Dobbsy,

To keep you from exploding, I'll move my 'beef' over here.

In regard to the units I think the list is on the high side.  As an example, the Eldar have Aspect Warriors that -while they differ in their nuances- almost exclusively act in an assault function.  IMO these are easier to balance, especially since they can only exist in the Eldar lists by themselves (i.e. you don't add Fire Dragons as an upgrade to your Guardian formation).  And even though the Eldar Aspect Warriors (all EIGHT OF THEM) are easier to balance, there are still issues that relate to an oversimplified pricing on the unit or a lack of consensus on how to change them.

The Tau suffer from two general problems:
1. A lot of units.  Keep in mind there are even more Tau units out there that aren't included in the list!
2. Extreme flexibility in list building.  

It isn't the number of units alone but the number of units that can be put together in seemingly endless variations that allow for min-maxing to the extreme.  

The solution is obviously to build out separate themed lists and this has a lot of support, not to mention benefits:
1. Easier to balance.
2. Won't take away players' favorite units.
3. Eliminates old arguments
4. Allows Tau player to actually have more units = more fun

Opponents have brought up that they generally don't like themed armies, but that could be said about the Eldar, Imperial Guard, Orks, etc.  When it comes to balancing lists, everyone needs to remember that we are balancing them for tournament play.  Friendly games and scenarios are all up for grabs - it's not like we'd be telling players, "Nope, you can never field heavy drones with your Kroot formations EVER".  

The Sublist idea I put out could (and IMO should) be broken out into fully independent lists.  
Core list
Armored Auxilia
Alien Auxilia
Drone Auxilia

Maybe I should put up a poll on this?  If people don't like my idea, that would be a clear way to kill it.  If they like it, we would know how to proceed.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I still don't see what the Guided Missile rule is really adding to the play experience other than allowing the Tau to Pop-up and still attack at +1 to hit.

What is it with T-named armies that drive me absolutely mad?  

_________________
Fear is for the enemy, fear and bullets.
-James O'Barr, the Crow

I've only been skimming the discussion, so forgive me if this is a bit elementary.


Special Rules:

GMs/Markerlights - I think this system can be deleted.  It's been a long time since I played Tau, but the only thing I really recall the MLs doing is causing more measurement while moving in order to optimize them.  With free measurement it becomes just another distance issue to manipulate, along with effective weapon ranges and assault ranges.  Personally, I never found it fun or entertaining or flavorful, though I can see why some people would find it flavorful.

If Indirect Fire becomes too powerful because of doubling range (120-150cm turns them into artillery duelists), change the GM/ML rule so it works like IDF but without double range.

If you absolutely have to keep the GM/ML system, look at ways to make it less fiddly.  For example, take ML designations off the units and just make it 30cm of any Tau unit so you’re not having to track measurements to specific units within a formation separately.

Another advantage of removing the ML or GM/ML is that it fits with removing the Heavy Drones and/or the Sentry Towers.

Tau Jet Packs – These have been problematic basically forever.  I’ve gradually come to the conclusion that movement-based options are unlikely to work.  Movement out of sequence tends to wrinkle things up.  Since the feel of these (possibly thanks to the 40K rules) is largely defensive and movement is an issue, they could simply be deleted and factored into the armor saves.  Aside from that, there are alternatives that have been discussed, any of which would be better than the current “reactive moveâ€Â

_________________
Neal

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Personally I'd rather lose all the other special rules instead of markerlights as it makes the army seem to work with each other, ties in (decently stated) aircraft into the ground war and so on - all quite distinct from other armies. Still it would mean stuff like pathfinders become like marine scouts rather than the mainstay of non turret gm armies!

I guess I would have been happier if GM's were always a set value with the special rule meaning no LoF required when they sustain, and never had the prospect of the current rule dangled in front of me Would have made stuff easier to compare and point as well.

Maybe we should re-open the endless discussion on Tau special rules and eliminating/simplifying them?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

With army full of skimmers, I'd hate to add yet another unit which cannot be catched into cc. So first is highly annoying. Second does indeed make them better in assaults so ...

There is very little wrong with the current jetpack rule. In my experience it quite often hurts the Tau more than it helps. I have gone through many games unable or unwilling to get my formations passed the halfway point. The rule is very easy to counter and offers no defence against air assaults. I have tried many ways to modify the rule from the eldar hit and run rule, to a 10cm move after the formation has shot. After my tests I found that the current rule is probably the best. It gives no protection from return fire (under variant rules I had been shooting and retrating to cover or out of range), or from fast moving units.  

My only complaint now is how well the rule works on stealth suits as a lone formation can light up a fair amount of the table with markerlights and are very difficult to counter. But if something changes in GM and markerlights then this disapears.

No, it doesn't.  It's based on individual units.  First sentence:

All enemy units within 30cm range and LOF of at least one unit with markerlights are considered to be marked

_________________
Neal

Indirect fire says it uses spotters, orbital data, etc to know who and where to shoot.

So are you telling me that the IG can sneak a man into position or fly over with a camera, but the Tau can't manage this?

Instead the technically superior Tau have to send a full platoon plus transport into the hot zone.

If I were them I'd be looking for some way to maybe recruit an alien that's good at stealth and fieldcraft or maybe some kind of cheap, flying, robotic drone that I could send out there to do this job...

_________________
Fear is for the enemy, fear and bullets.
-James O'Barr, the Crow

Yeah, like I've mentioned before I think the ML coverage thing could be a more abstract design to include the indirect fire rules instead of the current "have to be within 30cm: to light a target. But that's just me - hopefully others agree though

I think that GM's could have Indirect Fire (without range increase) added to their rules (to reflect the details mentioned by scarik).
Indirectly Firing would still need to be done on a Sustain action.
If there is a Markerlight unit in range of the target then the +1 should apply for being lit-up.

If Turrets are removed, then there won't be such a blanket ML coverage of the enemy and it should provide a fairer situation. To get the +1, the Tau are going to have to risk something more important than the Turrets.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.