has Scout is to be able to space the 3 unit formation out to avoid being destroyed by one template attack.

Keep objectives seperate from combat units.

Good call on them being LV zombocom.

_________________
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.

If the Sentry Turret can be destroyed, then once destroyed, there is no objective to capture.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Tze MLSD aren't the objective. They are GUARDING the objective. You can destroy the MLSD but not the objectiv.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I like the idea of making the Deflector Shield a more generic thing so other armies can use it.  

If we follow Zombocoms suggestion and bag it entirely, I think it would make more sense to move the Manta and Moray to Void Shields than the base 6+ Inv Save.  It uses and existing rule and would be pretty easy to balance.


Would someone that likes the idea of MLSDs as a Garrison unit put together what they would have for stats and then the number in the unit/price.  It would be easier to evaluate the idea.

On MLSD, I think I can see what Shmitty is trying to suggest, but perhaps it might be better to think of these operating along the line of Siegemaster fortifications.

• Thus for a price you can buy some static sentries that can be setup anywhere in your half of the table.
• To prevent abuse they are limited in some way (perhaps one MLSD formation per firewarrior formation?)
• Like fortifications, they do not exert any ZoC and cannot contest objectives
• Treating them like a 'minefield' may even work better, so you can imagine a MLSD 'minefield' that illuminates all enemy units within 30cm, and which is entirely removed if 'cleared' by an enemy assault, but otherwise formations of both sides may freely move across it.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Sentry Turrets.

Type Spd Ar CC FF
LV   0cm 6+  - -

Scout, Fearless, Can Garrison or deploy normally.
MarkerLight. No ZOC and cannot contest objectives. Cannot be activated.

This is a real rough idea for now.

A formation of 3 of these presently (as of 4.4.3) cost 50pts. I'd probably increase this to 75/100pts per formation with an idea to limit them (like the one Ginger suggested - "perhaps one MLSD formation per firewarrior formation?"). Remember, taking these things eats into your Support formation quota.

How can it get any simpler than this? No need for Difficult terrain tests or Objective swaps.
This idea also allows for armed Sentry Turrets to be used as per general Tau combat tactics (with pts worked out for armed Turrets seperately) which would then give the formation an activation.

I'm not the creator of this concept. The Real Chris (where is he?) and others have put these suggestions up before.

I'm sorry Hena, but your relentless hatred of these units seems quite irrational. It is not the Turrets themselves that are broken, it's their ability to light up the enemies DZ which is the real unfair problem. Take them out of the enemies board half and they are still a useful back-up when the Tetras are dead. This is how Tau do war. I know, I've read IA3 and the 40K codex. The Pathfinders went deep into enemy territory to light up important targets. As the Imperials progressed, They encountered Sentry Towers. The next thing that happened was a missile attack from over the horizon.

During the Imperial attack on the Hydo plant, Shielded Turrets played a key role in delaying the Imperial assault (the Imperials couldn't detect them until they started firing). They are as much part of the Tau warmachine as Hammerheads, Firewarriors and Mantas. This is fact.

_________________
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.

That looks pretty good Onyx.

I would restate to "cannot claim or contest objectives", but otherwise that seems pretty reasonable.


Ok, so as far as I know there is no actual ML Turret mentioned in IA3.  Rather that was the Sentry Towers?  (I have read IA3, but don't own a copy).  So, could we have a formation of 3 turrets with weapons and 1 sentry Tower with the ML?  Then the unit would have an activation and a slightly higher cost.  Perhaps Burst Cannons would work best?

I like the idea of a combined formation (although in IA3, the Sentry Towers were out by themselves). Gives them an activation (as zombocom mentioned earlier).
There is no model for a Sentry Tower but it's quite obvious that Sentry Towers/Turrets can be made from current ForgeWorld models (stick a flag pole on a Sentry Turret - voila, instant Sentry Tower).

Burst Cannons would not be the best for Epic (40K would be yes) - Missile pods would be preferable but really all the available weapons could be added without issue.

I would leave them off so that they can be worked properly. I don't want to delay the list for this one unit. And that special rule is highly broken as is.

_________________
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.

This is definately my prefered option for Tau Jump Packs.
Simple and effective.

_________________
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.