Tactical Command | View topic - questions on ML sentry turrets

Page 2 of 7

[ 99 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

questions on ML sentry turrets

Tactica

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:52 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241

I like having the predetermined amount of them as a special rule and eliminating the purchasing.

Dobbsy and Lion are probably on to something here.

It would better reflect thier individual mono unit use as well - exactly how they are supposed to be represented.

I'm OK with trying Dobbsy's latest version of them too. Ending a move within 5cm.

I think the 'randomness' is the only issue I'm not a big fan of. I'd rather just say that you get X of them and have a go. Tau are not the most "random" type army and it seems very IG / Orky to me. Tau are methodical and calculating. They would know exactly how many to deploy on a field.

Tau seem to do things in 3's, 6's and 12's. So, I'd use that in the predetermined consideration.

If we go with "you just have to end your move within 5cm of one" then I think 12 is an OK number to start out at. Its basically two of our formations we have today, but now you can just move and stretch your unit out to dispose of them. Still a pain for some armies (AMTL), but easily doable in one turn by most.

This would solve the points problem as well as possibility of them winning an assault issue some are concerned about.

Good stuff,

_________________
Rob

Top

Dobbsy

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:47 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Tau seem to do things in 3's, 6's

d6 + 3 ?

Without a playtest though, I'm thinking 12 is too much Tac'. I wouldn't want my opponent to be feeling hard done by with these guys especially if they come for free. I see your theory about it though ... Tau seed the battlefield with as many as they can etc etc.. i just feel like whacking down a maximum 12 at the start of a game is asking too much for a free item. It's more fair to get a random number - IMO anyway. You could always argue battlefield attrition is the reason

Maybe 2d6 is the way to go then? Just like Commisars? At least you then have the possibility that you can get a large number. You could temper it with the "if you don't have enough - tough luck" that the Commissar rule gets too.

Top

Lion in the Stars

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:09 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455

A dozen (13 or 14, actually) MLSTs would be enough to place 3 lines across the table, each 30cm from either a table edge or another MLST. 9 would be enough for 2 lines, with no gaps, 7 if two small gaps at the Table edges is acceptable. A 5-4-5 arrangement would give _3_ lines of interlocking ML envelope, and all but the flank MLSTs are each in range of _4_ other MLSTs. There's no safe way to try to spearhead through that kind of defense, you have to attack on a broad front to remove the first row (or at least 3 adjacent MLSTs in one row). You then need to kill at least 2 adjacent MLSTs in the second row, and at least another 2 in the third row to have an unmarked line of advance. It's not necessarily hard with fast-movers like Vultures or Valks, but slower armies will have problems.

The randomness could be fluffed to reflect the amount of time the Tau had to 'fortify' the battlefield. Another option for amount of randomness is d3 'units' of 3 MLSTs. You'd have either 3, 6, or 9 MLSTs.

Using 9 MLSTs in 2 staggered lines (as far forward as possible) would force the opponent to come through 77cm depth of Markerlight coverage, 180cm wide. Each line of MLSTs is spaced 30cm apart, and the next line is offest 15cm, and 17cm behind. Limiting that to 6 MLSTs would effectively prevent that kind of defense-in-depth. The second line does have some 15cm gaps on the edges of the battlefield, however.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Top

Dobbsy

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:39 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Limiting that to 6 MLSTs would effectively prevent that kind of defense-in-depth.

Yeah, I agree Lion. Otherwise, we are pushing something beyond quite fair IMO. I know I wouldn't be keen on having the entire table blanketed in ML coverage. With a maximum of only 6 units you have to choose wisely where you place that coverage. Your opponent isn't necessarily swamped by it as he will have avenues of approach not in ML range.

Top

Ilushia

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:22 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189

On the commentary about over-lapping Tau Marker Sentries: This really isn't an issue with the current suggestion of 'dies if within 5cm' since I can just move up, stop within 5cm of th efirst one (killing it) shoot the second (likely killing it), move another formation through my nice newly-created gap to destroy a 3rd and 4th one potentially. Deploying them so closely would actually be a GOOD thing for me, especially on Turn 1 when I rarely have 'real' targets to shoot at (Since Tau tanks can generally hide behind terrain and most of their infantry is quite short-ranged.)

Top

Lion in the Stars

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:02 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455

The more I think about it, I think that d3 'units' of 3 would be the best bet for randomly generated MLST support. ?You may only have 3 (sucks to be you, better put them where they'll do the best), you may have 9 (remember what I said about defense-in-depth?), but you'll most likely have 6, just enough to put a fragile, single-layer picket line across the table with. ?If your opponent kills one, it won't open any gap in ML coverage, but killing 2 adjacent MLSTs would open a 15cm wide hole for his army to flow through, effectively Thermopylae with the Tau ?defending (if your army is set up for massive, ML-supported shooty death :cool:

). ?If I deploy 6 MLSTs, they're in a single line about 25cm apart (assuming no LOS-blocking terrain between them).

Fluff BS for random number of MLSTs: ?The Tau seed likely battle areas with Markerlight Sentry Turrets, but adhere to the philosophy of "It's better to have some everywhere, to give warning, and as more Sentry Turrets become available, more will get sent out, and after the second wave of deployment, we'll make a third." ?To reflect this, the Tau player gets 3 Markerlight Sentry Turrets per 'wave' of deployment, and rolls a d3 to determine how many waves that Tau forces have had time to deploy.

After looking at that, even 9 MLSTs may be over the top, as I can blanket an area 180cm wide by 77 cm deep with massive overlap. ?(Except for the flanks, every MLST is within 30cm of _4_ other MLSTs. ?The forward flanks are covered by two or three MLSTs each, depending on whether the first row of MLSTs is 4 strong or 5 strong.) ?That may not be fair. ?Can you imagine what would happen to, say, a 'Nid swarm as it approaches the ML bubble? ?That's how many AP5+ shots (oh, sorry, +1 for Sustained Fire, +1 for Guided in ML range, so that's 8 AP3+, plus 4 AT4+, shots per unit of Stingrays)? ?Bugs? ?There were bugs there? ?All I see is a 'Freaking Purple Haze'

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Top

Lion in the Stars

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:08 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455

(Ilushia @ Aug. 10 2006,06:22)

QUOTE

On the commentary about over-lapping Tau Marker Sentries: This really isn't an issue with the current suggestion of 'dies if within 5cm' since I can just move up, stop within 5cm of the first one (killing it) shoot the second (likely killing it), move another formation through my nice newly-created gap to destroy a 3rd and 4th one potentially. Deploying them so closely would actually be a GOOD thing for me, especially on Turn 1 when I rarely have 'real' targets to shoot at (Since Tau tanks can generally hide behind terrain and most of their infantry is quite short-ranged.)

That's great, if it's 6 in a single line you just opened a 15cm-wide gap in my ML coverage, that I'm probably going to plug with Pathfinders and a Co-fire to destroy that unit (or at least break it). ?

5x4 double-line, you're still in overlapping range of 2-3 MLSTs, and will pay for it. ?Just set it up, Ilushia, and see how nasty it is. ?Put the first sentry on the mid-line of the table, 30cm in. ?Continue placing MLSTs on the centerline, 30cm apart. ?Place the next line 17cm behind the first (towards the Tau table edge), and place the first MLST 45cm from the table edge. ?Continue placing MLSTs 30cm apart, in a line 17cm behind the first. ?Attack that deployment in the center, and see how long it takes to open a path in the markerlight bubble. ?It will take 2 formations to kill 4 'free' MLSTs (unless you drive up a 6-strong formation of tanks in Line Abreast right between two MLSTs, killing 2, then kill the MLST centered between them in the second line... no, you still have to kill one more to open any gap in the line)

Man, I just re-read the Robotic sentries rule. ?They have to be in coherency. ?Why would I put them 5cm apart (formation coherency for non-Scout units)?!? ?They're sentries, and should be individual units (they're not, presently). ?It does no good to have 6 of them with a total frontage of 30cm (giving a ML bubble 90cm wide and 30cm deep, with double or greater coverage 80cm wide), they should be spread out at least 15cm apart (15cm means that you have to kill 3 before a gap opens, but 30cm is better). ?I have to be missing something. ?They're useless right now (maybe if they're deployed in a circle 5cm apart... No, that's only 70cm across, 50cm double-or-better ML coverage; not any better than the 30cm long picket line.) ?WTF!

Where'd that elegant solution that Col Sponz proposed? ?'Sentry Turrets, as formations of 1 unit, are suppressed by one BM as normal... (Damn, my mind is failing me... too many liberty ports and pub crawls, and the forum crash seems to have removed the discussion, unless it was over on the SG boards) ?If they can't be deployed singly, I'm not interested in them. ?They aren't good pickets now. ?I have much better things to spend points on now, and unless they are deployed individually as a special rule, they aren't going to be worth deploying at all (I'll just say that my Tau force is on the offensive, not defending-in-depth

)

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Top

Tactica

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:34 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241

Currently, that's the problem Dobbsy brought up Lion. In 6-turret formations, they are basically useless - especially for 75 points.

So we are discussing X-amount of Free units that don't take blast markers. Its a change to the way things are done now.

So we are entertaining your idea of individual units and some random amount of them being free to the list. We'd also be removing them from the purchase chart.

Another option for amount of randomness is d3 'units' of 3 MLSTs. You'd have either 3, 6, or 9 MLSTs.

I'd rather 3D3 of MLST.... mainly because there's just too much randomness in a single d3 roll of 3 MLST. A Tau force would have a better understanding of the field than that amount of randomness. I guess you could explain the variation in how many of the turrets the enemy killed before the battle really commenced... 3D3 yields a higher probility to make use of a mid-range amount of MLST vs. them being gimicky and unpredictable at 3, 6, or 9 only.

Dobbsy,

Considering the proposal of enemy just moving within 5cm of them to blow them up... a single enemy formation could "stretch out" and triple in one turn to basically move within 5cm and blow up a whole host of the turrets if they were even remotely close to one another. It would take me one and maybe two units to completely wipe out any and all ML that were covering my position as the enemy to the Tau.

Thats why in practice, I see them being quite a bit more fragile with the "move within 5cm" rule proposition. Furthermore, I think a staple value of 9-12 would be fine as long as that rule of proximity was also adopted.

If we are not adopting the proximity rule, then I would agree that a more random approach should be taken.

For my vote and for what its worth - I'd like to try Illusia's proximity suggestion and also a static value of 9 turrets for free along with the immune to BM and individual units of 1 turret each rule suggestions.

My thinking is that it will be enough to plan around. It will be annoying enough that the enemy will have to either move or shoot to deal with them. However, they are very easily dealt with if the Tau player gets too aggressive.

Be mindful - terrain will work against many sentry turret placements. You can't mark from the opposite side of the wood. You have to be within 30cm to mark them, so charging, moving, and shooting will quickly deal with the majority - if not all of them, right out of the gate.

Just my take.

_________________
Rob

Top

orkybob

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:57 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:32 pm
Posts: 78

I don't think they should be free at all. Marker lights give an incredible advantage so I think we should have to pay for them - even a low cost like 50 or 25pts per formation.

I managed to wipe out a bug hoard (all bar his bio-titan which I ignored) in 3 turns.. purely by using markerlights (pathfinders and tetras) and lots of guided missles (scorp fish , stingrays etc etc) . If I had of had turrets as well then it would have made the job even easier.

I just feel that being free is going too far and it will unbalance the Tau list.

Top

Lion in the Stars

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:53 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455

3d3 gets a strange probability curve, though.

3: 1/30
4: 3/30
5: 6/30
6: 10/30
7: 6/30
8: 3/30
9: 1/30

You are incredibly likely to get 5, 6, or 7 MLSTs with that curve (22/30), and it's almost improbable to get either 3 or 9. That may work pretty well. You can just about count on being able to put out a picket line that way.

******************

Why would being free unbalance the Tau list? The IG have random, free Inspiring Leaders. Such a creature is usually worth 25 points apiece (50 for Marines), and they get 2d6 of them for free. Rolling 'Snake-Eyes' for Commissars would be bad, just like rolling 'Blinky the three-eyed fish' would be bad for the Tau (it's more likely to happen on 3d3, too). Rolling Boxcars for either force is a good thing, and is slightly more likely for the Tau.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Top

orkybob

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:15 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:32 pm
Posts: 78

I just think that the list is fairly balanced at the moment,and adding in a freebee which gives us +1 to our GM's and also if used correctly will tie up some of our opponents formations in the first turn is just not necessary and will make Tau GM's too strong.

Why should they be free? They are still resource to be used in the battle therefore should have a cost to them... just because IG have free Commisars doesn't mean we should have something free... I don't think the Tau need strengthening anymore - yes turrets should be in the list and do add another tactic but I don't agree that they should be free.

Top

Dobbsy

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:26 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Tac - things like Orky Bob's comment is what I was expecting to hear. This is why I think if it's random but free there's less of an argument because you already have somewhat of a trade-off.

a single enemy formation could "stretch out" and triple in one turn to basically move within 5cm and blow up a whole host of the turrets if they were even remotely close to one another. It would take me one and maybe two units to completely wipe out any and all ML that were covering my position as the enemy to the Tau

Ahh that's true Tac but they've had to March (which means they aren't firing) and they've had to end their move most likely in a new ML range(tetras, ?pathfinders or even Stingrays) and probably in Tau co-ord firing range if you've set up for it.... ? :;):

and Bob - You may be forgetting that Tau don't get artillery barrages. Tau players have no way to hit massed targets at long range, like most other armies have. Their only defence is individual targetting of units but w/o MLs their capabilites are very reduced. ?This is what playtesting is all about

We see if the new proposal unbalances or not then we either keep it or scrap it. That's if CS is happy with this idea at all....

Like I say, personally I don't want to see massed coverage from a free unit.

Top

orkybob

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:28 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:32 pm
Posts: 78

Fair enough, give it a go.. but I didn't find any problem in wiping out a bug force by carefull use of Path finders and tetras (to help out the GM's). And you don't get much more massed units than that!

I just don't think the Tau need anything else to help , but lets see what CS says and what the play testing shows... I'll certainly be using the unit free or not as I love the concept. (Once I scrape up enough cash for the next FW order that is!!)

Top

Tactica

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:05 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241

Orkybob,

I hear your concerns. I think they are valid concerns that derserve a proper vetting.

However...

Please do me a favor. Give the MLST a go in your next battle, as stated in the list today. Just test them out using proxies or something to get a feel for them. I don't know what you take today, but 75 points is 75 points. It means you have to cut something to use them.

If you can figure out a way to get two formations into your next army, I'd really like to hear how it goes. I have a feeling that you'll see just how fragile they really are.

So, the premis being if they are overcosted now... but a good conceptual idea... and, we make them easier to get rid of (not to mention the other changes above)... is a limited - or randomly limited amount of them for free a possibility?

I truely think experiencing them is the key.

Is this a net uptick for the tau army... sure. Its something for 'free' in the end that's not free today... however, you have to consider all the changes on the horizon.

IC-HH losing AA for example... thus requiring more SkyRay purchases, thus reducing the amount of meat in the list due to trickledown effect.

In the grand scheme, a handful of free ML should be relatively minimal uptick in the end. When you consider other changes coming in the list, I wonder if this will end up being over the top, or an adequate counter measure to other changes looming.

_________________
Rob

Top

Honda

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:19 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

Considering the proposal of enemy just moving within 5cm of them to blow them up... a single enemy formation could "stretch out" and triple in one turn to basically move within 5cm and blow up a whole host of the turrets if they were even remotely close to one another. It would take me one and maybe two units to completely wipe out any and all ML that were covering my position as the enemy to the Tau.

Thats why in practice, I see them being quite a bit more fragile with the "move within 5cm" rule proposition. Furthermore, I think a staple value of 9-12 would be fine as long as that rule of proximity was also adopted.

I think you guys are making this way too difficult. Besides Dobbsy, has anyone ever played with these in a real game?

I've had them in my lists (usually one unit, often times two, 3K pts) since inception.

1. The reason they have a cost is to prevent abuse. You have to use the capability as part of your plan, otherwise you just burned your tie-breaker.

2. They were put in a formation so that anyone who wanted to cheese the unit by laying out big strings of them could easily lose the continuity by just killing middle units. The loss of coherency rule meant that you have to remove units until you are back into coherency. So you tend to deploy them in "spherical" formations to preserve the unit.

3. In combat they die. Is it statistically possible that they could win an assault? Yes, do you see it happen very often? No. Not in 10's of games. Anyone who knows how to assault doesn't jeapardize a weak unit for a non-sense assault. If people want to do something that is the opposite of smart, they'll find other units to do it with as well.

4. Taking a random sized unit does't seem very Tau-ish per Tactica, but from a practical perspective is a pain in the neck. Why would you choose to do that? Know what you are getting when you spend the points.

5. Keep in mind that the points you spend on them take away from a unit that can activate, claim objectives, move, shoot, and assault.

So, before proposing wide sweeping changes, play some games and get a feel for what it's really costing you field them.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 2 of 7

[ 99 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:

questions on ML sentry turrets

Who is online