Onyx,

Let me clarify a little bit.

1. I am in favor of a roughly 100 pt unit
2. I also agree that it should be out of the Support Groups/Aux Formations
3. I also agree that it should have 6+ armor
4. I am also Ok on Scout (it has had that rule before)

Ginger's point:

However, the main point here is that the enemy has used one or more activations to destroy a 50-75 point 'passive' formation, thus giving the strategic initiative to the Tau at least in part.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Let me once again reiterate that I feel they aren't important enough to be worthy of a special rule. If we can't find a way to make them work under the normal rules (including activations), we should just drop them.

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

Umm Onyx, I was still refering to the unarmed 'sensor-on-a-stick'. This was not the 'mixed' formation you and Shmitty developed more recently. So the stats are effectively those in 4.4.3 and your post summarised as

LV, Armour 5+/6+, Move 0cm, CC '-', FF '-', Weapons '-'.
Notes:- Markerlight, Scout, Fearless, 'Passive'

Formation of '3'(or '4'?) for 50-100 points

Scout makes sense as they can then be spread out to permit Markerlighting a wider area. Fearless should be removed IMHO because it makes them too tough. I would even suggest '4' for 50 points could be viable. The cost is based on the estimated cost of enemy units that could be killed by GM supported by the formation.

I agree they would still come out of the support / aux slots to avoid spamming as this is the cleanest approach (though a '1 per X' approach could also be used).

=========================

Obviously the main sticking point here is that this would require that the Special rule remain, which generally goes against the implied intentions of the thread. However, removing the rule means the formation has to activate, which means giving it purpose, thus weapons, thus higher costs and effectively turning it into a formal 'trip-wire' formation etc.

(Actually, I can also see a place for such a formation, but that falls outside the original intention of the 'sensor-on-a-stick' RST.)

Whilst dirt cheap, they actually validate the revised ML / GM rule allowing the Tau to use those weapons over longer ranges, so sorry Zombo, I think they are actually quite valuable to the Tau and the general ethos of the list.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

So this "passive" special ability would be something just used for this one unit in one army?  That seems pointless to me, sorry.

Why is there so much resistance to making it a activating formation?

Second, why can't the Tau player just buy some Pathfinders to do this?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Valid points Chroma. But I think we are in danger of looking at this the wrong way round. Those in favour of the unit are arguing that the RST 'sensor-on-a-stick' is needed, but requires a special rule; while those against are saying that we must reduce special rules so the RST should be replaced with something more normal.

I think the answers are interrelated. The RST gives the Tau an alternative, dirt cheap means of Markerlighting enemy formations that the opponent can kill if he chooses to. You can certainly use Pathfinders or other formations to perform this role, but that is actually beside the point here. By providing an offensive threat and 'area denial', it is a much easier decision to use an activation to disable or destroy such 'trip-wire' formations. Moreover these cost the Tau more, so have a larger effect on the composition of any list.

The RST 'sensor-on-a-stick' uses the reverse psychology of minimal threat and minimal cost - but this approach mandates the lack of an activation and hence a special rule.

While it may be the only unit in the Tau list that is 'passive', there are precedents (like Grots in the Ork list and marine Landspeeder with 'Skimmer'), so we should not discard the unit on that principle alone. It is quite possible that the definition could be used elsewhere at some point in the future (mines for instance).  

IMHO the real question for the Tau designers is rather, is there a place for the RST in the list? IMHO, I think it forms a valuable role as part of the change to the ML / GM rule, so on those grounds I think it is worth keeping both the unit and the rule.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

This statement is why I don't think we should be making the RSTs anything but a 'normal' unit.

I want the Tau list to be accepted widely.  One of the best ways to do that is simplifying the SRs, which we have done a good job of so far.  But still with the RSTs we are looking at a complex special rule for a single unit type.  There are not other "Passive" units in the other armies to compare this too.  

My question for you Honda and Ginger is given the statement fro the beginning of the thread, why are the RSTs worth having a special rule IF they can be played without one?

In my mind the Special Rules bring out the important aspects of the Tau army.  We have some great, unique, and characterful rules already.  The Markerlight/GM rule shows the synergy of the army, Zombos Jet Pack idea shows their mobility, Coordinated Fire shows the Tau philosophy of battle.  Are the RSTs so important that they really need a special rule to highlight this?  Myself and some others just don't think so.

Those other Special Rules effect the whole army or multiple units, I don't think we need a Special Rule just for this one unit that is not exactly the poster child of the army.

Ok, sorry about that, I will get off of my soap box now.

Honda:  No, but I live in Idaho, and we're starting to hear about rodeo stuff up here, too... even on the rock&roll stations in the valley.  

=====
For one last thought on the Tau Supreme Commander Rule, couldn't we also just delete the entire rule and follow the usual rules for a SC (ie, allow him to call coordinated assaults like a Commander from another race)?  I mean, the Crisis Comander model is Farsight, complete with big sword!

=====

For a thought the other direction, Chroma, why should I *have* to use a separate formation of Pathfinders in the battle?  The "ML-on-a-stick" Remote Sensor Turret was placed ahead of the imperial advance, while the Pathfinders operated behind the imperial lines, looking for supply dumps and convoys, nowhere near the front lines of the advance.  

Pathfinders were acting as long-range recon patrols (or cav scouts), not as light cavalry on the battlefield.

If you make them a Support unit, I'm *always* struggling to take enough Cadres to get the support I want... just makes it a little harder to decide.  To be honest, I'd take a unit of RSTs over a support group of PFs (I prefer PFs in FW Cadres), and maybe even over a unit of Tetras.

All that said, I'm going to get off my soap-box now, and close with this thought:  Since there's going to be at least one more revision to the list after this one, why not leave the RSTs in this round, with the following changes to the rule:

Each robotic sentry unit is classified as a formation of its own during the game, but are all placed simultaneously during setup. and these units are placed at the start of the game, after objectives are declared and before forces are set up (see page 124 of the main rule book, robotic sentries are deployed after section 6.1.4 and before section 6.1.5). They may be placed anywhere on the table, outside of any enemy setup zones (usually 15cm from their home board edge). Robotic sentry units do not get activations and they cannot be used to claim or contest objectives.

Robotic sentry units never receive blast markers for any reasons, have no zone of control, and assaults are handled differently – enemy units engage robotic sentries as normal, with units using their close combat or firefight values. However, units in base contact with a robotic sentry automatically hit the sentry tower, which makes its normal save. Units using their firefight must roll to hit as normal. Robotic sentry units don’t make return attacks, and in addition neither unit is considered engaged in close combat. Further rounds are not fought and the enemy may move off at any time. No assault resolution is made.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

As far as the wording goes, perhaps something along the lines of:-Passive
These units do not Activate or Rally, so they may not be mixed in a formation with 'normal' units. Passive units cannot contest objectives, have no movement and unless they have FF and CC values they have no Zone of Control. In all other respects formations made of Passive units operate like 'normal' formations, so they can be shot at and assaulted, they accumulate BMs and eventually break. If they lie in enemy ZoC when Broken, they are automatically destroyed unless they are Fearless.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Shmitty,

Points taken.

I know that I appear to be pushing this unit, but what I am really attempting to do is stir the pot, to see if we can move it from a concept to a reality.

My Current Concerns:

1. We've had a rather high level of discussion regarding this unit/formation...and we know the most about it. I have serious concerns about what it would do to the general population who know next to nothing about it.

2. I'm really struggling with the idea that it has to be more than it is (i.e. activatable unit, pardon my English) in order to get it to work. To my way of thinking that is akin to asking for a horse and getting a camel.

So, this is what I would like happen as I think we've driven this as far as it is going to go.

Shmitty, Onyx, and Ginger: Take one last stab at it and give it your best shot. The description should include stats, cost, and a special rule if you need one. I would suggest working out the details via PM and then PMing CS and myself. From there, CS and I will discuss and decide if it makes the cut for this round of testing.

Now that is being dealt with, I think I need some firm language regarding Zombocom's proposal for "Jump Pack". Everything else we seem to have reached a point where CS and I can discuss.

Agree?

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

You don't "have" to take them at all.  It's just that they're already in the list, require no new special rules, and there's actual models for them.

Honestly, this always seems to be the "Way of the Tau" development process; some little feature snags everyone's attention and wastes, I feel, valuable time and discussion.  *sigh*

I'm going to *really* try to avoid posting anything more here until the new version is formally released, it's just "circling and circling" again.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

You're right, Pathfinders do exist.  What I was trying to get across is that I don't see independent units of Pathfinders operating in direct support on the battlefield.  They were instead operating deep behind enemy lines disrupting supply lines to slow the advance, while the RSTs were used as ML support for delaying the front of the advance.

I should probably shut up now, since I'm one of the first to suggest kicking the RSTs to section 6, anyway.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Here's my first draft of my Jet Pack proposal. If anyone has any clarifications or unclear situations please point them out.


Tau Jet Packs

Many Tau Battlesuits and Drones make use of powerful and sophisticated jump packs. These allow them to pounce on the enemy and strafe them before retreating again out of range of the survivors’ retribution.

Tau Jet Packs follow all the rules for Jump Packs. Additionally, units with Tau Jet Packs are allowed to make an additional move of 10cm after the shooting section of an advance or double order. The extra move is allowed whether or not the unit fires, and may be used to move in any direction. This extra move follows all the normal movement rules, so unit coherency and zones of control must be adhered to as usual. No extra movement is allowed on any order other than advance or double.

In formations where only some of the units have Tau Jet Packs, the units without Tau Jet Packs are not allowed the extra move.

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

@Chroma,

I know this part has seemed a little "circular", but I do think we are moving on. If I was going to make a guess, the four options for the RSTs that CS and I will discuss are:

1. Leave as is

2. Move to Section 6 with new stats and the possibility of moving out of the minor leagues at a later date (i.e. a later round of testing)

3. Accept new proposal

4. Drop from list

I see 1 & 4 as being the least likely, although still possible. I see #2 as the least punitive to the community.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I'll add this point and then go check my pm's.

I've sat across the table from players who agonized (moaned bitterly) about whether or not to waste fire on unarmed, static units that couldn't hurt them directly but could indirectly give them a real bloody nose.

Now this was when Sentry Towers where deployed all along their DZ and it was an unfair decision for them to have to make.

That said, the decision will still have to be made if we stick with Sentry Towers only. In Epic, having to waste a formations activation (when it may only get 3 in a game) to kill an unarmed unit can seem very unfair to the Tau opponent.

It will always be to the Tau players advantage, if the opponent has to waste activations killing Sentry Towers. It gives the Tau player many more options.

Now, if a lone Sentry Tower has a bodyguard (so to speak) of units that can actually reach out and harm the Tau opponents army, the decision is much easier to make and because the mixed formation will not have Scout, it should be much easier to destroy/cripple in one round of shooting.

Steve.

_________________
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 said, the decision will still have to be made if we stick with Sentry Towers only. In Epic, having to waste a formations activation (when it may only get 3 in a game) to kill an unarmed unit can seem very unfair to the Tau opponent.

It will always be to the Tau players advantage, if the opponent has to waste activations killing Sentry Towers. It gives the Tau player many more options.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment