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: Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
So, Honda, how many RST formations do you usually take in a game?  

Would you really want to see a big ML blanket out there (at least 5 formations on a 120x180cm table)?

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 2:41 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Tac - Losing all of them any turn is too easy at present no matter how much they cost, because they are a single formation instead of individual units.

CS - Even if we space them wide apart the whole formation crumbles the first time an enemy unit wanders up and assaults one. I don't think we will get round ?this problem if we keep them all as one formation IMO.

I still say this could work:

1 We can avoid a "blanket" if we limit the number allowed. say max of 6?? This seems fair to me as it's not a huge amount but you can still use them wisely. You also can't spread them from here to eternity and hold up the whole battlefield

2 We can avoid a wipeout situation if we make them individual units. this seems like the old way but if you place them wisely you back one up with another.

3 We can make them a free special rule if they are weak individually i.e 5cm rule. Your opponent doesn't have to use an activation to kill one but leaves himself vulnerable to the next one as he has to stop within 5cm

4 And this is a new idea I had How about they are placed before the game begins? It means you would have to choose very carefully where you would place them because if you wanted mutual support from other Turrets you couldn't seed the whole battlefield so you still allow your opponent avenues to move forward if you want that mutual support

See how these things balance and counteract each other?

I'm going to test this out myself if no one else is keen on it.






Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:34 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
I like that idea, Dobbsy.  Obviously terrain is a factor, but 5-6 RSTs can still cover the length of a 120x180cm table.

One question, though.  Place RSTs before, while, or after, placing objectives?

Placing RSTs before placing objectives gives the possibility of placing objectives where there's not as much RST coverage.  (Advantage:  Opponent)

Placing RSTs after placing objectives gives the possibility of placing RSTs to make Blitz or Take&Hold objectives harder for the Attacker to accomplish.  (Historical employment, Advantage:  Tau)

Placing RSTs while placing objectives makes it more evenly balanced, but the question becomes when during the placement process does it happen?  Do you alternate (Attacker Objective, Tau Objective + all RSTs, Attacker Objective; or Attacker Objective, Tau Objective, Attacker Objective, Tau Objective + all RSTs, Attacker Objective), or do you have the Tau player deploy 2 RSTs with each of his objectives?

Of all the options, I like the last one the best, deploying 2 RSTs with each objective.  What do you guys think?

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:48 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
I'd recommend a pre-plotting kind of thing. Denote on a piece of paper where each marker-light sentry is, then reveal them at the start of any turn (essentially a pre-planned kind of teleport) no chance to pick up blast-markers or break, never scatters. But would seem more in-line with the 'style' of the markerlight sentries. Being pre-placed by the Tau. Possibly allowing them to place a sentry on the table as part of another unit's activation? Meaning you'd essentially have to pre-plot their locations then when you activate, say, a Scorpionfish you want to fire you can place one of those pre-plotted units on the table, light up an enemy formation and immediately make a strike with that scorpionfish (Place the markerlight sentry BEFORE the initiative test for the squad firing, like BL does their daemon summoning). Probably more complex then most will like. But fits with the style of the Tau. The turrets don't really 'sit and wait' in the open. But they pop up out of the ground and light up a target when the target gets close enough, relaying an activation signal to some allied unit at the same time allowing for coordinated fire. This would also mean it's a bit less likely you'll have them instantly annihilated before they can do anything useful.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

I'd recommend a pre-plotting kind of thing. Denote on a piece of paper where each marker-light sentry is, then reveal them at the start of any turn (essentially a pre-planned kind of teleport) no chance to pick up blast-markers or break, never scatters


Although there is nothing wrong with the mechanics of this, it is a pain in the neck. IF we do shift to something closer to what Dobbsy is proposing, then you'd have to plot six different things. No thank you. I don't think that adds to the game and will slow down the set up.

Not that it wouldn't work, but it's fiddly. I feel the same way about orbital barrages. If you want a measure of randomness in the attack, then allow the placing of the template and roll the GW hit die and 2D6. That gives tells you whether you hit, missed, what direction you missed and the distance to move the template. One action, does no worse for game effects and takes 10 seconds.

@Lion

I usually take 1-2 formations. If I'm playing IG/Orks/SM whose general movement rates are somewhat predictable, then I can usually get away with one. If I'm playing Eldar (or Necrons would fit here as well) who can mechanize their troops with skimmer transport or use lots of jet bikes/Vypers, then I prefer to take two as I'm less certain of where they are going to be.

That may sound like I'm being reactive, but I'm not. I tend to use them to support attacks on the board where I want to dominate or move to.

So they could be placed in an area where I know I'm going to end up contesting (i.e. objectives) or near a dominant terrain feature.

It's just nice to know that while they are present, that the ML is on and it's just a matter of moving something in range to take advantage of it.

Since I usually take two Piranha formations (10 each) so that I can better fence with my Eldar opponent. The RST coverage allows me to concentrate a decent amount of firepower quickly, then disperse them if needed.

My favorite use of the RST is to plant them somewhere near where a mechanized/mixed infantry unit is, light up the vehicles and fire away with seekers, then after the unit is slowed down to walking speed, move in with the Piranha burst cannons to clean out the infantry.

The tactic is pretty effective, but it does require close coordination and planning as you need to misdirect your opponent regarding your intentions with the Piranha's, place the RST's, then swoop up and start degrading the target's capabilities.

The RST also becomes very helpful by allowing you to shift Stingrays and Scorpionfish in range and allow their fire to weigh in.

So for me, the Tau are always about moving, staying dispersed yet in supporting range, then concentrating to eliminate a threat, before fading off again.

To quote Muhammed Ali, "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee".

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
I've only played a couple games in a past version of the rules with them - so scratch any value that brings.

I've recently played one game with them under current rules, so that has minor significance as well.

What I can say is that I know how they work in 40K and background quite well. I know I've yet to see them operate that way in E:A.

Dobbsy's individual unit of 1 approach really does make the most sense considering how these things operate.

How to best execute that in game is another story. However, I'm growing increasingly convinced that Dobbsy has a very good point about the individuality of the units and what they are supposed to do.

I still like the predetermined amount model. 6 is a Tau number and is a perfect place to start IMHO.

Plotting vs. Pre-placement vs. Teleport.

I'm absolutely apposed to plotting. There's no value in it, its not reflective of how the units actually 'deploy' and its an unnecessary planning / documenting excersize for 6 individual units. Cannot endorse this.

Pre-placement means you have to figure out if you place them before, during or after objectives. I'm in favor of KISS...

Placing them before objectives has the least value. It also just seems silly. Why would the drones be in place before objective structures were created that we are fighting over? I guess all objectives don't have be structures or buildings... but as long as there is one possible objective as a building, it would seem very odd that the building was errected after the sentry turret was deployed. Besides the silly point, contemplation about what is going to happen before even the objectives are placed seems to only deloy objectives. Still - I'd be willing to try it, but I really don't consider this my preferred option.

During objective placement is out. I can't support this. Setting up the objectives should not be interferred with or interupted by setting up other units in my opinion. This is a very important part of the game and I don't want to mess with that.

Placing sentries after objectives (say - before the first garrison is placed) uses an existing event in the game for unit placement. You still don't know where the enemy force is going to deploy at this point. Also, if you place them too close to his objectives on his side of the field - he may still garrison and fire/charge after he places his units... so, I see very little harm in placing the MLST after the objectives and before the first garrison. I would prefer to have sentries on the field before the first garrison unit hits the field. This would actually represent the enemy scout forces, area scans from orbital survielance, or whatever picking up these fairly significant metallic objects generating some amount of power emmission. This is my most favored solution.

Placing them as teleport after the enemy force is something more akin to Stealths... not MLST. I think this is actually too late in the game to place MLST according to their background. Sure - we can make arguments/justification for them not activating until that time, so they don't appear on the opponent's radar until then - or whatever, but I don't like it. I think its andvantage the unit doesn't need and should not have.

As single units, I still think they need to be shot at or charged.

I have thought about the move within 5cm thing, and I could support that if the MLST was a formation of 6 units, but the more I think about it... its just an unnecessary rule to fix an already problematic situation.

The problematic situation is that MLST should not be in formations... they are units of one and should act as such. They also don't simply implode just do to proximity. They actually have decent armor and are fairly resistent to small arms fire. Assaults will hack them to bits and any amount of consentrated fire will also likely waste them.

If we make them units of 1, the chances of them winning an assault are so minute, that you really have to wonder what kind of enemy formation was charging them and how bad things must really be if you are losing an assault vs. a lone sentry turret that cannot fight back!!

So, we don't have to have all the nonsense rules about staying in formation... and we don't have to have a proximity rule - both of which were only created to fix a problem of MLST being in formations - which I'm firmly convinced, they should not be.

Just my thoughts,

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Tactica/All,

I like the idea of the formations of 1.  Great idea.  As for assaults on it you can just say that any assault automatically succeeds.  Very simple idea.

Pre-plotting.  I like the idea of pre-plotting in the same phase as when planetfall coordinates are written down.  My reasoning is this:

Sentries are by definition guarding things.  The Tau might have identified that ground as having potential for a battle and decided to deploy the those markerlight sentries as a 'just in case' (that's how I would do it if I had them).

It fits into the realism of battle (deploying them beforehand), and the mechanics of recording coordinates is already a part of the Epic game for spacecraft.  The Tau player will be forced to make some difficult decisions.  Too far away and they may not help at all.  Too close and they could just be wiped out.

Tough decisions are okay in my book.  It makes the Tau work for that added bonus of having something in his enemy's back field (that is a HUGE bonus).

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

Tough decisions are okay in my book.  It makes the Tau work for that added bonus of having something in his enemy's back field (that is a HUGE bonus).


@Moscovian: Keep in mind that all of the Tau ground units weapons are LoF unless utilizing a ML. We don't have the indirect fire elements that other armies do to address someone who plants a company of Manticores + Hydra detachments behind all his other goodies and then dares you to stop him from barraging you to death.

So, I'm not suggesting that we change how Tau weapons work, but I do want people to keep in mind that the target being lit up by a ML also has to have a weapon withing 75 cm or less in order to take advantage of it. I know about the Hero, so let's put that aside for right now.

Placing RST's in the backfield doesn't give you anything until you place a firing formation within range of the target.

As far as the formation itself goes, what if we handled them like the IG Deathstrike launchers, 0-1 formation of 6 independent units, costed at 75 points? I say, leave the cost at 75 pts because you can now greatly expand the amount of coverage. Single units will be easy enough to kill in assault and if someone wants to draw a picket fence with his/her six, then one or two kills will blow nice gaps in the line, independent of LoF restrictions.

Drop the plotting. It's not the right way to go. I still believe that Teleport is the correct rule to handle deployment because there is also mention of them being transported and dropped from aircraft to their deployment sites, which indicates some measure of accuracy to me.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
It's not that Objectives were 'built' after the RSTs were deployed, it's that the enemy selected that point as being important after the RSTs were deployed.  (RSTs deployed, then an aircraft crashed inside the ML envelope, for example)

I don't like pre-plotting either.  It's a pain, and very hard to do during a tournament.  Essentially, the opponent has to turn his back on the table, while the Tau player measures out his placement in front of a tournament judge, and writes down his placement.  It takes 5 minutes to do this, and Tau armies seem to take longer turns than others (more movement).

I don't like Teleporting, because there's no indication that RSTs were dropped in when the enemy was in sight, although I do like the 'Summoning' idea.  The only time that Imperial forces knew that there was an RST in the area was when the Seeker missiles came dropping in.  Then they'd go looking for the ML source, kill the RST or Pathfinder team, and move on.  It's still a fiddly rule, and I think it would be easier to just say 'RSTs are deployed after placing objectives and before Garrisons on either side.'

I'll be back in a bit with some 'Summoning' ideas.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Lions In the Stars,

On the flip side, don't you think placing them visibly before the enemy deploys makes them TOO visible and thus in contradiction to the fluff you mentioned...

"The only time that Imperial forces knew that there was an RST in the area was when the Seeker missiles came dropping in. "

As a Tau opponent, I can now avoid that marked area entirely and pick it off whenever I choose (or just avoid that section of board).

Thoughts?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
Honda, Lion, and Mosc,

OK... I can agree with teleport considering, they can be deployed from aircraft flying overhead, they can be silent per background until the first seeker is fired, and if they were plainly visible, they would be easy to avoid or kill on the opponent's turn before you ever hope to make use of them. This is logical.

I'm on board with individual units instead of a formation, as noted above.

There's a general ilk about limiting formations. If its 0-1, its too powerful is the general mindset. I don't even want to fight that battle. There's also an explanation required if you make one purchase for multiple individual acting units, whether they all deploy at once or not, etc.

I also still think any cost is too high presently for the relatively flavorful yield. Even after you teleport them in, you still have to get the first activation, and you have to activate successfully, and you have to actually hit your target with whatever you've fired using the ML's.

So, I'm still on board with 6 free MLST units to a Tau army, no more, no less. Each is Individual immobile units/formation that doesn't activat, don't have ZOC, can't claim, and are immune to blast markers period.

We can then get rid of formation language, what happens if they get seperated, and the whole clearing blast markers bit in the end phase.

Cheers,
Cheers,

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:38 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

(Imperial Armor 3 @ page 123)
QUOTE
On the second day, that changed.  His [Colonel 'Snake' Stranski's] scouts and vanguard platoons came under surprise attack from well-hidden Tau forces.  For the first time, Imperial Guardsmen encountered distinctive tall, thin observation towers, which seemed to contain sensor equipment.  Following the sightings, several Chimeras were destroyed by Seeker missile strikes, seemingly launched out of nowhere.  Each time the Tau attacked, it caused the threatened units to halt, disembark troops and begin to hunt down the foe.  It caused delays, and the Colonel ordered only units that came under direct attack to engage the enemy.  Following units should bypass them and move forwards, the Regiment would become strung out but it would keep the advance going.


(Imperial Armor 3 @ page 191)
QUOTE
Another newly encountered piece of Tau equipment is the Remote Sensor Tower.  It wasn't until late in the Taros campaign that any of the Imperium's forces encountered these strange devices.  The vanguard of the Cadian 114th regiment met these tall, thin towers as they advanced towards hydro-processing plant 23-30.  Soon afterwards, their columns came under long-range Seeker missile strikes, losing several Chimeras in the process.

The Remote sensor tower is actually an information relay station, which scans the surrounding area, and relays data on enemy movements to other ground movements in the vicinity.  It incorporates advanced ground sensors, it's own Markerlight system and targeting information, which is used to guide other attacks.  The tower mounts no weaponry, but is considered expendale by the Tau.
[snip]
Camouflaged to match the desert they were difficult to spot, and supported to fast-moving Piranhas, mounting Seeker missiles, the Tau were able to harry the Cadian columns and inflicting losses far outweighing their own numbers.  The resulting delays would mean the Elysian Drop Troops surrounded at the process plant were never relieved, and eventually their position was overrun.

Operational stuff about RSTs.

(Moscovian @ Aug 17 2006, 20:49)
QUOTE
As a Tau opponent, I can now avoid that marked area entirely and pick it off whenever I choose (or just avoid that section of board).

If the Imperial forces hadn't needed to advance into where the RSTs were, they probably would have gone around them.  Just like a minefield.


(Black Legion army list @ Rule BL1.1.3)
QUOTE
Summoned units must be set up with their base within 5cm of any unit from their formation, apart from other summoned units that have already been placed (i.e. you cannot place a ?chain? of summoned units). They may not be set up in the Zone of Control of an enemy unit or in impassable terrain.  The type of unit that can be summoned depends on the summoning formation?s faction, as follows:[snip]

Summoned units count as part of the formation for all rules purposes as long as they remain on the battlefield. The only exception to the normal rules is when a summoned unit is destroyed it does not cause a blast marker to be placed on the formation.  They are otherwise counted as normal units, and are included when working out if a formation outnumbers an opponent in an assault or is broken by blast markers, etc. Note that Daemons that are killed in an assault do count towards the number of units killed by the enemy when working out
modifiers to the result dice roll.  Summoned units remain on the battlefield until the end phase of the turn in which they are summoned.  In the rally phase, after a formation has attempted to rally, all summoned units in the formation vanish back to the warp and are removed from play unless the formation has a unit with Daemonic Focus (see LD 1.1.5 below). Summoned units that are removed from play are not put  back into the Daemon Pool. Note that this may lead to the formation breaking if the number of Blast Markers on the formation is greater than the number of units left in play after the summoned units have been removed. Any summoned units will vanish back to the warp when a  formation breaks.


The whole summoning thing is awfully fiddly, now that I look at it.  Remember, KISS.

I think that we should keep RSTs Teleporting, with 6 Individual, Immobile units that don't activate, have no ZoC, can't claim, and are immune to blast markers; FREE in any Tau army.  You roll to 'activate' them once, in order to deploy them.  If you deploy them right after Objectives are placed and before Garrisons are deployed, your opponent will just either go around them, or drive up and kill them.

That would make the Robotic Sentries special rule go from:ROBOTIC SENTRY
The Tau rely on numerous robotic units throughout their force. Many of these are equipped with limited functional programs designed to performed specific battlefield roles. Robotic sentry units have simple recognition abilities, able to distinguish between friendly and enemy units, and then to mark enemy units for supporting missile fire from heavier Tau units.
Robotic sentry units do not get activations and they cannot be used to claim or contest objectives. Units out of formation coherency in the end phase are treated as destroyed as normal but do not add blast markers to the formation for these destroyed units. The controlling player must remove units until the remaining units in the formation are in coherency. In addition, the formation may roll to Rally in each end phase. This is the only action that they are able to perform.

To:ROBOTIC SENTRY
[snip] [Can we get some better fluff here?]
Tau armies may include 6 Remote Sentry Turrets.  Each Remote Sentry Turret is an individual unit with no Zone of Control, and cannot be used to claim objectives.  Additionally, Remote Sentry Turrets suffer no effects from Blast Markers.  Once placed on the table, Remote Sentry Turrets do not activate, and are Immobile.

What do y'all think?

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:30 pm
Posts: 22
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
I don't particularly want RST's to become free. This means that their utility will be built into the cost of the other Tau units, making everything else slightly more expensive. Then, if you find yourself in a campaign setting as the attacker (where it makes no sense to have RST's in use), you end up leaving them in the foam and are left with the remainder of your army overcosted.

Furthermore, in order to field an effective Epic force (campaign oriented or tournament oriented), you are almost required to have a handful of RST's on hand, since as mentioned above, all our other unit costs include this perk. Since our army is solely manufactured by Forgeworld, from a practical standpoint it's unfortunate that we'd be essentially forced to stack on another 8 pounds and 6 hours of modelling time. If we're going to pick a "free" or "mandatory" unit for the list, let's at least pick one which has a model easily (if not cheaply) available.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:57 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
Semi-RL example for how to use RSTs as the attacker:  You are pushing forward across a broad front, and the enemy is retreating before you.  You have despatched Pathfinder, Tetra, and Stealth teams to find likely points of concentration for the enemy, and are deploying Remote Sentry Turrets in positions where they will be able to threaten the enemy's line of retreat.

The real utility of RSTs is in backing them up with Piranha or Stingray formations (the two biggest Guided Missile equipped formations in a Tau army).  Other formations will not be enhanced as much.  So really, every formation in the Tau army already includes the cost of Markerlights that are contained in other formations.

How to build RSTs:  First, you need some flathead dressmaking pins or small nails.  Then you need some tapered beads (roughly 1" long by 1/4" at the widest point).  Cut the tapered beads in half, so that the taper only goes one direction.  Then insert the flathead pin into the narrow end of the bead.  Add some styrene corners to the base (a US penny should be fine).  Paint and detail the base as normal.  You should be able to turn out about 100 RSTs in about 6 hours (not counting painting time), for a cost of $10 (including the $1 worth of pennies for bases).

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets
PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 2:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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

(T0nkaTruckDriver @ Aug. 18 2006,18:00)
QUOTE
I don't particularly want RST's to become free. This means that their utility will be built into the cost of the other Tau units, making everything else slightly more expensive. Then, if you find yourself in a campaign setting as the attacker (where it makes no sense to have RST's in use), you end up leaving them in the foam and are left with the remainder of your army overcosted.

Furthermore, in order to field an effective Epic force (campaign oriented or tournament oriented), you are almost required to have a handful of RST's on hand, since as mentioned above, all our other unit costs include this perk. Since our army is solely manufactured by Forgeworld, from a practical standpoint it's unfortunate that we'd be essentially forced to stack on another 8 pounds and 6 hours of modelling time. If we're going to pick a "free" or "mandatory" unit for the list, let's at least pick one which has a model easily (if not cheaply) available.

TTD - Are Imperial Commissar costs "built in" to their units? I doubt they are....
Also, if they are going to keep their Teleport ability, why wouldn't you use them in attack?

You can still field an effective Epic force without these. I don't think we ever said we HAD to have them. They don't have to be mandatory - IG don't HAVE to have commissars. There's also a rule in there which says if you haven't got em you don't get em. Applies fairly well to the RSTs too I think.

8 pounds and 6 hours modelling? Like Lion says, you could easily just do it for under 6 hours modelling time by just scratching some together. A bit of plastic rod and a map pin would do it. If you wanted it to be actual spiffy Tau stuff - like me - the choice is there for you to buy the weaponised versions from FW. We don't play Tau to avoid spending money! ?:laugh: ?:D

Add some styrene corners to the base (a US penny should be fine).  Paint and detail the base as normal.  You should be able to turn out about 100 RSTs in about 6 hours (not counting painting time), for a cost of $10 (including the $1 worth of pennies for bases).


Lion - you aren't condoning defacing United States currency are you? That would be illegal...  :laugh:   :;):






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