Re: [NetEpic ML] Tunneller questions & comments

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:58:40 -0400

Hi!

Stephane wrote:

>NetEpic rules for tunnellers are (thanks God) very different from
>their original version. Yet, I have several questions / comments:
>
>0. NetEpic rules state that now a tunneller emerges on any turn on a
>D6 roll of 2+. Even the first one, right? And this ground exit is
>unrelated to the distance between carriers, deployment zones, etc.
>Correct?
>
>

Correct on both counts. It can come up on any turn, including the first
and may appear anywhere on the tabletop. Of course it deviates less if
it is within line of sight of the transport vehicle.

>1. The tunneller emerges D6x10 cm away from the intended point on a
>scatter, and "only" D6x5 cm when the carrier can see the landing
>point. Isn't that a bit... Extreme? I mean, up to 60 cm dispersion in
>the worst case, and even 30 cm if you do your best! It means that you
>are likely to end up off table, unless you play on a large area and
>target the middle. With all the 30 stands for a Hellbore, ouch!!
>This is problematic for fortifications too, because since you want to
>end up behind enemy walls, the carrier can never see the exit point;
>and because of modelling, a fortress has more chances to be on the
>edge of a battlefield than in the middle. Not too bright for a unit
>supposed to be used in siege battles...
>
>
Extreme? Yes. It was done on purpose. The transport needed a function,
its to "direct" the tunneler. You want precision, you must use the
transporter. This is to avoid the old tactics of hiding the transporters
while the transporters attacked. It also adds an element of risk,
otherwise tunneler attacks would be too powerful. As for your
fortifications arguement, yes, most points cannot be seen directly, thus
scatter will be larger. That is a risk you take. If scatter were
lessened fortifications would be useless and not worth the cost. The
tunneler is a "help" but not an absolutely perfect counter to
fortresses. You want to tunneler within the confines of the fortress?
You'll need to risk scattering off target or off the table. The
advantage is with the defender, as it should be. Also, you could use
"points of reference" to easily bypass this. Target specific towers or
terrain features (like hills) or buildings (most likely objects behind
the fortress) as the surface point. Walls usually protect something
large that is not blocked by walls impediment of line of sight.

Also tunnelers werent really specifically made for siege, but rapid
deployment. You could assault the wall directly surfacing units right
there for an attack, far better than going blind behind the wall.

Point is, no single unit can invalidate defenseworks. The same way
teleporting units can do so without coordinates, tunnelers can do it
presicely either.

Or do what I do, hit a section of the wall or gate with a warp or vortex
missile and then surface troops at the point you can see..... ;-)

>2. Where are all the profiles for tunneller carriers? I'm browsing
>the Squat army book at the moment and can read that the Hellbore
>comes with a command rhino for spotting, but what about Mole and
>Termite? What are their save, their movement, CAF, don't they have
>any weapon, not even a point defence like a stoopid rhino?! (BTW, I
>don't even get the point of a command rhino for the Hellbore since it
>comes with a carrier too, and a large one at that).
>
>
They were omitted. I'll alert Jar to get them back in. They have a CAF
and move and proabably point defense too.

>3. Can the carrier move during battle, or do they have to stay on
>spot to guide their underground tunneller? Difficult to tell since
>their profile don't appear in units stats... What can do a carrier
>once the tunneller is out in the open? Destroyed?
>
>
They can move during battle to get a better location for spotting.
Wouldnt be useful otherwise.

>4. Can the tunneller stay underground indefinitely? Is there any
>drawback if the carrier is destroyed, apart from the scatter? If
>true -as I think - it would be a bit gamey tactic against Tyranids,
>since they have to destroy a whole company... Put one stand of two
>companies each in a termite and dig, just to see how a Tyranid
>Dominatrix can start to cry!!
>
>
Yes. I understand its "gamey". You can do this versus tyrands with
multiple units (units in T-hawks for example), but usually the lack of
these units hurts the owning player more, since the game can drag out
(remeber tyranids dont get VPs for objectives, but neither does the
other player if they are in tryanid hands....). A longer game invariably
favors tyranids.

>Thanks for your replies and comments :)
>
>
>
>
>
Peter
Received on Wed Jan 11 2006 - 21:58:40 UTC