Tactical Command | View topic - questions on ML sentry turrets

Page 1 of 7

[ 99 posts ]

Go to page 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

Dobbsy

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:02 am

Brood Brother

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

Played a 3000 point game vs IG on the weekend and a couple of questions regarding the MLSTs came up that wasn't covered in the rule for them....

When they teleport do they have to roll for BMs? Do they actually accumulate BMs at all? We played it that they didn't for the purposes of teleport (as BMs don't supress MLs) but did for engagements - in which, I might add, they get wiped out EXTREMELY easily having no move and no reply. Basically, the engagement is your opponent rolling to hit, and you making saves then resolution - which would most likely end in them being destroyed. Given this, there's no need for you to have 6 in the formation. 3 would be plenty and a bonus if you buy the FW sentry turret models (like I have) as they come 3 per pack.

Of course, on the flip side, it would seem silly that an assault force might be broken by them on a bad dice roll and take NO casualties! That doesn't seem right to me. Can there be a simpler way for these things to exist?

Also, I wonder, are they too expensive for 75 points or is this a design because they may force the opponent to use an activation to deal with them? What was the general idea behind 75 point costing? I think a "taking too many" argument could easily be rectified by putting a 0-2 maximum in the army list.
IIRC, they were costed at 75 points when they had scout on the data sheet. Given the scope of their easy death, should they be re-costed?

Have many Tau players used them at all? I know Honda has. I feel they are great fun to use (look cool too) and do help the Tau project their firepower to back-corner artillery parks - seeing as we have no reply artillery....
IMHO they are a great concept unit type - they just need a tweak, I think (especially in an assault - on both sides of the fight!)

Top

orkybob

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:21 am

Brood Brother

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

If they do die so easily why not give them 6+ CC. I would have thought that the Tau would at least give them close range weapons for a small amount of defence.

Top

Dobbsy

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:38 pm

Brood Brother

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

That doesn't "feel" right though, Bob. I would definitely prefer them to stay unarmed - as they should. I was hoping there could be a better way to manage them.... I'll wait for CS to comment on it I guess.

Top

Honda

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:48 pm

Brood Brother

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

@Dobbsy

1. They were costed at 75 pts to keep them from becoming a too cheap activation. At 100 pts, they just weren't worth the bother.

2. They don't have weapons for a reason. They were never designed with them. They are a straight port from Imperial Armor 3.

3. You can roll for BM's, but they do not affect their ability to mark. However, as you pointed out, when it comes to assault resolution, the extra BM's do weigh in.

4. Historically (using the fluff from IA3), the sole purpose of the turrets was to light up advancing forces, potentially allowing casualties to occur, and delaying the advancing forces as they cleaned them out.

So they are a force multiplier, but only if you have a formation that can take advantage of the markerlight.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

Tactica

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:28 pm

Brood Brother

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

When I consider Skyray or markerlights, Skyray will win every time.

The problem is, currently I don't take the Skyray either - It does the same thing, and I can move and shoot it. but that's a different thread isn't it....

Moving on...

I do think they should die easily in combat. The only way I could see them winning is if the enemy got scared when the little red lights were pointing at them and they feared what might be coming - LOL... which is pretty accurately reflected. Its going to take a pretty small formation that has next to no combat dice to run up on a unit of sentries, throw their attacks and get no hits, be outnumbered, and then lose the roll off... LMAO - which would be commical indeed BTW! However, its plausible that the remenant IG bob squad could become skiddish, but very unlikely.

Why do we allow them to activate again? You can clear blast markers in the end phase even if you don't activate during the game turn - right? Are other immobile formations allowed to activate if they have no guns?

So - if you eliminate the ability for them to "activate" in a turn but still allow them to clear blast markers in the end phase... and considering they don't have scout - which they shouldn't... well... then I see no reason for them to be 75 points if playtest is showing them to not really be a value.

We originally wanted to point them at 25 points but the obvious abuse factor of deploying a crap-load to just make defensive barriers was a concern. We moved to 50 points and then all the activation / scout testing and that put us at 75 points. Without scout now, Dobbsy does have a point.

I've not tested the current version as noted above - I'd take a skyray first as the 75 points is too important to be used elsewhere.

Now, looking at the possibility of AA loss on the ion-heads, I see even more of a need for the skyray, and even more liklihood that I'll not be fielding 75 point Sentry turrets.

Summary: Love the concept and fluff, hate the investment for yield.

Frankly - I'd rather these become like commissars for the IG. You get two free formations of 6 units with your Tau army. They don't activate, they can clear BM in the end phase. You can't buy more - 2 formations is all you get.

Paying points for these just doesn't work for me.

_________________
Rob

Top

Chroma

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:35 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Tactica @ Aug. 07 2006,19:28)

QUOTE

Summary: Love the concept and fluff, hate the investment for yield.

Actually, I've found them awesome as a prelude to Gravitic Tracer Missile strikes as they allowed me to hit a whole bunch of enemy formations almost from the get-go!

With the potential change in the GTM stats the Sentries are quite as good, but, for a 75 to 150 point investment, most of the enemy army is markerlit and easy to hit on a single move.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Top

Tactica

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:45 pm

Brood Brother

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

Chroma,

You've been playing different Tau games than me...

Problem *for me* is I usually go second in my games.

(Its the same problem I have with using the stealths effectively.)

Dropping markerlight sentries with the enemy covered in 30cm markerlights is synonomous with giving the enemy 75 points to kill before the game starts. :/

Also, with the proposed Gravitic Salvo change, at most you would hit two targets with the salvo... and the BM would be there regardless of the ML being there. 6 shots hitting at 5+ (even if marked) is still only going to yield at best, 2 hits - and that's only if you can go before the other guy wrecks your MLST.

'wave'

_________________
Rob

Top

Chroma

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:59 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Tactica @ Aug. 07 2006,19:45)

QUOTE

Also, with the proposed Gravitic Salvo change, at most you would hit two targets with the salvo... and the BM would be there regardless of the ML being there. 6 shots hitting at 5+ (even if marked) is still only going to yield at best, 2 hits - and that's only if you can go before the other guy wrecks your MLST.

Well, I play a lot against Guard, Orks, Nids, and Marines... so many Marines... *laugh* So I do occasionally go first.

If my opponent wants to waste his first couple of activiations taking out the Sentries, I consider it points well spent.

As to placing the Blast markers even without the ML presence, well, one needs ML to target non-war engines. Having (past tense, it would seem!) the ability to place Blast markers on six non-war engine formations was well worth it to me. Particularly against small formations like arty batteries or Fire Prisms. As well, when a Marine or Black Legion general suddenly starts to have to roll for his activiations, it puts a smile on my face.

The only downside/failing of this tactic was when the Hero fails to activate... *laugh*

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Top

Ilushia

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:09 pm

Brood Brother

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

Ummm... Just to point out: Markerlight sentries are already not allowed to activate. They're Robotic Sentries and the Robotic Sentries in V4.4 has this entry:

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.

Emphasis is mine. I don't think they should get a ZoC either, personally. Since really most enemies are more likely to walk through/past them (especially if not under fire from remote enemies) then hang around trying to destroy a half-dozen unarmed, light armored, target-acquisition systems allowing themselves MORE time to be shot at by said enemies!

Top

Tactica

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:34 pm

Brood Brother

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

Illusia,

Well there you go - they can't be activated in current ruleset and no ZOC - so, 75 points (to address Dobbsy's plea) is not even for a cheap activation as Honda stated.

Like I said - two formations should just be free - like the commissars.

Chroma,

You would agree that the 6 BM placement (now being 2 BM placement at best) is really a function of the gravitic salvo, not so much the MLST. In past tense, I would agree with you that placing 6 BM with the gravitic was not the intention of the rule - ever, so that's why it was changed to 2 salvos of 3 shots at most.

So, that's really not a factor in whether the MLST is valuable at 75 points or not I think you would agree. The two shots you might get at 5+ instead of 6+ before the enemy wastes them may be worth consideration if you want to debate it... heh, but I don't want to.

moving on...

When you say, "waste his first couple of activations" - I've found that the first turn activations are either stall and manouvring to get into position and get the opponent to activate something juicy so I can abuse it... or, you are lobbing your early barrages and what not that will not put units in comprimising positions where the enemy can sustain on them... so, I tend to see the opponent have at least one or two units that he doesn't mind to... umm... "waste" to use your language. Typically, I find them gitty to have something to wreck on turn 1 with a unit that would just have been manouvering that turn.

Regarding to the "couple activations part"... I've never found it takes more than 1 enemy to deal with the MLST the first turn they are available... so, I'm scratching my head here a bit when you say you mark so much of the army and then you talk about him wasting multiple activations to deal with the MLST.

First, you have to deploy within 30cm to get the MLST covered straight from the get go as you proposed "covering several units" or at least the two you hope to put blast markers on from your gravitic salvo. Second, you have to get the first activation of the turn to capitalize on your placement. Third, you have to actually successfully activate the ship or whatever to utilize the markers.

Now - just for argument sake - lets say all that stuff goes in your favor and you got even got your 2 hits on his units that were within your MLST! (we are stretching pretty far, but anyway...)

As just about everything can assault from 30cm to FF, and just about everything can beat a 6-man unit that doesn't fight back... and they are immobile... and they can't retreat... well, it doesn't really take more than 1 enemy formation that was going to move 'only' this turn to get a quick 75 points and sustain no damage or BM in return.

At least, I've yet to see two formations required to take out the sentry turrets with a quick charge - or anything halfway descent at shooting that wasn't going to do much else this turn anyway...

The reality is - there are plenty of armies that are going to go before you.

Also, occasionally when you do get to go first and you've placed the MLST - you will roll 1 to activate that first unit... heh, want to use the SC on that? Your call... me - probably not.

Only in the remainder of the games where you do get to go first and you don't roll a 1 on your first activation is the value of the MLST realized, even then - you could fail to hit with your first activation...

Even if you say you will go 1st against 50% of your games (that might be a stretch) and the 1 roll for the first activation is the imbalancer factor since it does happen sometiems - and the first rolls to hit with the ML target also fail sometimes when you do get to go first and don't fail the activation... that would STILL only mean that this MLST would work less than 50% of the time.

So in more than 50% of your games, you are simply throwing away 75 points for each one of these formations you take.

Most players will not value the odds here.

Again, love the fluff, hate the yield for the investment.

I'd rather pay 75 points for a Firestorm... oh... wait, they are cheaper than that...

'wave'

_________________
Rob

Top

Dobbsy

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:59 am

Brood Brother

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

Well in our game I was lucky enough to get the Initiative 1st round. MLSTs had teleported within ML reach of three formations. I dropped 2 Salvo attacks on his Manticore battery and 4 on his Leman Russ Company. Killed 2 Manticores and 1 LR.
After that the MLSTs were easily removed by his Mechanized Company in assault (just like a speed bump really). However, and this is where I mentioned the MLSTs could break a formation - The MechInf even had Hydra battery support. He rolled a few hits and I took one casualty after saves and we DREW the round. We had to fight 2 rounds to determine the death of the Turrets. ?That's a little silly.

Could we perhaps change the current idea to say d6 turrets for maybe 25points which you may drop any where (they would essentially be 1 unit formations) and act like hidden spotters.

Then we could include a rule in robotic sentry that states:

A Robotic Sentry is destroyed if an enemy unit ends their move within in 5cm.

It would alleviate the need to assault it but it does require attention from the opponent and, at worst it, would limit ?the opponent's formation's move while it is dealt with - having to keep coherency etc... It would keep its speed bump feel then.

Top

Ilushia

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:21 am

Brood Brother

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

I'd rather see 'Robotic Sentry units are automatically destroyed if the enemy Assaults the formation' myself. That means the enemy has to spend actual time to destroy them. He can't just roll up via Advance orders while shooting someone else and kill them anyway. But gets around the 'They can fight assaults, and potentially win!' issue.

Top

CyberShadow

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:47 am

Swarm Tyrant

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

I'd rather see 'Robotic Sentry units are automatically destroyed if the enemy Assaults the formation' myself.

They almost are under the current rules!

The problem with automatic destroyed with an assault is that it then makes no use of the armour value in these situations. While this is not a huge issue, it could be important.

I agree that these are difficult to use and point correctly. The initial value of 75 was made as a basis because it is likely to be over-priced, and that it is always easier to reduce to fit rather than increase to fit.

To add to the problem, these things seem to be one of those units that mostly perform average at best, but sometimes just happen to be in the right place at the right time.

Whether they take BMs as a result of teleporting seems to be a moot point, since there are no effects of any blast markers on the unit. If it really needs to be cleared up, then I would say that they never take BMs.

They really should be unarmed, since that is just what they are. We could reduce the cost to 50, and since they dont activate this should not be a problem.

Would a point drop to 50 solve the larger problems with these?

_________________
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

Dobbsy

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:24 am

Brood Brother

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

CS, I don't think the points are the problem - even though 50 points is a better range for them. The problem still exists about how they perform rules-wise. Also, I've also wondered that seeing as they have a special rule could the whole thing become a special rule?

change:

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 Markerlight Sentries
At the beginning of the game roll (2?)D6 for the number of Sentries available to the Tau commander. These may be deployed anywhere on the battlefield as individual unit formations(i.e 1 per "formation"). Robotic Markerlight Sentries do not get activations and they cannot be used to claim or contest objectives and do not exert a ZOC. They operate independently, never collecting Blast Markers and do not become broken. A Robotic Sentry is destroyed if an enemy unit ends their move within in 5cm.
This then, gives the Tau player a leg up for ML coverage for free but also gives the opponent an easy way to dispose of them while not having the problems of assault or activation failure. It's not over the top and both sides have a fair go.

He can't just roll up via Advance orders while
shooting someone else and kill them anyway
Ahh but Ilushia, a savvy Tau player could place another sentry within range of the first sentry. This would then mark the unit that has to end its move by the first. Crafty eh?

Top

Lion in the Stars

Post subject: questions on ML sentry turrets

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:10 pm

Brood Brother

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

That's called overlapping/interlocking fields of fire, like the dogtooth setup of Pawns in chess (I don't remember the formal name of the defense, though). I'd be really surprised if Tau players didn't deploy the Sentries that way, as I certainly would.

I prefer 2d6 sentry turrets, myself [winces as Epic Tau FW order goes up again], as the average roll on 1d6 is 3.5 turrets. An average 7 turrets would provide better ML coverage, and fits the IA3 description of how heavily they were used on Taros. If 2d6 is too many (or too random), I'd shift to d3+3 (between 4-6, average 5) or d6+3 (4-9, average 6.5) for game balance purposes. Of those two options, I prefer d6+3.

Remember, these were used as pseudo-minefields by the Tau, set up across probable lines of advance, so that the Imperial forces could be slowed (and whittled) down. They also acted as an early-warning network, to identify major axis of advance and allow the Tau enough time to prepare long-range ambushes and lines of defense.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 1 of 7

[ 99 posts ]

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

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 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