Certainly an idea worth experimenting with. Having 0cm move and in 3's they should buckle when challenged by even the smallest enemy formation (like scouts) which seems correct IMHO, though they may be a different prospect if placed in ruined buildings or bunkers etc.

Cannot be activated is key and the main reason for considering them to be more like a piece of terrain ('fortifications') than troops, though obviously they would still be represented by models on the table. Indeed with the lack of ZoC, it almost suggests a new troop classification (perhaps 'Static') to cover such items that may be found in other Races.

Other thoughts:-

• Lack of movement and tying them to objectives means their effect can be negated to some extent by positioning objectives on the table edge(s). I would prefer that they could be put anywhere in the Tau table half (>15cm from the center-line??), though again this also needs testing.
  
• Will they still work when broken (by shooting)? IMO yes, but it is probably worth stating this.
  
• Will need heavy restriction, hence the '1 per FW formation' suggestion.
  The issue is that they give the opponent an activation choice - whether to waste an activation killing them or not, which indirectly gives the Tau an activation advantage.
  
• Not so sure about Fearless. This will obviously make them much harder to remove and needs testing both ways.
  The issue here is that the opponent will probably ignore them as being too hard to destroy thus effectively giving the Tau a permanent ML capacity.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I like the basic stats of the turrets, but I strongly recommend mixing them with gun turrets, to get rid of the weirdness of having no activation. That way issues of being broken, rallying etc go out of the window.

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

Hmm, I can see where you are going, but I was on a slightly different tack here. As I see it, MLSD exist only to enable Tau formations to make use of their GM technology, so in that sense they are more like an trip-alarm than anything else. Consequently they do not need to activate and cannot be repaired so they do not rally either (BMs and 'Broken' merely indicate degredation using existing game mechanics to the point where they are destroyed).

What they do add to the game is a choice for the opponent either to destroy them using up an activation and slowing the army down, or leaving them alone and accepting the consequences. In this sense, they are a sophisticated variant of 'expendable' formation, so shooting or assaults should destroy them fairly easily by which time they have already fulfilled their alternative function.

I would expect no more than 2-3 in a normal 3000 point game to prevent abuse, and generally the proposed 75 point formation cost seems about right.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I have issues with yet another special rule being included, when there are viable alternatives. It's not enough to just say "cannot activate", because the issues of BMs, breaking and rallying will all have to be explicitly addressed, hence another special rule.

If we add gun turrets to the formation, or even GM turrets, we end up with a normal, activatable formation that requires no special rules at all.

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

In my eyes they are not units as such, more like special terrain features. Effectively all they do is provide a point from which to measure ML, that can be destroyed by enemy action.

We would use BMs to track the extent to which they are disrupted in much the same way as using rubble markers to track the destruction of buidings, so we would be using an existing game mechanic. However, they  would not activate or rally etc like

I do see your point about 'more special rules', though I was also looking slightly wider afield to other Races and units that might also fall into the same category, not least 'Mines'. Hence the suggestion that if this approach was adopted, we should consider another unit classification of 'Static' that would explain the details elsewhere (like 'expendable') thus avoiding another Tau 'special rule'.

I do agree that a possible alternative is to use Gun Drones in this capacity. However in the past I thought there was opposition to this on the grounds that these two formations had fundementally different roles and the cheap formation cost permitted a 'spamming' abuse.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Spamming can be avoided by careful army list construction, like one per firewarrior formation.

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

I agree.

Why can't the Markerlight Turret be subsumed under the already existing Drone Sentry Turret Emplacement models/rules?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Not that this is a democracy, but there is some pretty good support for a mixed turret/tower unit.  Chroma is right, it won't need special rules, which is a good thing.  If they are armed, they will activate and could at that point even have a ZOC to really simplify things.

Chroma and Zombo,  what weapons do you think the turrets should have?

Ok, first off, let's keep our focus, but watch our "energy" levels in the conversations. We are a team working out issues.

MLDS - I think Ginger has very clearly defined the purpose and Onyx has outlined proposed stats. I think any quirks regarding the unit can be handled in the Notes section of the unit entry. Zombocom brings up valid points that need to be considered.

However, as much as I would like to see them stay in the list, I don't want them to be a divisive element. So what this needs to come down to is can we come up with a recommendation that isn't broken, yet is still attractive. Those that do not like them are not forced to take them. At the same time, those that like the concept shouldn't be penalized either.

So, this is not about "likes or dislikes". This exercise, like Air caste, is about "works or broken", with the goal for Special Rules to streamline and clarify where possible.

We are working to get the list to a point where playtesting is possible. We're not going to get everything to 100% this round. We are just trying to nail the obvious issues and polish the jewel a bit.

Crisis/Jump Pack - I put a suggestion out there because I wanted to step out of the box and see if a different look was worthwhile. What I proposed is how those units operate in 40K, using that only as a data point, not trying to get us to force a unit to act the same.

Tau Jump pack units don't get to avoid combat in 40K, they get to avoid getting shot at, while still getting their shot off. An opponent who is intent on bringing the crisis/stealth into hand to hand combat will be able to do that.

My intention was to offer something different, not assume that it is better because it is like 40K. If we can get the current mechanism to operate clearly for all involved (that includes our opponents), that's just fine with me. But let us not close our minds to any reasonable alternatives. If it is too difficult to implement, then it should not be adopted. I don't get royalties from this, so it's no skin off my nose. I just want the rules to work and I don't want them to require a PhD to figure out.

Drones as units - I am Ok with drones as separate formations. I offered them as an upgrade to an existing unit because there were opinions in favor of that choice. There were also opinions on dropping them altogether and working them into the basics stats. We are just investigating our options.

I'm going to let the discussion run a little longer, but we need to work to a near resolved position by tomorrow. So let's get it to the best spot we can without introducing an obvious imbalance to the list. If we can't do that, then I have to look at something radical or a postponement.

We can make this work. You guys have more than enough brain power to solve the issues. Let's bring this one in.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Coming from a complete newb for Epic, but as a player of the 40k Tau, I have a question. Has anybody ever proposed giving Tau Battlesuits the Skimmer rule instead of trying to force out a special rule to simulate the Jet Packs? It seems to me as if it would be an easier fit, allowing them to pop up and shoot, similar to JSJing in 40k, and force FF in assaults. It wouldn't keep them from getting assaulted, but it would give them a different kind of edge.

Not to keep honking the same horn, but that *really* sounds like "Hit and Run" to me... Double: move in, shoot, move back out.  Engage: jump to clipping firefight range, win, move back.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Well, if we go with armed Sentry Turrets, an easy way to limit numbers would be to make them an Auxilliary unit rather than a Support Cadre.  That way they have the 0-1 per Firewarrior without any special considerations.  If that was the case, I would drop the limitation on mixing auxiliary units.

So, how about:

Sentry Drone Auxiliary

3 Sentry Drone Turrets and 1 Sentry Tower  - 125Points  (that's just a guess) - Counts an an Auxiliary choice.

Sentry Drone 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 5+
FF -
CC -
Fearless, Markerlight



Fearless makes sense in this case as they can't run away, so wouldn't be programmed for self preservation anyway.  Even with 5+ Armour, their LV status will make them easy targets as they have limited ability to take advantage of cover.  I took away Scout from Onyxs suggestion to limit their ZOC, also with only one unit having a ML there is less need to spread the unit out.  They can deploy as a garrison near an objective, which seems very appropriate for defensive units.  This is a simple yet representative way to have the turrets be in the list.

Ok, a new voice brings up skimmer. That's an interesting idea. What are the upsides/downsides?

@Hena: I hear you  

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment