So...

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I would treat it like a War Engine and troops disembark 5cm from the tunneller. Likewise groups of Tunnelers must stay within a 10cm radius of the first tunneller.

Troops gain a standard move after this so no problem there and you are not chaining out the tunnellers.

My concern however is that it is a turn 3 only for the opponent's side of the table. It is not needed IMO. Hence why I posted up Morgan's idea of 2nd turn opponent's side of the table yet >45cm from the Blitz. It just allows for a better play of the rule.

Essentially you are still plotting and nominating the arrival. So you get to use them 2nd turn.

I don't see why this would not be a viable change.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Partly because it's already a pretty powerful ability; unlike teleporting there's no risk of BMs, and unlike planetfall there's no scatter or need for a spacecraft.

Also because it ties it intrinsically to the Tournament Scenario, though the part about opponent's half already does that to an extent.

Yet you are plotting and announcing the turn of arrival. From that point Teleport is already a better ability to hit an area of the table that you know is going to matter.

Planetfall ability is better yet again.

With the above in mind, I really think Tunneller gets the short end of the straw. Loosen up on the restriction and we may actually see it more extensively used in battles.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Again, special rules that refer to objectives are automatically tournament-scenario-only. What happens if you use a tunneller in a scenario without a blitz objective marker?

You could easily get past this by making the rule >45cm from the opponent's table edge?

Any scenario that does not have a table edge should have a disclaimer as to how it effects certain rules

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Re: the rule in Dvergatal list, how much did you playtest it? Did you take into account that the units being transport have a 10cm move? Dropping them 45cm away from the blitz on turn 2 might not be a big deal, but what happens when you drop something with a better move, or infiltrators?

Were tests done with the Dvergatal list with the regular Tunneler rule?

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Dave

One of the formations have Infiltrator giving them a 20cm Charge. So yes, we did play them with these formations.

I played the regular rule with Tyranids - I was not too impressed by the turn 3 arrival only.

We simply do not like the Turn 3 only rule. Using the Hellbore as an example, if you have this and units to fill it, you are playing with a substantially smaller force. Why force this restriction without the player deciding?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

10cm Infiltrators probably wouldn't be able to abuse this, 20cm ones would I think. I guess what I'm getting it is I think your perceived lack of utility for tunnelers arriving on turn 3 might have more to do with low movement than a problem with the rule.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

This change fails to point out the difference between planetfall and tunnelers; i.e. tunnelers are not required to divulge what turn they are arriving. So you are taking an already unusual and possibly powerful delivery of troops and allowing them to arrive anywhere on the board (outside of the blitz zone) on turn 2 or 3, with no notification. I see that as problematic.

Also, Zombo's point is a valid one: we should avoid special rules that are tied to the tournament scenario if possible.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I did state that I have used them with Tyranids.

Essentially at present you can only bring them in turn 2 or 3 so you are pretty much announcing when they come in (turn 3). It is really the only rule I can think of that forces a player to act when the rule says so. Even Slow and Steady Spacecraft do not limit where on the board you can land troops on a particular turn.

The rule could easily be fixed by treating it like a drop and announcing what turn it comes on. That way at least the player has a choice of 2nd turn on the opponent's half of the table.

We are not re-working rules that need to be tested. We are merely opening up the strategy for players to use Tunnelers as a viable choice and not to be 'hamstrung' until 3rd turn.

Doesn't anyone think that this would be a viable change?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I'm happy to consider any changes that aren't tied to the tournament scenario.

Well Mosc did say in another thread that the next supplement (that would have this) was on hold.

I cannot think of a better test period than now so as he can incorporate any rule that would come out of this into the published text...

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Apparently the NetERC doesn't need my help, so Xenos has my undivided attention. :/
--
A spacecraft is incapable of being struck by enemy fire. A tunneller is on the board and can be struck. Also, unlike a spacecraft, tunnellers can be (in the case of Squats) models that people like to show off... much like aircraft. The rule you are proposing would eliminate the need to even put the tunnellers on the board. When Neal proposed similar rules for aircraft the community solidly rejected them precisely because they reduced the exposure of the model.

I feel the same way about your idea, Frogbear. It might actually work, but I fear it does damage to the game.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I never said that did I? I thought Tunnelers (well the innate vehicles anyway) could be removed from the table if the player wished? They can still remain on board - I do not believe I advised otherwise?

The reason why you would take them off? So as not be be subject to AT fire and easy BM due to their saves?

Remember, if you know what turn they are coming up, you can usually judge where they are and Overwatch them for a nice dose of peppering BM before any assault. So I do not see the rule as over-powered.

So with the above handling (I believe) the concerns raised, is there really an issue to the proposal?

I am at a loss to understand how it would "damage to the game". Is that not more a case of Chicken Little?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats