Tunneling Rules and Emplacements in SST:EVO

[Ragnarok]

Please help me here. The cards for Warriors and Tankers enable these bugs to tunnel.

To start the process out right, here's the rule from the cards:

Tunnelling: This unit may start the game underground, tunnelling in secret towards enemy positions. Write down the exact location where you intend to surface before any models are deployed. At the beginning of every Arachnid turn after the first, roll a dice. On a 5 or more the unit will surface at this point, and may take a single action immediately. You may add a cumulative +1 bonus to this roll for every turn after the second in which you roll.

Here's the question: are M.I. emplacements (walls, bunkers, towers, etc) considered to be models to be deployed?

If so, then the Arachnids must pinpoint tunnel exits without reference to fixed MI positions, such as defensive fortifications, outposts, supply dumps, spaceports, small cities (but I digress. . .).

In the movie and the Roughnecks, those tanker bugs surfaced in the most inconvenient places (for the M.I.), such as the parade field in the middle of the outpost, or even athwart a moving patrol (Roughnecks - Pluto)!

The idea that the Arachnids have somehow missed or ignored the construction of emplacements, outposts or forts, with the concurrent vibrations rattling their tunnel systems beneath, is somehow er - inconguous - to me. With Hopper or Rippler patrols in the air, the activity in placing these assests should have been noted.

I suggest that emplacements go down (except mobile platforms), then tunnel destinations are written, then deployment continues.

Of course, if this is how the rule is interpreted, or the way you play it anyway, thanks for your confirmation and affirmation!

Otherwise, would the Arachnid player knowing where M.I. or Skinny emplacements are prior to deployment unbalance the game? :?

Thanks for your imput!

 

[cordas]

Logic says the bugs should know where these things are before they decide where they are going to tunnel to, but as you have mentioned this makes these rather an expensive trap that the Skinnies and MI will pay good points for...

I am sure this will be covered in the advanced rules......... Maybe there will be upgrades / skills / traits available to the MI and Skinnies that will help them pin point tunnels or react to them as they breach that will balance this - or encourage bugs to plot tunnel mouths else where.

What I am curious about with tunneling models is if you have more than 1 unit does each have to have its tunneling point marked seperately, or could you put both in the same tunnel and bring them up together. Or when you roll your die getting 1 successful emergance (say you have 3 tunneling units and tunnel entrances A, B and C) and then bring unit 2 on from any TM at your discretion.

 

[Voracioustigger]

This will never be an issue...

/end topic

 

[Turtle]

When you get rules for emplacements, you'll also get the full (aka classic) tunneling rules.

So not an issue at all.

 

[MaxSteiner]

You say that, but until the advanced rule book is released it kinda is an issue isnt it?
In fact being realistic its gonna be delayed coming out so its a hell of a long wait...

Besides the guy isn't even nay saying, he's asking for clarification on the basic tunneling rules... Namely:
1) do you determine the tunneling exit point before or after all emplacements have been deployed?
2) Is more than one unit allowed to use a tunnel entrance under these make do tunneling rules?

I dont think either of those points deserve to be dismissed out of hand, since its another valuable highlighting of potential ambiguity on the cards...
The first point will be cleared up when we see the rules for walls etc, but the secound one could have a direct impact on play even with the couple of units we have stats for.

As far as I can see, each and every tunneling unit would have to make those rolls seperatly.
Fluff wise you could argue its because of different tunnels in the underground network or something like that.
Rules wise, these make do tunneling rules are already unbelivably powerful compared to the old ones.
Sure you lose a lot of flexibility as to where and when they surface, but the opposing player will have NO idea where they're gonna come up; added to that, a piece of tunneling which might have taken you five turns to accomplish can now be done potentially on the secound turn

hope thats some help.

 

[Makoto]

Buildings (ie. outposts) are placed with terrain, so it's not an issue here.
As for emplacements, they're placed basing on existing terrain. Terrain is placed way before tunneling, so it's very easy to pinpoint where the emplacements will go.
Also the platforms are very simple to move, pair of troopers can relocate even the twin-fifty in a matter of minutes, which would explain Arachnids tunelling a bit of "blindside".

 

[cordas]

As Max says it is an issue...

At the moment we are only playing small battles (3 units per side) where you run a real risk of shattering if you deploy more than a single unit in tunnels so its currently a non issue for us.

Hopefully we will be playing larger battles soon as we can field about 5 or 6 units of MI, and 4 of bugs (if you have tunneling warriors you hopefully will have enough casualties to make it work).

I think that rolling each unit seperately takes a lot of flexability away from the bugs and not in a good way. Allowing the Bug player to roll all his tunneling die at once and then select which unit(s) deploy according to the dice rolled is not over powered (no comments about how other war games handle this please as some people find it upsetting).

I can see it argued that each must deploy from its marked tunnel mouth is more in keeping with the wording of the rule, but feel the flexability of being able to use any of the marked tunnel mouths will make for a better game. (Please note I am an MI player 1st, its my mate who has Skinnies and bugs as his 2nd army) After all these are tunnel mouths and part of a complex of inter-connected tunnels, not individual caves.

As for deploying all tunneled bugs in 1 tunnel, I feel that each unit should have to roll seperately. Bringing out 3 units from 1 successful tunneling roll would be far to powerfull, if you happen to roll 3 successfull tunneling rolls is a different matter, its gonna happen very rarely and when it does the proverbial brown stuff will hit the rapidly rotating air mover big style, but hey thats war-gaming.

Also who says the advanced rules will take us back to the old SST rules for tunneling? Is this something that is being play tested or just your gut feeling?

I like the new tunnels rule, but think it would be nice to add in the tunneling from the old rules...... I can think of a way to do this as well.

Deploy your tunneling units as per the cards, if you wish to move a tunnel you need to reveal its location and with a ready action you can move that tunnel marker X inches in direction Y, this then allows your opponent to target that tunnel as per the old rules. You would still need to make a successful tunnel roll before you could breach, allowing movement of tunneling markers before the unit can be deployed. Or take a ready action before you breach (meaning that you have NO action if you force a breach rather than waiting for the dice roll). I would also say that tunneling markers can't react unless they are fired on, (targetted by weapons that can hurt them) and the only reaction they can make is ready so they could breach as 1st action in their turn (or tunnel 2x tunneling distance for this one turn), allowing them to act after breaching (as per normal deployment when you roll the dice).

 

[Turtle]

Well, for one, there won't be any emplacements before the full tunneling rules come out. So that really isn't an issue.

Bug exit locations are chosen before any deployment (of either side). If I recall correctly, emplacements are deployed along with the side that bought them.

If you're using terrain objects, but not actual emplacements, then you'll know about them and can have your bugs tunnel in the appropriate areas.

As to the other issue, there is no such thing as a tunnel entrance in these basic tunneling rules. The units just pop up there much like ambushers.

So all units roll seperately, as per the rule written on the card. It's a bit hard, but remember that all the rules for the evolution games are written very concisely. Which means the rules mean exactly what they say on the cards.

So yes, that does mean that two different units of bugs that are popping up from the exact same place come out at a different time, but it's really not so hard to imagine that.

 

[cordas]

Bug exit locations are chosen before any deployment (of either side). If I recall correctly, emplacements are deployed along with the side that bought them.

Emplacements haven't been brought out in SST: EVO yet, so we don't know when they will be deployed under the new rules. They may have special deployment rules that say they should be deployed before tunnels or ambushes are marked.

Personally I think they should be deloyed after Ambushes are marked, but before Tunnels. It would seem unfair to me that ambushers could creep into a fortified emplacement, but perfectly reasonable that they could be tunneled into. Mind you they shouldn't be secret as they sound like frying bacon when they tunnel, which means maybe they shouldn't be able to tunnel "secretly" into them.

 

[Voracioustigger]

You say that, but until the advanced rule book is released it kinda is an issue isnt it?
In fact being realistic its gonna be delayed coming out so its a hell of a long wait...

I have a pretty good idea what will be in the advanced rulebook already...

This won't be an issue, but I'll let you guys discuss anyhow :wink:

 

[Hiromoon]

Hey VT, how often have we mentioned the fact that we're playtesters now?

 

[Ragnarok]

It's interesting to note VT's and Turtle's (should I include Makoto's) responses. Hey guys - this isn't a trick question.

Thanks MaxSteiner - you get it! Asking for a clarification is not a cause for defensiveness.

VT and Turtle: you must be immersed in the new rules, because it seems that you consider these questions to be silly little issues that will no longer bother us when we become enlightened at some indeterminate future date. VT's statement of "This won't be an issue, but I'll let you guys discuss anyhow" sure does smack of condescension, even with the wink.

Now I KNOW that neither of you would ever intimate that sincere questions or even sincere criticisms are just too bothersome to consider, so therefore we can simply consider your responses to be misunderstood.

Hiromoon is right - we're essentially your playtesters now, albeit unofficially.

Please consider my situation:

- I'm over 75 miles from the nearest known SST player.
- I'm tired of playing against no one but my shadow, so...
- I've spoken to the owners of the game stores in the area, all of whom have agreed to host demos of SST.
- I've spoken to a half dozen gamers at one of these stores who have asked to be involved in demos learning the game.

Now I'm stuck between rules versions and discover that most of the V1 troop types are on hold in V2, that V2 rules are essentially two pages long and leave out more than they state, and that V1 setup procedures are invalid but are replaced by nothing in V2. Armed with this reassurance, I will march forth to convert fellow gamers to SST.

So where should I get clarifications about Mongoose's SST miniatures game? I thought to myself, "Self, the Mongoose forum for SST miniatures game would be the place, by golly!"

I've taught in all kinds of enviornments for almost 30 years. I can anticipate questions from the students. My prospective audience will ask about tunnelling and emplacements, because in the movies, LAMI quickly learned to fight from emplacements, and they've watched the movies, AND they've seen the emplacements that were included in every single box of the basic V1 game.

I've been involved with miniature wargaming for over 30 years, so I can read rules and discern most of the time what aspects of those rules are unclear. Someone on this thread said the EVO rules were "concise." Perhaps my dictionary is outdated, but concise means "clear and succinct." It's one thing for the writer to believe their work is concise, but the real test is whether the readership believes that work to be.

(Now this might be my biggest mistaken assumption - tell me if I'm far afield on this)

I assumed that one of the purposes of this forum was to bring forth questions and concerns about the SST system among others who were also dedicated to that game system AND to have those questions and concerns be read and seriously considered by the Powers That Be.

If this isn't the case, then please let me know. I'm committing time that I could (others would say "should") be committing elsewhere to provide feedback and input for this second version of SST that the game designers will actually consider. I'm trying in this way to make SST:EVO as good as it can be.

Mongoose, if this is not the case (that is, if you don't really want input and feedback), then please respect my time enough to let me know that and I'll modify my expectations/assumptions. I reallly can't imagine you not taking the excellent comments of forum participants -- such as MaxSteiner, Hiromoon, and cordas on this thread alone -- into consideration. I've only been here a short time but respect the contributions of each of these folks.

But, if you at Mongoose believe that all this is only venting and vainglory on the part of the participants, to be borne with a sigh by those who are really "in the know," then my expectations will have to be grounded in a new reality. Do we matter?

 

[Hiromoon]

Well, some clarification on my playtesters point...

VT and I are part of the play test team for Mongoose, elected by popular vote by the SST fans....

Odd, huh?

But debate is good and it's healthy, it helps the collective community come up with a commonly agreed upon read of the rules and we generate some pretty wild ideas (King Crab Tanker??)!

 

[Voracioustigger]

I'm not trying to be condescending, rude, or anything like that... that's why Hiro is on the forums.

All I was trying to say was that this will not be a problem. I'm not saying this because I've tested out what you THINK will be a problem and found that it won't be. I'm saying that the rules that you guys are comparing will never coexist, so it makes the comparison a bit pointless.

I know we all like to talk and argue just for the sake of doing so (I say "we" because I do it too), but I know what is to come... not because I am psychic, but because I actually know, and this will not be an issue.

Really all I was trying to do was do my other part as a play-tester and give out non-essential information in indirect ways, so I don't upset Matt while still giving out some info. I'm not trying to insult anyone.

So that being said. It won't be a problem.

 

[Hiromoon]

I'm not trying to be condescending, rude, or anything like that... that's why Hiro is on the forums.

What the ****? Gee, thanks VT. I'm so glad you think highly of me. Honestly, I love coming here just to be an ass to people. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

I'm not trying to insult anyone.

And I'm just collateral damage then. Excellent work.

 

[Galatea]

Now I'm stuck between rules versions and discover that most of the V1 troop types are on hold in V2, that V2 rules are essentially two pages long and leave out more than they state, and that V1 setup procedures are invalid but are replaced by nothing in V2. Armed with this reassurance, I will march forth to convert fellow gamers to SST.

I'd say get stuck with V1, that's what actually seems to happen here in my Location.
You won't be able to play SST Evo for more than half a year because you simply do not have the stats for all of your nice units - so it doesn't make any sense to change to Evo before approximately April next year.
Also SST Evo seems more and more like a Quick Shot to me - we will see whether this is true or not, but with each new information or statement I've gotten more sceptic about it.

 

[Voracioustigger]

I'm not trying to be condescending, rude, or anything like that... that's why Hiro is on the forums.

What the ****? Gee, thanks VT. I'm so glad you think highly of me. Honestly, I love coming here just to be an ass to people. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

I'm not trying to insult anyone.

And I'm just collateral damage then. Excellent work.

Awww... I forgot how sensitive you were Hiro

 

[cordas]

You won't be able to play SST Evo for more than half a year because you simply do not have the stats for all of your nice units - so it doesn't make any sense to change to Evo before approximately April next year.

I am sure I have read somewhere that the Advanced rules for SST:Evo are going to contain full army lists for exisiting units. :lol:

I just hope they will release army packs with the lami cards in for each army as well.

 

[Hiromoon]

Awww... I forgot how sensitive you were Hiro

I was having a particularly lousy night, VT.....

 

[MaxSteiner]

I reallly can't imagine you not taking the excellent comments of forum participants -- such as MaxSteiner, Hiromoon, and cordas on this thread alone -- into consideration. I've only been here a short time but respect the contributions of each of these folks.

:lol: I wouldn't really include me amongst the excelent posters, I only sound reasonable because there haven't been any miniatures for me to criticise lately (I wont discuss the BF:E figs because Im clearly not the sort of person they're aimed at...)

==> Cordas, sorry to break it to you (Unless you've already heard), but there aren't any army lists in the book any more... its just rules and fluff...
We'll get the army lists as a pdf though