I was rummaging through old emails as I oft do when putting together a list and found some of Curis' old comments. While I was dismissive of them at the time, I do want to throw a question out to the general population...

Do you like the current way that we've set up the tunnelers as one-shot wonders where they come up and stay put? Or do you prefer that the tunneling units be allowed to move about with the surfacing formation?

Right now we have Moles and Termites as disposable, combined with a 0cm move. This means they surface and remain there, but if the existing formation wants to break away, they can leave the tunnelers behind with no BM penalty. The Hellbore is a WE and kept as a separate formation.
+ It is very simple
+ It is realistic that a tunneler would have little surface movement.
- It provides a boon to tunneling formations that remain with the tunnelers, since they now have lots of disposables.
- Models don't stay on the board.

An option is to give tunnelers a 15cm move, remove disposable, and let them roam.
+ Also simple
+ Easier to balance
- Totally weird looking (tunnelers rolling around on the surface)
- Increases mobility of a larger tunneling formation since they now have AVs traveling with them.

Pricing is another problem. If we were to change the tunnelers, what would you price these units as?

Consider these stats:
Termite: Armor 5+, FF 6+, CC 6+, transport 2
Mole: Armor 4+, FF 5+, CC 5+
Hellbore: Armor 4+ RA, FF 4+, CC 4+

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

They could move in SM/TL, hence I'd like to let them move in EA. And they do have tiny conveyer tracks on their sides to move them along... so you're totally weird looking.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

this could be a defining difference between the thurgrim and the devertagal confed lists.

_________________
My shifting projects

@ Maddoctor, how could we justify having the units acting differently? Fluffwise... I am curious how we could actually reconcile that.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Different drill bits.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

I don't have Squats so am ambivolent either way. Some brief thoughts;

• If tunnelling AVs are allowed to move, would they find any terrain difficult or impassable?
• This suggests they would be really good at taking on 'strong points', so would they get IC on any CC attacks?
• Would they retain 'transport' capabilities to allow them to carry troops rapidly over such impassable / dangerous terrain into contact with the enemy?

um completely different units and models. I'll go back to my corner now.

_________________
My shifting projects

Hehehe. No, I mean it isn't a terrible idea. It was rattling around in my brainpan as well, but I was wondering if you had some deeper thought into the matter. Personally I think the lists COULD have different types of tunnelers. The question really is SHOULD we, and how would we make something like that work?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

should? probably not - it seems unfair to make people paint similar models twice.

_________________
My shifting projects

I like the "one-shot use" rule for simplicity's sake. If they would move during the game, why not underground (again)? Perhaps mimicking the flyers air assault rules?!