Umm, I am less sure Hena. The revised ML/GM rule deprives many units a significant amount of long-range firepower, unless the targets are lit by another formation. (While Stingrays have ML, they cannot light up thier own target beyond 30cms, so still need some other ML capable unit near long-range targets).

This whole debate came up because the combination of Tau weapons and RST deployed in the opponents table-half made the Tau long-range shooting vastly overpowered. Additionally the RST were hard to destroy / disable - you had to use a separate activation on each. However the principle behind the RST is sound IMHO. Essentially they were a trip-wire force that gave the opponent three choices:-
- Wasting activations dealing with them, slowing down the advance as well
- Bypassing the lit areas, channelling / concentrating forces and inviting counter-attacks
- Ignoring them, accepting the consequences of increased Tau fire-power

Now the Tau have mobile ML capability (Stealth and Pathfinder tetra) whose role should be to dash into the appropriate positions, backed up by short-range capability (Skyray, Stingray and Pathfinder teams) whose role is to bolster mid-range capability - typically firing across the front of the army. This gives the Tau a harder choice over how many to buy, and more importantly, how to use these ML capable forces to maintain the ML/GM threat in order to force the original questions onto their opponents.

We hear much about the loss of fire-power as the original tactics don't work as well now, and the ML capable forces are generally more brittle or more expensive. IMHO people have yet to sort out the appropriate combinations of forces and tactics; it certainly forces a greater degree of finesse on Tau players. However, I have some sympathy with Zombocrom's view. Personally, I would still like to resurrect the ML capable drone formation for dropping by A/c during the game, but that is the only ML addition I would recommend.

----------------------
On the Piranha, I am usure what it's role will be which I suspect is what Hena is pointing out. Current opinion seems to be that Tetra upgrades to some other formation are more cost effective than buying a mobile scouting formation, so it seems likely that few Pirhanas will appear on the table.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

This gives the Tau a harder choice over how many to buy, and more importantly, how to use these ML capable forces to maintain the ML/GM threat in order to force the original questions onto their opponents.

Or do what I perceive the best way to use the Tau now... don't bother with ML forces and just use fighting formations that hit hard. Bit disappointing that its come to this but attrition IS NOT a way the Tau fight or how I want to fight, nor has it ever been.

At least 45cm ML ranges and more ML units please

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

A few comments:

1. I have a set of assumptions about the Tau, essentially design principles that I see this topic testing. One of them is that the Tau have superior firepower to a lot of other races.

In the past, this has manifested itself as a sort of balance between ML/GM firepower and let's just call them "guns". There is no doubt that the ML/GM side of the equation has been taken down a notch, but from my perspective, the pre-emminent Tau weapon is really the Rail technology, whether it is manifested in a rifle, gun or cannon.

The ML/GM however, was supplemental firepower. You don't see Tau players, even now with more useful ML's, taking to the 40K field with their primary source of firepower manifested in seeker missiles (40K). So, I would not expect ML/GM firepower to be expected to replace Rail technology as the dominant weapon system in the Tau arsenal.

This decision has implications as to what is a Core cadre choice as well.

2. From fluff, the Piranha is a civil use vehicle adopted to military uses. It's primary focus is Recon. It's not a battle tank and pretty much only has speed and numbers going for it. That it can carry seekers (Epic GMs) is a bonus and in enough numbers, properly supported by MLs, can pose a credible AT threat if resilience is not an issue. But it's not ever going to become a "hard" combatant anymore than Space Marine Landspeeders might. So, let's keep it and the Tetra's primary mission in mind when we observe how it performs on the table.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

It's noted somewhere in the book that the improved Armour Save for units like Land Speeders is more representative of their maneouverability to avoid incoming fire- it's essentially the Skimmers Moving Fast rule from 40k 4th Ed.

Hence why a Landspeeder and Predator are both 4+, despite the Landspeeder being paper thin.