This is sure to divide people into two camps. First, the current ML rules are nice in a very simple way: they make the Tau player think about interactions between formations. The Tau generally refrain from planning assaults. Instead, they plan coord. fires and markerlights. The first camp of people likes this sub-game a lot. We'll see words such as "characterful".

The second camp is the abstracters. Just go with Indirect Fire. It works for the other armies.

Personally, I like the current rule. Also, I hate the ML turrets. They remove the planning and thinking part of ML/GM use.

Asaura has summed up the problem quite well

_________________
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

Oh, man, that's the last thing I wanted to do with Remote Sentry Turrets!  The way Markerlights (and lit units) interact with the rest of the army is the biggest piece of the Tau Empire (that's the 4e codex) army feel/flavor.  It needs to stay 'lots of thought required'.  (E:A) Tau should be just as hard as (E:A) Marines to use well, and I'm certainly not getting that feeling from the reports right now.

Unfortunately, the current rules come pretty close to describing the way the RSTs work in 40k, so the entire unit should probably go to the Collector's section with a BIG warning about game-breaking balance.  Even having one picket line of RSTs across the table pretty much makes the area a shooting range for the Tau, which does not make for fun games.  

As much as I like the RSTs from a background/40k reference point of view, there is no model for them currently, and including them in a *tournament army list* seems to have an overwhelming effect on the rest of the army.  Mark me down for putting the RSTs into the Collector's section, instead of trying to get them to balance with the rest of the army.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Fair enough LiTS but how do we then balance the lack of an artillery ability of the Tau? RSTs went someway to providing that.

The problem I see is that we've created a Tau list that is fragile - and they really are fragile when you do actually hit them (e.g no RA on tanks etc) - but if you take away an ability to hit the rear board like every other army can do without LOS then they get even more weak IMO. They can't project firepower and they have to move into position to attack that rear board area, exposing them.

Shouldn't Guided Missles be the Tau equivalent of Artillery?
Tau are the only army in E:A which actually have spotters (= Markerlights) for their Artillery.

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

If you remove ML sentries I would like to see FW's regain their ML's. I think this is the best way of dealing with it. It's fluffy and makes FW's a better choice.

And again, like I said, it forces the Tau to have to move into harm's way when other armies don't have to to put an "artillery barrage" in....

It would also make Pathfinders harder to justify taking.

GM's need to be the artillery as mentioned before - Indirect Fire (slightly modified) for them would help with the removal of Sentry 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.

The current Tau list does have tools to hit the enemy setup zone even without the ML turrets. They are, in order of effectiveness (Stetson-Harrison method):

1) Bombers
2) Planetfallers & Spacecraft
3) Long-range Support Craft direct fire
4) Orca and Tigershark drops
5) Teleporting stealth suits
6) GMs on advance, based on (5) and scouts, optionally with coord. fire

It's not like the Tau don't have tools to hit the enemy wherever they feel they want to.

Don't forget the moray and manta. Broadsides and HH's also just about have the ability. Broadside can also be garrisoned in cover on overwatch. If its one thing the Tau don't lack its longrange firepower.

I see everyone else beat me to the list of stuff that does do it, combined with being able to move while doing it! And they are far better off than Marines, CSM and even Orks to an extent, with all their options putting troops very much in harms way (with armour 6 fighters, air assaults, one way teleports on turn one or suicide runs by warhounds and similar). The Tau options are all more survivable than that.

Pretty much the only army with reliable base line attacks is Imperial Guard and Siegers, with L&D having some capability depending on build. Oh and Eldar who are of course good at everything.

I disagree with the Tau being fragile. They are pretty much as tough as similar space marine armies, though break faster. Though of course they also have most of the weaknesses removed - i.e. skimmer tanks can't be cc'd, long range firepower is even more defensive as most things can pop up to fire so getting a bead is damn hard. GM's were never supposed to be a mainstay weapon (I thought).

The ML turrets can just go with no real effect on the gm ability. They were never needed before and made things too simple. The Tau army is already the most simple for a new player to epic to understand (hell if a new box set was ever made it should have Tau in it). If the ML/GM system is abstracted away I think it either disappears entirely with the missiles getting indirect/no LoS or stays minus the current incarnation of markerlights.

_________________
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

Dobbsy, what do you mean by artillery?  There's not a single BP weapon in the tournament Tau list (Collector's list has orbital bombardments).  If you mean the ability to fire into the enemy's Deployment Zone on turn 1, those platforms have already been mentioned.

I don't like the idea of adding Markerlights back to the Fire Warriors, as it conflicts their role with that of the Pathfinders.  FW should be an in-your-face FF nightmare (see the Fish of Fury tactics on a 40k board), while PF mark the targets.

It is worth mentioning that I believe that we've short-changed the GMs on range.  GMs should out-range battlecannons (they did on Taros, and GMs are unlimited range in 40k).  All I'd like to see is a slight increase to 90cm.  (OK, I'd also like to see a removal of the "unguided" Guided Missile firing option, but that's a different discussion) This makes GMs the extreme-range weapon of choice, then adding Rails as you close.  Of course, this also assumes a reduction in GM-carriers.  Most 40k Tau lists do not have Seeker Missiles everywhere, while the E:A list does.  I'd start by removing the GMs from Piranhas, and possibly the Devilfish.

======================

Ok, if we removed the unguided option from the GMs, would that fix the issue with RSTs?  You would absolutely have to have PF/Tetra, Stealth, Heavy Drones, or RSTs operating in front of your forces to be able to engage at longer ranges (or beyond LOS of your Railheads).  This proposal would mean NO GM fire without a marked target.

Huh...  Just re-read the Markerlight rules.  Did I miss a change to the ML rules, or an I confusing the E:A and 40k rules?  I thought that MLs enhanced all shooting, not just GMs.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

I do not have Tau, nor have I fought the (except for some testing very early on), so I will just make some general comments.

LiTS makes a good point that Tau (or any army for that matter) should be "hard to use well", though perhaps forgiving for novices. Their nature is apparently to make significant use of technology to compensate for fewer numbers, and an aversion for close combat for similar reasons. So, an 'oblique' question :-

What strategies (plural) should the Tau use and do the current formations support these? More importantly, what weaknesses should the Tau have?

In several threads the Tau have been depicted as a one-trick-pony, sitting on their baseline and shooting the advancing enemy:- if the enemy dies the Tau win, while if the enemy close to combat the Tau lose. The Drones and Sentries would appear to be a key element here, representing this use of technology together with the markerlight rule. So, could we try to consider the army working well with these items present, and working poorly when they are absent? This leads to a second 'Oblique' question:-

What are Poor stats (as opposed to Good ones)??

============================
Some thoughts:-

1) "Markerlight

• Could "markerlight" be used to increase the range of a weapon as well as granting a shooting bonus. Equally, could that bonus be +2 to differentiate 'poor' from 'good' stats??
• Make "Markerlight" a formation upgrade, or even an ability associated with a particular character upgrade. Note it should not be universal, and certainly not available to the units that are capable of 'doing' the shooting.
• Make more weapons reliant on "Markerlight", (so downgrade the stats accordingly)

2) Drones

• Allow Drones attached to formations to act like single use shields. So the first hits on the formation automatically fall on the drones, whose armour ought to be no more than 6+.
• Remove Heavy Drones as their role is being fullfilled by the Remote Sentry Turrets.

3) Remote Sentry Turrets:-

These seem to be in the list to "markerlight" enemy formations, so either
• Let them be put anywhere as single units, but change the stats to have no armour. In this option they do not impede the enemy, and are automatically  destroyed if an enemy unit passes over them or they end up in an enemy ZoC. Ideally, their locations should be plotted first like planetfalling formations
• Change their stats to include 'Scout', but require that each formation of (3) be deployed in the Tau table half during the garrison stage of the game. This option should be limited to (1) per "Markerlight capable" formation.
Either way, allow RSTs to be deployed by TigerShark or possibly some light Tau skimmer (instead of Heavy Drones).

4) Upgrades

Make upgrades more specific to the generic types of Tau formation (infantry, AV and WE). So for example, sniper drones or gun drones become upgrades to infantry (who cannot have more drones than units), while Hammerheads, Skyray and Tetra are only added to the relevant AV formations.

5) Weapon ranges

As others have suggested, only allow long-range guided missiles a range in excess of 90 cms (and possibly then only using "Markerlight"), but there should be a limited number of these.
Keep other weapons to a maximum of 75 cms, and preferably 60 cms, to force the Tau to make modest advances as a minimum

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt