That's a bit unfair on drones though, and as I said, not the only flaw with hit and run.

The hit and run rules would need copying and modifying (removing references to Eldar etc) anyway, so using them isn't going to save on special rule space.

Also, the game you played was under chroma's list, where crisis suits are a nasty engagement formation, hence have a different use, so the experience doesn't carry across well to this list.

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

Well, once there is a 'list' for these changes I'm sure we will give it a go too  

Thanks again Onyx.

Armour 12 all around is similar to a Falcon and better than a Rhino so armour 5+ really does seem appropriate.  It is also high enough that things like Heavy Bolters or Burst Cannons can't typically hurt them, ie AP weapons.  However, if they do become open topped when firing that does make them more vulnerable.  I think Armour 5+, Light Vehicle represents them pretty well as they are presented in IA3 and makes them pretty easy to be dealt with.

Ginger - These do have a very different role from gun drones and are another facet of the Tau drone technology.  Here is a link to what we are talking about:

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/sentrytm.htm

I do think Onyx an I have worked out a nice, clean way of representing these things that does not require an entry in the Special Rules section at all, which is a very good thing.  What you have described is similar to how they appear in the list now and that has caused some serious problems, which is why we are looking for a version that does not use special rules and is closer to a normal unit.

Regarding the Sentry Turrets and Defense turrets. If we are to make them a single formation, how much of a pain would it be to make the Markerlight Sentry turret an upgrade to the defense turrets? IIRC, if the Defense turrets have the Teleport ability, but the Sentry Turret doesn't, they would still have to be relegated to garrisoning if the upgrade was purchased, correct? While if they were used on their own, they could be teleported in offensively?

Well, they are a *targeting system* with a Markerlight.  An RST (Remote Sentry Turret, the IA3 term to describe the ML-equipped Turret) is about 2x the height of a FW, with an extendable sensor boom that runs up another 2x height:  Here's a link to a pic, it's the very top item in the Tau Turrets section of FW.  An RST is little more than a ML-on-a-stick, while direct-fire turrets are quite a bit bigger:  link to FW pics.

Auxilliary formation seems a good call, and as to resiliance, we can juggle the use of unit type and armour value to give a reasonable vulnerability though LV and 5+ seems cool. However I would still recommend they are not Fearless because IMHO that will make them far too resiliant.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Ok, it's starting to look like we are at some decision points.

1. I am liking Zombocom's proposal for crisis/stealth suits. Let's sort through any issues and work up language to support this special rule. I agree and think we should include verbiage that states that if all units in the formation do not have the "ability" (e.g. Jump Pack), then the formation may not use that rule.

This would mean that you have to be careful what you stack with a crisis or a stealth suit to take advantage of the rule.

2. I think Onyx and Shmitty have a decent proposal for the Remote Sensor Turret RST) and I apologize for any confusion I introduced calling them the Marker Light Sentry Drones. So let's get this unit to final form and see where we are. I am also in favor of including them in the Auxillary section.

However, I am not inclined to add the "armed" version of the turrets at this point. I'm looking in all my back versions of the list (still looking for 4.4.3   ), but have these been in the list before? If not, this exercise is not about adding units. I may not have been clear about that upfront, but this effort is to resolve the units that appear to be troublesome non-Tau players.

So, let's focus on the ML sensor capabilities and see if we can come up with a unit that deserves to be in the list.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

v4.4.3 can be found pinned at the top of this forum:

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/forums/ ... 23;t=13518

And the Sentry Turrets have always been included in the "Collectors' Section" of the list, so they're already statted up and there are models for them, so it seems a shame not to include them.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Oh and believe me, I would not normally advocate adding a unit.  I do think simpler is better.

In this case, it is my position that the formation/unit/concept will be simpler if we include armed turrets.

We could have a formation of 3 Remote Sentry Towers that might look something like this:

Sentry Turrets.

Type Spd Ar CC FF
LV   0cm 6+  - -

Scout, Fearless
MarkerLight. No ZOC and cannot contest or control objectives. Cannot be activated.

Or something like

3 Sentry Turrets and 1 Sentry Tower  - 125 Points - Counts an an Auxiliary choice.

Sentry Turret
Light Vehicle
Speed - 0cm
Armour 5+
FF - 6+
CC - 6+
Twin Linked Missile Pods  45cm   AP4+/AT5+
Fearless

Sentry Tower
Light Vehicle
Speed - 0cm
Armour 6+
FF -
CC -
Fearless, Markerlight


By including some armed turrets in the formation, we don't need to place stipulations about the unit not activating, having a ZOC, or contesting objectives in there.  In fact, it becomes a completely normal formation, with nothing special or different about it.  I think that is staying within the spirit of this thread, even if it does add a unit.  The unit is certainly canon and there is even a FW produced model for it.

Now I am getting a little confused. There are two 'turret' units in the 4.4.3 list. Which one are we discussing???

I thought we were discussing the 'Markerlight Sentry Drone turret' (or 'sensor-on-a-stick' as I called it), and the problems it presents because of the associated special rule. Here, I thought the main problem was actually due to it being deployed in the opponents table half together with the Tau log-range GM technology.

However it seems that others are keen to resurrect the Drone Sentry Turret Emplacement (or 'Remote Sensor Turret' as Honda called it). A static turret with a nasty set of weapons.

Or are we discussing some third option (such as Shmitty's sentry tower)?

We also need to make a decision on 'non-activating' formations Personally I have no problem with the concept, though the special rule could be better worded. Shmitty (and others) seem to have difficulties with the general concept and effectively want a very cheap 'normal' formation. Can we discuss this particular part of the sentry turret problem?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Probably best to start new threads, one about "Tau Jet Packs" and one about "Sentry Drones" to avoid confusion.

Honda, care to set those up?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

That's what we are discussing and your assessment of the main problem is accurate.  The MLSD turret was something of an invention that probably should have been called a Remote Sentry Tower as it is in IA3.  The problem with it deploying in the opponents half is enough it was likely to be dropped altogether.

The context of this thread is to reduce special rules, which in the 4.4.3 list the rules for the MLSD are significant.  

I have taken it to the extreme of trying to design a way of having Sentry Towers in the list that involves no use of special rules or exceptions.  In my mind the best way to do that is to make it as 'normal' a unit as possible, which meant using armed turrets mixed with a tower.

My idea is just a proposal of one way to approach them, much like using them with reduced rules or eliminating them entirely.

Does that help you at all Ginger?

Ok, point of clarification and apology (I'm working with a brilliant sinus headache)

1. We should be discussing the Remote Sensor Tower (RST), not the Sentry Turret. The RST is what I want resolved. The Sentry turret is in Section Six as Hena pointed out and we should not be expending any real effort on it at this time.

What I am a little concerned with is the creation of a new type of unit that does not emulate the unit in anyway. The RSTs operated like a picket fence feeding data to units deeper in the Tau echelon. Adding firepower to the RST to get it to fit is not the right direction. We should be attempting to build out the rules for the unit to get it to fit in it's intended operational role.

If we are unable to do that, then I have to make a different kind of recommendation to CS.

2. The "alternate" crisis movement proposal. The reason I would like us to develop the "Zombocom" idea, is that I would like us to have two approaches to consider for the final cut. There are those that like the existing rules (CS is among them) and there are those that do not. I don't know if it's an equal divide among Tau players, but I do know that among those non-Tau players I have circulated with, it comes off as being cumbersome to them because in executing the rule, it introduces questions (e.g. Intermingled units that weren't intermingled before the assault). I would ally myself in the latter group. I think rules should be "clean" and easy to understand and use.

The "Z" approach just makes more sense to me than the current mechanism and I say that as a long term Tau player. Not to infer that I am right, only to add a voice to those that do not like the rule. In it's execution, I do not see it (Z approach) "tipping over" more dominoes while executing.  I personally do not think that it emulates Tau jump pack behavior very well. However, that is just a personal opinion and what I am really seeking is the best solution we can derive in the amount of time we have allocated.

In this particular instance, consider me the force that applies "creative" tension by challenging the status quo.

As I stated at the beginning, I want us to see if we can clarify or improve on this particular SR, because I think there is room for improvement. If we can, then we should. If not, then at the least we took a good hard look at it and tried to come up with something better. I don't see us losing either way.

However, I do want to emphasize that which ever way we end up, will be based on discussions between CS and myself.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Sorry about the headache....


Judging by what you have written, I don't think I have communicated my idea very well.  I am in no way trying to change the intended operation of the RSTs.

I don't think we need to build out any rules at all for the RSTs.  If they need special rules, they should probably just be dropped.  They are not an important enough part of the Tau doctrine to justify additional special rules.  I thought that making a Sentry Formation including both Towers and Turrets solved that nicely.

In this particular instance, consider me the force that applies "creative" tension by challenging the status quo.

I definately agree. I proposed the mixed turret formation as it's the only way I can see of getting them into the list with no special rules needed. If special rules are needed then they're just not worth keeping.

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