Everything Markerlights |
|
colonel_sponsz
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights  Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:12 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:14 pm
Posts: 390
|
|
ReDevil: I still haven't heard anyting from you regarding the point I have been making: I don't have any missle carrying units in my force so why should my Fire Warriors get a missile shot?
Regardless of whether the shot is fired by the vehicle or the marking unit, the missile has to come from somewhere. If I want missiles then it is up to me to take missile carriers and make sure they link up with my marker lights - this is the core of the current ML/GM mechanic for me. I am not prepared to say 'they come from some unknown asset off-board', that is an abstraction too far for this level.
Orde
_________________ "I'm smelling a whole lot of 'if' coming off this plan." Tau Army List Archive
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:44 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
What comments do you have for the system Soulless1 suggested? |
It would introduce an unwelcome amount of book-keeping. Keeping track of which formations have fired their seekers and which have not. In a large game it would be easy to forget that "those tanks have used their seekers earlier this turn".
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tastyfish
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:52 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 120
|
|
Its not a very great deal of book keeping, hardly more than ina large game marking/remembering which formations have had actions, which are on overwatch and which haven't done anything.
I can see it not being worth the paperwork if there really is no difference, but its not a huge black mark against it that makes it not worth considering in the first place.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Nerroth
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 3:05 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Canada
|
|
So does anyone have an opinion on the idea I posted earlier, namely to keep the ML option on the Skyray, but remove the +1 to hit unless the target is marked by Pathfinders or Tetras?
Does that seem a reasoablt way to emphasise the usefulness of the Ps and Ts, as well as keeping the ML abilities of the AVs at a reasoable level?
Gary
_________________  Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers v7.3 pdfHuman armed forces for the greater good.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tastyfish
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:41 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 120
|
|
Isn't part of the problem that Tetras are just better options compared to Pathfinders though - perhaps PF and FW formations as they will have more ML equiped units than a tetra squadron?
Both the same price and Tetras are faster
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
RedDevil
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:54 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:58 pm
Posts: 112
|
|
colonel_sponsz: It's been covered few times already.
The seekers come from Tau held space, as well as from the vehicles. The idea being that at the Epic level Seekers are so common you don't have to account for them. This concept is less absurd than a spacemarine having enough missile shots to fire his missile launcher continuously for four or more Epic turns in a row (roughly 40mins~1hour). Yet you don't seam to have a problem with this. I could ask where do all those missiles come from? I don't see the Tactical squad carrying a wagon full of spare shots behine him, nor do I see 10's of missile taped to him and the rest of his sqaud. His Launcher historically could only hold 5 shots, barely enough to last a single FF (which is a whole 40K game). Similarily you have already taken for granted that a vehicle only carries max 4 Seeker shots (soon to be only 2), yet you have no problem accepting that you have unlimited Seeker shots in Epic. If you can't make the small leap from these two absurd ideas, to the very possible idea that Seekers could be deployed other than from vehicles on the field, then fine. I see no problem in making this small leap, neither did Jervis J. when he was in command of the list.
If you want it presented to you in a fluff format I will rephrase from the skitt on the first page of this post.
Well they could be carried by small drones, launched from off field, or maybe in small camoflaged racks that are setup with battle, or from some non combat aircraft or.... |
Just like the "Unguided shot" is being explained by lone scouts with a markerlight that are "invisible" on the field, there is always a Seeker source on the field as well. If you have vehicles, suffice to say they come from them. If you don't have vehicles, then they come from similar such "invisible" resources.
If I want missiles then it is up to me to take missile carriers and make sure they link up with my marker lights - this is the core of the current ML/GM mechanic for me. |
This is the core mechanic of ML/GM for me too; however, I think Seekers "feel" more true if they don't use Epic definition of a GM. Tracer's and Hunter's are brand new GM's that are an epic creation. They are launched from
very specific platforms and in no way are as common as Seekers. These should fall under the current GM rules without exception.
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:41 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (Hena @ 01 Dec. 2005 (13:18)) | RedDevil, Tactica
What comments do you have for the system Soulless1 suggested? |
For the record, I'm not on board with RedDevil's suggestion.
I was just engaging the conversation to bounce ideas off.
My opinion:
1) seekers and all gm's should go unchanged
2) markerlights should remain unchanged
3) units with seekers and markerlights should remain unchanged.
I think we should move forward with official vault playtest version.
Changing these concepts impacts too much of the list, and right now, the list is working.
We cannot please all various requests and some abstractions are unavoidable from game play.
I only mentioned the AT 6+ shot as a stop gap if a significant amount of the masses were on board with the infantry doing something more than what they do today - offensively. *IF* we wanted to justify them doing something more, we could...
However, considering the other changes in the list I'm not sure it's neccessary, but it may be justified in argument - *if* the issue is an important one.
Regardless of whether or not markerlight units do or do not receive AT is of little concern to me personally. On the other hand, my points 1), 2) and 3) above I am very firm on at the moment.
A final thought, I see no pressing need in the list to make any changes to ANY of these areas prior to the 4.3.2 list going into the vault this round.
I think at best, these issues are worth considering for the next vault revision. If the masses want to kick something like this around, we can put it in the Tau WIP list and kick it around a bit.
Again, I would advise CS to avoid any of these aforementioned changes discussed in this thread prior to 4.3.2 going to JJ for the vault - if he would welcome the console.
Hope that clearly states my present stance gents - now, back to your regularly scheduled debating... ?
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
HecklerMD
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:11 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201
|
| Quote (RedDevil @ 29 Nov. 2005 (18:48)) | | I think if anyone here is going to say that this is some huge boost in power to the firewarrior, they're smoking something. Same goes for those who think that you won't need to support your firewarriors with tanks; your smoking something. |
So, if we disagree with you it cannot possably be due to careful consideration, we must be utilizing illicit substances?
While I'm sure it seems no SOBER person would ever (dare) diagree with you, I disagree with you, and if you think I'm smoking something, well, you must be smoking something.
What I like about the current GM and seeker rules is that if I dont protect my seeker carrying assets I can loose them, and also loose the AT shots. Your solution gives that AT shot to the ML/INF stands, and while I do agree with the reasoning about the source of the missiles (They come from other assets in theatre as opposed to assets on the board) in the end it feels like all the other armies with the AT shot given directly to the INF stands. Because it is.
Which brings me to my second point: While this may or may not have the right feel for you, I thnk it (your seeker suggestion) makes our army feel too much like other armies. Tau should work and feel different. I've opposed changes to the AAC that would give it a(IMO) un-tau like command tank (well, for free), I've argued for the Crisis to be Inf so we can have a (rather unique) fast moving shooty unit that uses cover, and I'll argue that we should keep the [b]seekers[/] like they are because having to set up 2 units, 1 marker and one(+) shooter, to get optimal AT shooting is unique to our army.
I will toss this out though: I've always thought it felt, well, silly, for all GM's to get a +1 to hit for sustained fire? I think of it like this: SF is, well, sustained, repeated firing of a weapon, not careful aiming (which is why it works for indirect fire). Are we accepting that a unit on SF is firing more than one Seeker, or twice as many as they would fire on an advance?
(Lascannon- 1 Lascannon -AT5+
(Twin-Linked Lascannon- 2 Lascannons -AT4+)
so 2(Weapon) = +1 to Hit and vice-versa, so to get that +1 on SF, we would be putting 2x the missiles into the air? It seems odd too me, is that how others are seeing it?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:11 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
I will toss this out though: I've always thought it felt, well, silly, for all GM's to get a +1 to hit for sustained fire? I think of it like this: SF is, well, sustained, repeated firing of a weapon, not careful aiming (which is why it works for indirect fire). Are we accepting that a unit on SF is firing more than one Seeker, or twice as many as they would fire on an advance? |
Heckler, I don't think we need to worry about that, as even Single Shot weapons get the +1 for sustained fire. DSM on sustained fire can't be lobbing dozens of extra missiles 
I see Sustained fire as a game mechanic that represents all the different things that you can do to increase your potential damage to the target (firing repeatedly, aiming more carefully, getting better fire mission co-ordinates and so on). Basically all the things that require that you not move when firing, appropriate to whatever weapons is being used.
|
