Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

questions on ML sentry turrets

 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:43 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore
Hi all.

Number of units - Personally, I am not a fan of the 3xD3 number. I would prefer to see them at 50 points, with a maximum of (for example) no more than the number of Fire Warrior Cadres in the force. The randomness thing is a bit gimmicky. I agree that 12 does seem a lot.

Destruction - I dont necessarily mind about these things being knocked out by an enemy within 5cm, but it does allow them to be 'walked over' with very little resistance...

Units - Currently these things are in units, but you can better think of a unit as being a sentry position, rather than a single turret. I can see this being dropped to 3 units, rather than the current 6, but this makes them potentially very cheap (but with a maximum number of units that shouldnt be too bad).

Cost - I dont necessarily agree that these things should be free. They have the potentially to allow space craft to target enemy units from the first turn. Simply teleport the ML drone turrets close to the key formation, and hit them with a Hero.

Summary - Let me see if I have followed this correctly... The MLSTs are currently underused/overpriced because people are not taking them as there are other units that do better.

One solution put forward is to make them free and a random number. A second possible is to charge for them, but even at a minimum of 25 points for three it is debated as to whether they are worth the cost.

I am passively against giving a random number of free units of these to a Tau player.

Solutions that I would prefer are:

- Make them a nominal charge in points.

- Allow them to be taken for free, but a maximum of one (formation of three MLST) per Fire Warrior Cadre (this could be changed to one per Pathfinder formation, or another fluffy unit). This would allow the cost to be integrated into the core formation cost, should restrict the numbers a little more and should keep their use themed to 'foot slogging' forces (where they would be more likely to be present according to the background). I would only worry that the number of potential formations of these things could get large in extreme forces.

Comments?

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 10:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
I disagree with your assessment of MLSTs as being part of a foot-slogging formation.  

(Imperial Armour 3:  The Taros Campaign @ pg. 191)
QUOTE
The Tau use the towers as an area denial weapon, making it difficult for the Cadian Chimeras to move without drawing immediate attack.  In this way they acted much like a conventional minefield, slowing the enemy advance and making movement dangerous rather than being able to halt an advance on its own.  Camouflaged to match the desert they were difficult to spot, and supported by fast-moving Piranhas, mounting Seeker missiles, the Tau were able to harry the Cadian columns and inflict losses far outweighing their own numbers.

[Emphasis added.]

By that, the number of MLST units should be limited by Piranha formations, although I would add Stingray formations to that list as well, since MLSTs (properly, Remote Sensor Towers) are effectively forward observers.  (Well, Stingrays are my logical choice for backing up a RST picket line.  They'll pound anything in the ML bubble to scrap on Sustain orders.)

In 40k, RST units are Troops choices for the Tau.  I don't have to have any Fire Warriors at all, and can just take 6 RSTs, while the rest of my force is mobile (Crisis, Stealth, Piranhas, and Hammerheads).

So, 25 points for 3 RSTs (can we give them back Scout?  The larger unit coherency is consistent with how the units are used in 40k), with no more units of RSTs than there are units of Piranhas and Stingrays combined.  This would raise their effective price to at least 175, for a bare Piranha 'Contingent' (please, can we rename those to 'Mission Group'?); or 275 for a bare Stingray Contingent; averaging 225 minimum.

You know, I can still see this getting out of hand.  2 bare Piranha Contingents (150 ea), Stingray Contingent + Stingray and Skyray upgrades (450), plus 3x 3 RSTs (75).  (Isn't 2 Piranhas and a Stingray Contingent + Skyray pretty standard for a 2700 Tau army, anyway?)  If the RSTs are still required to be in units, that will keep me from blanketing half the board with markerlights, but if I can really spread them out...  You are in deep doggie-doo when less than a Third of my force decides to light you up.  Hang on, let's make that worse:  Add a Pathfinder Upgrade to the Stingrays, so they're calling a Co-fire on you.  Now, that's what I call 'Fire for Effect' (21 AT4+ shots, plus 12 AP3+, if Sustaining at Marked targets).  Total formation cost, including Pathfinders, 925.  With the RSTs in units, I can cover about 1/6 of the table, maybe more, in a Marker bubble.

In order to counter that, I think that we should add a line to the Remote Sensor Turret rule:  "While Remote Sensor Turrets are bought as an Upgrade to either Stingray or Piranha Contingents [Mission Groups], they are not deployed as part of that Contingent, but are instead deployed separately."  Most elegant phrasing for the limits, IMO.  The only time RSTs would 'activate' is when they Teleport, so I don't think it it would be a big deal.  A one-time cheap activation (which would probably be my first few activations of the turn) might cause some grief, though.  If it does, we could also say that the RSTs activate (to teleport) at the same time their 'parent' Contingent [Mission Group] does.  That puts an even bigger crimp in them the turn they teleport in, since the RST's MLs will not be able to help their 'own' formation in the turn they arrive (right?)

This may help the situation, or may not, since I can still Upgrade the Piranhas with Pathfinders. :evil grin:

As long as the RSTs have to stay in units, I don't see the complete coverage I have been talking about until we're playing games above 6k points at the lowest.  It's so expensive to get the 9 formations of RSTs that allow you to blanket huge areas with markerlights (1575 points using bare Piranhas; 1875 for 6x bare Piranhas and 3x bare Stingrays, my preferred minimum formation; and 2775 for 3 of the uber-formations of doom™ that I mentioned above), that I just don't see it happening.  Using a full third of your army to set up that big ML bubble?  Probably not going to happen, but I might do it at 9k for amusement.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 8:26 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
I am against them being tied to any particular unit. I play a predominantly armour force. Please don't force me to take infantry if I don't want to. Sticking them to infantry when infantry use of MLs is negligible, doesn't seem right.

Given all these newer proposals CS :( I would prefer to go back to 50 points for 6. Bit of a waste of interesting discussion and possibilities but oh well...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:20 am 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore
The scout rule was removed from the unit as it was thought that this would allow the units to be place too far apart and therefore to cover a huge area of the battlefield to easily.

Fair enough, the MLSTs are not tied to the FW Cadres... I would not necessarily want the attached to the Pirahnas, as there is a potential to take more of these formations in the force. I selected FWs partly because they are a cadre choice (and partly because they are currently a little underused/valued).

My personal preference is to have them as a standard unit without all of the fuss of free units or limiting numbers artificially - I just threw that out as a possibility.

Any discussion which goes around and returns the original point is certainly not wasted discussion... it is actually reassuring!  :D

These things do pose a problem...

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

These things do pose a problem...


I'm still waiting to hear that in a game, they are causing a problem.

I agree with Dobbsy and support:

1. Don't tie to a unit
2. Don't make them free
3. Keep them a formation

I also want to make sure that in Lion's proposal, the RST are not becoming part of the Piranha formation as why would someone want to tie an anchor to their formations (remember, RST's are immobile)?

Again, I urge people to play with them in a game. They only become effective if you make them a part of your plan.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:32 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
Y'all missed the other part of that proposal:  "RSTs', while bought as upgrades to a formation, are not part of that formation.  They are in all respects separate formations."  

That limits the RSTs a little more, by reducing the raw firepower that could be added to a formation (benefitting from the RST ML bubble) via upgrades.  It's fiddly, I know, but I'm just not seeing an elegant way to phrase it right now.

3 for 25 points feels a little cheap, but they don't activate.  What happens if I take 10 of them, in place of a Battlesuit Cadre?  That just gave me that huge ML blanket (which is something that I don't want, and I don't believe that anyone else wants either), in exchange for one potential activation.  Linking the number of RST formations to the number of some other formation (whether that's FW, PF, Piranha, Stingray, or some combination), is a good idea.  These things were used heavily on Taros, but not that heavily.  They don't have any 'pop-up' rule like the gun turrets do, so they shouldn't even be suppress-able.  A 3-unit LV formation should be pretty easy to destroy, but that's the only way to get rid of them. (directly porting from 40k again)

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

I didn't miss the statement, I just wanted clarification to ensure that I didn't misinterpret what you wrote. Thanx for the confirmation.

As far as tying them to a particular unit, I'm just not that entralled with the idea, nor am I that crazy about the smaller size of the formation.

Reasons:

1. A number of smaller formations means that the attacker has to direct attacks from more formations to eliminate the perceived threat. That diffusion of firepower to wipe these things out (assuming 3 or 4 formations per your model) is great for the Tau because that's 3-4 formations that aren't shooting at the good stuff. However, my personal feeling (based on playing with these in +10 games) is that it's too much. ?In a three turn game, that is a significant misdirection of firepower, even if they are easy kills. So, I think a solution that gives the Tau 1-2 units per 3000 pts is what should be strived for.

2. Attaching RST's to specific units: Given that that RST is fairly new technology (in Taros the timeframe), it wouldn't surprise me that it had limited availability. However, we are building a post-Taros list. Assuming that the RST's introduction was successful (and it was), then I would expect wider deployments and force options to further expand it's application. Hence, allowing the Shas'o the option of how he/she would attach that asset.

As Dobbsy pointed out, if we don't want to take any Piranha units, then we lose out on what I consider a significant capabilty. Why do that? Is the unit demonstrating capabilities as currently configured that dominate the list balance? I think that if a limit needs to be in place, then do that 0-2 per 3000 pts thing and call it done...or leave costed as is.

Don't force people to build a list your way (figuratively speaking) vs. their way.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

50 for 6 I can try to work with.

I agree with Honda and Dobbsy, I don't want them tied to a particular unit requirement for purchase - that gets fiddly.

I'm also not a big fan of random in Tau. They concepts cause clash as Tau are calculating to the nth degree, theyw ould always know exactly how many units there are in play at any given time, and any given front. Its part of their nature to not only calculate all possible battle scenerios, but also to calculate contingency plans and withdrawal routes.

Honda, I promise I'll test these out again at 50 points before I comment again, howver, I'm asure at 75 points they were not working for me at all.

I note 3 issues raised in this thread around sentry turrets.

Issues with existing MLST rules as I understand them
1) Formation is to expensive for yield to Tau player
2) Possible to win an assault with them
3) teleporting before turn means possible destruction before use

I'll try and set up a 3K game with 6 @ 50 and no other changes for now to test the above 3 issue claims.

Prior to retest, my hypothesis is:
1) 50 points may not be low enough
2) I think this is a non-issue personally
3) I think this is the biggest issue hendering my use of them

PS - local mills mall GW store is starting up an Epic campaign for winter (yay!)

Cheers,





_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:31 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
It's not that the RST's are restricted availability for fluff, it's that they're restricted for game balance.  I tied them to the 'core' units that are most able to take advantage of them, because that's how I would use them.  It's like having a bunch of artillery forward observers/recon teams/recon drones out there, spotting your artillery (Guided Missiles in the case of the Tau), that you don't need to feel guilty about abandoning if need be.  Piranhas have a long range AT attack, and are fast enough to be a 'Red Team', going in to shoot the crap out of the bad guys if they are infiltrating your sentry perimeter.  Stingrays are essentially incredibly mobile Artillery pieces, but they're most effective when they've got a spotter (ML).

Would I take 450 points of non-activation for a ML blanket (9x formations of 6@50 points)?  Probably not until we were talking about a 4500 point game.  At 6k, you bet I'd take it.  How fun would that game be for my opponent?  Probably none at all.  That's why I think the number of RST formations should be tied to the number of Piranha and/or Stingray formations.  If I'm looking at a minimum of 700 points (more likely to end up at 850) in required formations before I can get 150 points of RSTs (3 formations of 6@50points), that pretty much eliminates the possibility of the ML blanket.  
Are the other, 'required' formations useful, good and typically taken?  
Yes.  
Would they be devastating with a big ML blanket?  
Hell yes!

All I'm trying to prevent is the ML blanket.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:20 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Seriously Lion, if someone wants to take a few hundred points of Sentries in a game - good luck to them. They will reduce the number of formations they get and will lose the sentries to basic assault. Smart players won't "blanket the field" because it costs them too much in other war gear - I know for certain I wouldn't do this it's just silly and I wouldn't expect people to play me again afterwards.

Where I was aiming with the proposals I helped put forth was a better balance in my mind. It had limitations on how many you got, it made them easy to remove by your opponent and gave the Tau a leg-up for free because of this. But it's been shouted down so.... oh well.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:04 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
As a possibility: Maybe do both making them cost and free? Something like costing 25 points for 3 or getting a formation of 3 free as an additional bonus with some suitably fluffy unit that they support. So anyone CAN field them, but they're more likely to be  fielded by people using the units which they're in place  to support (Dunno which unit type you'd tie them to. Something which benefits from MLs but doesn't HAVE MLs would be a good choice. Seems weird to tie them to Pathfinders or FWs since both already have MLs).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

I attempted to exploit these babies last night at 50 for 6 units instead of instead of 75 points for 6 units.

We didn't change any other rules

My opponent was running bugs.

I had a hero in waiting for turn 1 arrival with Gravitic and I had stingrays iching to pounce with ML guided munitions on board.

Prior to turn 1, I placed 2 ML from each formation into range of the proposed targets and placed each formation wholely into ruins for that added protection. They were on opposing flanks of the bugs as close to their table edge as I could while still gaining LOF and cover protection, but still within 30cm for ML coverage. They were positioned basically on a 45' angle from his deployment as I wanted the ML to also extend out into mid-field as he advanced, thus remaining in coverage as he got further into the field.

Turn 1 - bugs win strategy
(2 vs 4 roll if memory serves)

He charged both formations, won, and was within 15cm, so remenants blew up from being within 15cm on one side, but the other side died to the last turret before combat was over.

Tau ultimately lost this game 2-0. Being down 100 points from turn 1 blew-chunks frankly. Had I gone first, perhaps I would have felt differently.

I think I should have held the sentry turrets until turn 2 when more targets were present for my opponent to consider... maybe using them straight away in turn 1, despite the fact that they are sentry turrets, isn't the best way to use them.

We didn't have time for a second game as its a week night.

In the after game BS session... he asked what I would have done had I gone first, my gut reaction was activate hero and hammer him with lances first but use the ML coverage to help the salvo... but the more I thought about it, the more that really wouldn't have been the best play since I had Moray on board. I actually prefer to hold that back till later in the turn... so that's not what I would have done.

That left me with the Stingray activation, but I also decided that I'd rather the enemy be covered more by the ML than what they were, and more importantly, I'd rather him have been closer before I used the stingrays, so activating them, moving forward twice just to fire with ML wouldn't have been much of a reward either.

The problem with waiting until turn 2 this game was - he went first in turn 2 as well. I did go first in turn3 and 4 though... but no matter what, I wouldn't have waited that long to teleport in the MLST - so...

Not a favorable experience this time. Maybe next.

I also found it very difficult to spare 100 points for these turrets in my 3K list. I really felt like I was sacrificing effectiveness for a gamble at a trick.

On the positive side, my opponent spread out a bit mor than he usually does. This didn't seem to have a return on game play as the next turn he closed the gap again. He does usually triple with everything turn 1, and so 2 formations did not do that this game, they engaged and consolidated instead. The following turn they tripled.

This was a blessing in disguise for me as all of his units weren't intermingled with one another - hah! But the casualties I caused on the formations that did blast my way still were respawned by the formations that lost them and the ones that tripled on turn 2, so I can't honestly say that there was a significant impact from the MLST.

My opponent said it was good to have some 1st turn charges for once besides the teleporting lictors - which I hate BTW.... but that's another topic.

Cheers,

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

Thanx for the feedback.

Some thoughts:

1. When I deploy them in the first turn, I tend to put them where I think he will be either midway through T1 or starting T2. When they become available to T1 charges, then as you pointed out, you just end up giving him the points.

2. I like them for lighting up hard to get to units for T2 deployments. So artillery parks and such.

3. That being said, I usually deploy them T1. I used to hold them back and do the mind games thing, but found that more than once I needed them for a shot that appeared, but they were out floating around somewhere. YMMV

To borrow a line from the movie "Miracle", "AGAIN"!

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
Yes, 1 game does not show results, its just an experience.

2 games with the same results are worthy of observation, but still not a problem.

3 game results with the same outcome, and I start to investigate for problem.

So - just an event for now. A lesson perhaps.

I thought I was making the correct use of them, but I know see how I could have made better use.

Example, putting them behind or deep enough into a forest so they cannot be charged or seen may have some value... they can spot out to the sides, but not directly into the enemy's path... that means its more head game and area denial than I wanted, but its an option.

I was looking for more of a drop, support, kill type of equation. That is just not going to happen on a regular basis - that I'm sure of.

I'm willing to accept that their value may be more subdued than I originally had hoped for, so I'll still test.

Cheers,

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:04 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

I'm willing to accept that their value may be more subdued than I originally had hoped for, so I'll still test.


I think the word I would have used is "subtle" vs. subdued.

They are a gimmick (of sorts), but they have to be integrated into a plan, so that they don't just turn into an exchange of points in the opponents favor.

Sometimes, just putting them in the middle of the board knowing that you don't have any shots there yet, but do have some within one move is a very effective lure.

I think you'll get used to them, but they take some figuring.

I've played with them in +10 games and I did the "too far on the flank", "too close on T1", "lost my GM units" goofs. They take some time to grow on you, but I am at a point where I don't leave home without them.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net