I personally don't have much of a problem with the rulebook version as long as it is generally tidied up to cover tunneler vehicles (Termites/Moles/Hellbore) and tunnelling formations (Trygon/Raveners but could also apply if a Trygon Prime Synapse formation turns up in a list).

How bout changing line five to read this way

Formations of multiple tunnelers need only record one location where they will surface. Place the first unit at this location and then place all other units within 5cms of another unit in the formation, so long as all units are placed within 15cms of the original unit marking the exit location.

As for the tunnelers (Mole/Termite) being expendable we are still messing with them both ways. Right now I would like to keep them as active units within the formation they carried, but if I cannot make it work I will drop it. The Hellbore will always remain available for action as it doesn't have to be part of any foprmation (WE transport).

We have also been playing it with the TBMs on the table and if they can see the exit point no scatter occurs, and if they cannot normal scatter occurs. We happen to like this one.

Jaldon

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC

How's the wording on this coming?

This includes the "within 15cm of the exit point" clause.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

The whole idea behind me opening discussions was to get the rule working where an opponent's side appearance could happen before turn 3.

Why are people so apathetic to such a consideration?

I fail to see how the suggestions so far are overpowered in any way.

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

It's not apathy, it's apprehension. You are talking about a pretty significant change to something that is going to affect 3 of 4 lists in the Xenos project not to mention the Krieg list, Tyranid 9.2.1.1.1.1.3.1.4.1.5.7.2, and who knows how many other lists. The tunnel rule as it is printed in EA has been relatively stable and the changes we're talking about are more refining than anything else.

While your idea isn't off the table by any stretch I think it warrants some heavy playtesting on multiple lists from multiple people. And -for me- that ain't gonna happen till January at the earliest. You'll have to excuse the community for not trusting the opinions of two players that it'll work out just fine.

I know you think a turn-2 arrival on your opponent's side isn't a big deal, but it could potentially be a game changer for a lot of lists and that needs to be played, reviewed, discussed, and evaluated.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

We played siege style game where one player was in the dead center of the board. How would this rule work out there? I'm not trying to be difficult, just pointing out it is a lot more complicated than you are making it.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Jaldon, what do you think of Neal's idea of expendable? It seems a heck of a lot cleaner and acts as a perforation between the tunneling units and the tunneling rules. In other words, the tunneling rules no longer need to be tied to a particular type of army or unit.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I think most people just don't agree there is a need for it. It's hard to see what benefit it gives. You can tunnel to the midboard on Turn 1 or 2. That means you can effectively surface on top of any T&H objective immediately if you plan it when you place objectives.

A deeper turn 2 deployment doesn't give much advantage in terms of strategy due to uncertainty. You're guessing where the enemy can be and normal screening techniques still work, so successfully deepstriking valuable assets like arty is highly improbable.

With a lack of perceived need/benefit, why risk balance issues if the change isn't really needed? It looks like this falls into "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" territory.

Do you have a specific strategy in mind? The only use I can think of is if you have a fast above-ground force that you think will penetrate deeply on Turn 2 and wants to link up with the surfacing units.

That's easy. If you appear on your opponent's half of the table for whatever reason (even disembarking) this counts as opponent's side. Not difficult at all.

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

Or they have not played with tunneller and therefore do not have an opinion either way


That's a fair point. The benefit on the opponent's side is not just half the table, it is also the ability to use an assault 2nd turn further in to the board.

In all honesty I never did think of the centre half of the table, so I guess I will look to play that as well in the near future when my nids make an appearance again. To me it just does not appeal to a close combat force to tunnel either to the centre table or otherwise throw all the eggs in one basket for that turn three birthday cake surprise.


I do not think it is that at all. I believe it is not used enough in games for the reasons of its restrictions. Some would argue why fix Marines - they are not broken. Once again, it is a different view. Where the few may see it as fine, I believe many others just do not have an opinion. It does not make the rule perfect and without a review however. When did you (honestly) last see the rule used in a tournament scene? Who used it? How experienced were they? Would they use it again?


I would just like to see it as more of a strategic option to use rather being being relegated to the 'slow and steady' pile.

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

How is that any different to the current rules, which defines table halves? There's no easy fix, but the version the Dvergatal use has no more intrinsic issues when it comes to these problems than the "official" one or the versions Dave is putting forth.


Unless I'm missing something here, every version of Tunnelers I've seen doesn't allow Turn 1 deployment. Tyranids 9.2.1, each rules set I've seen that covers it, and both versions Dave lists in this thread, all require Turn 2 deployment as the earliest. Demiurg 3.0 also fits into line, but use of "takes 1 full turn" can be interpreted several ways, but at least as long.

I can see the problems being put forth in opposition. Just with the restrictions using the official rules, I found Dvergatal had issues fielding tunnelers at any price. I considered making it free, but didn't like that idea. Just wasn't a decent tactical option, as loss of activation count was more important than any perceived benefit from the deployment option.

I'd much rather see Tunnelers be a more effective choice. As has been shown in the Warhound thread, if there's a value discrepancy, change the relevant value. There's no reason why a Trygon and Raveners getting Tunneler has to pay the same as a more/less efficient formation. Once that's dealt with, the relative power level starts to work itself out.

Morgan Vening

What is certain is that we need to continue to hammer at it. I'm still iffy on a turn 1 arrival along with the turn 2 opponent's side arrival. Let's take a look at some of the special ways units arrive, pro's and cons.

Teleport Pro - arrive any turn, anywhere. Not subject to fire at anytime.
Teleport Con - must be prior to Strategy Roll, can take on BMs..

Planetfall Pro - arrive any turn (based on type of spacecraft, of course), anywhere*. Can activate at optimum time within that turn. Can adjust on the way down. Not subject to fire at any time.
Planetfall Con - Locked to a predetermined turn. Locked to a predetermined location. Turn must be announced. Can drift out of effectiveness.

Gates Pro - arrive at any turn. Can activate optimally within that turn. Not subject to fire at any time.
Gates Con - fixed to a gate location and unit movement. Some gates can be 'blocked', some gates can be destroyed. Gate locations are known.

Tunneler Pro - can arrive anywhere on board. Turn arrival is not disclosed. Not subject to fire while underground. Can activate optimally within that turn.
Tunneler Con - limited to turn 2+. Locked to a predetermined location. Subject to fire at beginning of turn 1. Location limited to turn 2/turn 3 my half/your half rule.

I didn't really know what the outcome was going to be when I started writing this post but the observations are pretty interesting. All four special arrivals have roughly equal pro's and cons, depending on how you weight them.

What strikes me as interesting about Morgan's changes is that they take away three of the Cons for tunneling, which IMO would make it the best special arrival rule in the entire game of Epic.

I'm thinking the reason why you don't see tunneling more often is because there are a relatively small number of armies that tunnel, not that the rule is inherently flawed. We can still poke at this but I am becoming less convinced that the Morgan changes need to be implemented.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

While I do find it an interesting idea, much like the way in which drop pods work "here today gone thereafter}", it does pose a problem with WE tunnelers (Hellbore) as it would now have to be treated differently then 'normal' tunnelers. In effect the goal of the rules not being tied to a particular army is not achieved.

That said, the expendable idea DOES make the tunnelers rules much easier to both write a rule for and carry out on the gaming table. I just keep being drawn back to 'what to do about WE tunnelers?' I know what I am about to say will sound idiotic but try to imagine if there were a WE drop pod? How could we deal with it under the present rules for drop pods?

I know it is really just a fluff issue and we could just write it into the fluff to make Neal's expendable rule workable, and no doubt it fits into KISS. The only thought I do have on it would be to possibly write the rule so that larger tunnelers would get 'x' amount of 'shots' as they emerged, compared to smaller tunnelers, and then after deployment they re-submerged and are removed form the table. IE they are just too valuable of an asset, and too vulnerable on the surface, to remain in action for any longer of a period of time.

Jaldon

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC

There are WE "drop pods"... Drop Roks in the Ork list... it's an immobile war engine transport with Plantefall, so it just stays on the table after it arrives.

Expendable/disposable weapon-less, or one-shot weapon, drop pod-like units are, essentially, just markers, like the drop pod models in the current game... they just "look cool" on the table.

Tunnellers that *also* have a carriage/transport they leave behind, well, that's a whole other issue!