I too agree that the Moray steps on the toes of the AX-1-0 far too much, but it's become a pointless argument. It's not going to get removed, so we need to work around it.

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

Yes it did.

They really seem to fill the same niche, but the AX-1-0 does it in a way that feels more Tau-like to me.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

One-shot for Seeker Missiles would be a bit difficult to manage.
And Tau vehicles can only get 0-2 Seeker Missiles with the expeption of the Sky Ray which has 6.
One way to mimic the one-shot ability would be to give all Seeker Missliles unlimited range.
Bevore the play count the number of Armoured Vehilces double the number add 6 for eadh Sky Ray and you have the number of Seeker Missiles you can fire during the whole game.

Units which ML then would be able to fire up to this number of Seeker Missiles during the game on marked units.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

I don't think it would be too bad.  But, if a Devilfish can really only carry 2 Seeker Missiles then how can it be anything but a one-shot weapon.  I thought that in Epic, shooting represented a volley of fire, rather than single shots.  So, how then could a vehicle with 2 missiles fire multiple volleys?

So, the Seekers on the following vehicles could get the One Shot limitation:

Pirana
Devilfish
Hammerhead
Swordfish
Barracuda
Tigershark

Vehicles that have stores of missiles or use them as a primary weapon could have them normally.

Skyray  (it may have only 6 deployed at a time, but you could assume it carried reloads.)
Stingray
Scorpionfish
Moray
Manta


I think this might address some of the issues people have been having with the list.  First, it would emulate the fluff found in the Taros book.  In there, Seekers were part of the opening volley to soften the enemy before other units moved in for the kill.  It would also help power down the aircraft slightly, which has been something people have been looking for.  All of the units w/ infinite missiles would be support/air caste, which would make building a GM gunline tougher, which seems to be a goal of some.

As far as tracking, I think it would be easier to just have the One Shot ability on certain units than having a pool of Seekers to fire from with ML units.  The ML/GM combo forces 2 units to work together, which is a good thing for a Tau list I think.

Or GM's could be removed from some platforms, further helping to seperate roles for the different vehicles.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Heck if you want to go a little more abstract you could always just give the GM Seeker attacks to the ML units... vehicles don't have to manage anything then and the unlimited range idea could be incorporated into the fluff. Basically a GMSeeker has a 30cm range from the ML unit. Even FWs could have MLs then too.

That actually makes more sense in many ways.

Take a Sustained Fire action as an example.  Does it make sense that a remotely fired weapon would be more accurate when the tank stands still, especially when the ML unit could be double moving.  It makes more sense if the ML unit is taking a Sustained Fire, thus spending more time guiding in the GM, regardless of how fast the launching vehicle was moving.  GMs would be more accurate based on the guidance info rather than the state of the launch system.

Of course, then you have to figure out what role does a Scorpionfish or Stingray now play?  Perhaps, a unit like Pathfinders could optionally fire a heavier missile if there was some source for them on the table.

Of course, then you have to figure out what role does a Scorpionfish or Stingray now play?

Funny, that's what we had in 3.1 (when I came in), in addition to dedicated GMs (like what you're talking about).  Then people asked where the "extra" guided missiles were coming from.

Just realized, that would make FW disgusting at 30cm range, with 2x AP5+ and 1x AT5+.

Secondary problem is, what about AP and MW attacks?  for the sake of argument, let's ignore the AP missiles.  I think everyone agrees that the Tau need more than 1 MW (crisis) and 3 (AX10, Moray, Manta) TK shots in the army, so you need some kind of extra MW.  So, if 'Markerlights' is an AT5+/Lance attack, how do you handle the MW attacks?  If you're shooting them from the unit that carries them, that's not true to fluff (unless the unit that carries them has a networked ML), and if FW can call them, how do you price the FW, since all of a sudden they can have a 30cm MW5+ attack instead of their mere AT5+?

If you continued this, I'd re-build the Scorpfish to an Orca "bomber" and lose the Supreme Commander, and quite possibly ditch the Stingrays entirely.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

If FW get a seeker/ML attack, they would have to lose one of their AP5+ attacks, otherwise, disgusting is the right word.

So, assuming you have MW attacking GMs, they don't necessarily have to follow the Seeker missile example.  The codex is pretty clear that the ML unit fires the Seeker missile, not the vehicle carrying it, but that doesn't have to be the case with a MW Tracer Missile as, those are an invention for the Epic list and aren't really constrained to the fluff.  Heavier missiles would be rarer and it is likely that their launch would be restricted so that a basic trooper couldn't trigger their fire.  I think they would still need a ML to paint their target, but perhaps the launch vehicle could look at a display of available marked targets and then determine which one to release the move valuable MW missile at?

I see little need to merge the seeker missiles onto the ML units, while that's how they work in 40k (ish), it needn't work like that in Epic.

Plus you end up with weird situations. Say you took an army with no GM totting vehicles, yet somehow the infantry all managed to have GMs? Nah.

There's nothing wrong with having the GMs as vehicle weapons as long as they have to be marked to be lit. It's synergy, remember?

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

Thats why i suggestet a one-shot SeekerMissile/GuidedMissile pool which size is dependant on the number of vehicles in the army.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Agreed, that is not where my problem lies specifically.

I think the problem I am having is the difference between vehicles that are toting a pair of GMs and those who use them as a primary attack.

I do not see the justification for a Devilfish having a Seeker Missile attack.  It can carry 2 of them, which at Epic scale is barely enough for one attack.  I doubt there would be room for reloads with 12 FWs (+drones) inside.  So, I really think those attacks should be one-shot or dropped altogether.

One-shot on secondary weapon systems is just impossible to keep track of.

A pool of shots is plausible, but I'm not convinced it's neccesary.

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