How's two 75cm AT shots different from a LRuss's battlecannon/lascannon (aside from the 30cm less range)?

So, to remove the 75+cm Guided Missile attack, you want to trade the 30cm AP5+ Ignore Cover for 2x 15cm AP5+?  I'm not following that line of thought.

You missed the other half of that argument:  Tau out-range Imperials, period, so why shouldn't they have a secondary attack that is the equivalent of the LRuss' Lascannon with better range and no LOS required?  There are 3 weapons on the Tau list that are "indirect fire":  the Guided Missiles in whatever form.  Every other weapon requires LOS.  When coupled with the soft armor on Tau main battle tanks, this means that Tau can't linger in LOS of another unit and Sustain.  Instead, you need that combined formation of Stingrays+Skyray to open up if you want Tau "artillery", or you have Piranhas sitting.  Also, with the need to have marked targets, you must push soft units up close, or lose 1/3 or more of your long-range firepower.

I'll admit I rarely fielded Seekers on Hammerheads, but I mostly played without much ML support in 40k, so I'm not a representative case there.

Obviously, we can't go to "every Tau vehicle carries one Hellstrike shot" (the list designers would get crucified!), but there's got to be a balance point in there somewhere.  Making the Seekers one-shot might work, but I'm not feeling that vibe (lots of bookkeeping for little gain).

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Coordinated Fire -
Leave as is.

Markerlights and Guided Missiles -
Require a markerlight to fire it. Remove the +1 to-hit as redundant and raise all to-hit values on units. Note I would also suggest that GM's be given Lance or Disrupt if this rule is used.

Tau Supreme Commander -
Delete the rule and replace it with a small note in the unit entry.

Tau Jetpacks -
Replace with a simple 'Free 10cm move after shooting on an Advance or Double Order'.

Tau Drones -
Use the 'Expendable' rule.

Tau Deflector Shields -
Delete and replace with a straight 5+ saving throw.

Support Craft -
Leave as is. Reduce unit stats/abilities to correct overpowered feel of SC.

Robotic Sentry -
How anyone could read IA3 and then say that Robotic sentry Towers should not be in the list is beyond me.

In our experience, it was the ability to light up the enemies deployment zone using lots of expendable Sentry's that was the problem.
Changing the way these things are deployed and limiting there availability is a simple and workable solution (rather than chucking them away).

Making the Sentry Towers a unit that can Garrison with Scout & Fearless with a limit of one formation per x points. This would mean that they would form a defensive line as a backup for when all the Tetras and Pathfinders are dead.
This could also mean the reintroduction of the armed Sentry turrets. They were used by the Tau in IA3 to defend the Hydro plant with great effect. Armed Turrets would need to be given an activation though, whereas a ML Sentry Tower would not.

Lastly, a quote from another thread -

"I just had an idea (whilst sitting on the toilet and that may be where this idea belongs     ).

Whilst reading the Tau Codex, I got an even greater feel for how Tau don't value territory. So how about this...

Set up all objectives as normal (for the opposition to garrison, capture etc). Both sides can garrison normally. The difference comes with how Victory Points are calculated. Instead of capturing the Blitz to get a point and capturing 2 objectives on the enemies side for a point, how about 1 VP for destroying/breaking 1/3 of the enemies forces? Another point for destroying/breaking 2/3 of the enemy?

The Tau are all about the systematic destruction of the opposing forces. This rule would reflect that and really encourage the Tau player to get out there and kill as much as possible, as quickly as possible (rather than hide away and lob long range shots when easiest to do so).

As I say, I've not had long to think about it but the way the Tyrannids work their BTS is a sort of precident for flexibility in this kind of thing.

Is it workable?"

_________________
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.

Onyx: I've considered such an objective change myself, but I think it discourages the Tau from moving even more than now! Currently they have to move forward at least to grab objectives, which they wouldn't need to otherwise do. They'll just run away as far from all enemies as possible, and hide behind terrain, popping up to shoot. I don't see it being much of an improvement.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

b]Markerlights and Guided Missiles[/b] -
Require a markerlight to fire it. Remove the +1 to-hit as redundant and raise all to-hit values on units. Note I would also suggest that GM's be given Lance or Disrupt if this rule is used.

I am curious about this.  When you say GMs are you referring to Seekers?  I think those two terms seem synonymous, but wanted to be sure.  Obviously Tracers are already MW.  Anyway, I was curious why you think Seekers should have Lance or disrupt?  Is there a fluff or balance reason?  I know that in 40k a Seeker has the same stats as a Krak Missile and so should be AT6+, the ML bonus gives them a AT5+ which seems appropriate.

Many of your other ideas were interesting as well.  The Jetpack rule could work nicely.

_________________
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.

Of the two I think Disrupt would make more sense.  Lance comes from a pretty specific armor reducing technology and there is no real back up for that in the Seeker background.  But, even disrupt would be very powerful.

Without these additions, it might be fairly hard to justify taking GM armed vehicles because you are going to have to have a 3rd of the army being ML units (traditionally light units). Of course, with these additions, GM's might become too powerful... I'm sure someone would be able to build a list to powergame it.
Why take GM's when I can just take an army of direct fire battlesuits and tanks and have every unit be combat effective? I like the proposed ML/GM synergy but unless GM's get a benefit, they may not be used much/at all.

Hmmm, sniper could be really cool on GMs. Fluffwise they're called in against a specific marked vehicle by a ML user, so it makes sense.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

***Visions of 5 Sniper hits all targetting a Supreme Commander's tank...***


No thanks, GM's are too easily available to give them all Sniper.  

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Obviously GM numbers would be reduced as well.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Before we start taking GM's away from units, let's get some testing done to see if they need to be taken away.

Just test the list with that one change to the GMs (must be fired at marked targets, +1 to-hit across the board, and 90cm range).  No Lance, no Disrupt, no Sniper, just the same number of GMs as the list has right now.

I know that the APGMs are going to be disgusting with Ignore Cover and Disrupt, and I don't think the Tracer missiles need any help.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"