Re: Shield Drone suggestion

From: Stephane Montabert <kotrin_at_...>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:24:35 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Kelvin,

I sense from your message that you are not too fond of
the changes I suggest. I understand that they may
cause some modeling side-effects to your Tau army, but
IMHO it makes sense that Shield Drones should be more
than nice scenery on a commander stand.

True, Epic scale cannot represent drone controllers as
they are in W40k. But consider it the other way
around: Shield Drones are likely to be affected to the
most prized target and stay with it until they are
destroyed. I don't imagine many situations where it
could be beneficial for a shield drone to abandon
their "prize" in favor of a "better" one. If the
better one do exist, what would be the point of not
having protected it in the first place? Moreover,
Drones need to be in base to base contact to protect
anything and don't have a huge movement.

For the drone controller issue, in W40K a lot of
models have access to shield drones; for example, any
suit with access point and any Tau character can
purchase them. They are not as restricted as it seems.
Since they don't share any special ability of the unit
they protect, it's completely counter-productive to
assign them to some stealth suits (for example).

Finally, some members raised the issue of having too
many Shield Drones around. IMHO (again) this would be
a costly and uneffective life insurance. A 5+f save
ineffective against template weapons is hardly a
guarantee on an Epic battlefield... But to avoid any
potential issue here, I should have said that one
stand cannot be protected by more than one shield
drone at a time. If four shield drones float around,
only one 5+f save is allowed. On the other hand, if a
drone is destroyed another is ready for the next shot,
effectively giving extra "wounds" to an infantry stand
- but hardly reliable!

Maybe I should restate the whole thing to make it
clearer?

  Stephane

> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:22:22 +1000
> From: Kelvin Henderson <kx.henderson_at_...>
> Subject: Re: Shield Drone suggestion
>
>
> >What's the point of having real models wich have no
> effect, and game
> >effects relying on invisible models? Wouldn't it be
> simplier if
> >shield drone models simply had a game effect?
>
> I agree that having the models and no rules for them
> is a bit annoying, but
> consider the following: in 40K the Shield Drones are
> linked to a specific
> figure (through the Drone Controller). These Drones
> can only stay within
> coherency of their controller.
>
> NOWHERE in the 40K Tau lists do Shield Drones act
> independently. They are
> BODYGUARDS. They shield the individual they are
> linked to. Gun Drones are
> often linked to form small squadrons but Shield
> Drones are not.
>
> I really, really don't like the idea of having units
> of them flying around
> the battlefield protecting other units. It does not
> fit with their true
> purpose which is to protect special individuals.
> Sure, NetEpic is about
> bringing some of the detail back into Epic but there
> IS such a thing as too
> much detail (as is my personal feeling about some of
> the Eldar
> Vehicles). The Shield Drones are abstracted into
> the Commander and
> Ethereal bases with their Fixed saves. I think we
> should leave it at
> that. At the very best, I think the Shield Drone
> formation should be an
> optional unit. Personally, I would prefer they not
> be added at all.
>
> -Kelvin....
>
> "All power corrupts. Absolute Power is kinda neat."



=====
.:: www.stephane.info ::.
"It's better to enlarge the game than to restrict the players." -- Eric Wujcik

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Wed Jun 23 2004 - 21:24:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 11:00:00 UTC