Everything Markerlights |
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights  Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:05 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Heckler: I was just picking at you for fun. Sorry that came across wrong. Mea culpa.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Legion 4
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:16 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36984
Location: Ohio - USA
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Soulless1
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:54 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:46 pm
Posts: 14
Location: Leicester, UK (termtime). South Essex, UK (holidays).
|
Hey guys, I'm back from my weekend-and-a-bit away from the warmth of my PC. 
As far as markerlights/GM's go...
I don't mind the current system (its usable...as a game mechanic) but I don't like the way that the markerlight/seeker missile combo is reduced to basically acting like a 'normal' weapon with added restrictions.
The whole point of seeker missiles is that they are designed to enable the fire warriors to call in supporting fire, without the vehicle pilot even having to think about it, and independently of any of the vehicle's actions. That's what makes it a Tau special ability - It's supposed to be a unique thing we have that other races do not. AT guns on transports? Even Orks have that! Ours are just worse because of the markerlighting restriction.
What's the point of making it a standard missile weapon, targetted, fired, and affected by the actions of the tank then?
Obviously the number and positioning of missile-carriers should come into the equation, so seeing as we can basically switch the rule around (like I suggested in my previous post on page 2) without making it any more complicated, why not do that?
Its not exactly hard to keep track of which formations have shot seeker missiles this turn. Heck, use the BFG 'reload ordinance' marker to indicate it if you really have to.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not gonna defend my suggestion to the death here  , but I really think it will work and would make a whole lot more sense from a fluff point of view as well. Maybe I'll give it a go next time I get to play, but it'd be far more interesting if we could all try it - that way you get the benefit of the testers' different playing styles as well.
C'mon, give it a go - you know you want to! 
_________________
'Of course you should fight fire with fire; you should fight everything with fire!'
'Those who live by the sword, die by the rifle'
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
colonel_sponsz
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:22 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:14 pm
Posts: 390
|
|
I understand your point and agree with where you are coming from but I see it as another of those abstraction thangs. The missiles are being launced at the command of the FW but in game mechanic terms it is taken as a shot by the missile carrying unit.
Aircraft missiles are the best example of this: If the shot came from the FW then the AC would be off table when the FW were acting so they would be out of range. (I've not played with aircraft so please correct me if I've read this wrong.)
The turn mechanic in any wargame is an abstraction to cover the fact that in real-time events in one turn pan out simultaneoulsy. I feel Epic's activation system is far superior to the more traditional 'I go - you go' system used in 40k (and many other systems) wich puts a much greater premium on who has the first turn.
Orde
_________________ "I'm smelling a whole lot of 'if' coming off this plan." Tau Army List Archive
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Soulless1
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:59 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:46 pm
Posts: 14
Location: Leicester, UK (termtime). South Essex, UK (holidays).
|
|
Well...under the system I suggested any aircraft squadron on the table when the markerlights are used would still be available to launch seekers just like any other unit. If they're off the table you couldn't...same as any other unit - because basically off the table just means out of range, that's all.
You don't see aircraft shooting from off the table with the current system either.
And surely, its not an 'abstraction' (like the 'FW AT weapon' system) because its playing it in the way the events actually happen in the fluff. The targets are marked, and ordinance is called in from specific vehicles against those targets. The only abstraction is the infinite 'ammo' for the seekers, but then you don't get that with many other guns in epic...
_________________
'Of course you should fight fire with fire; you should fight everything with fire!'
'Those who live by the sword, die by the rifle'
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
CyberShadow
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:07 pm |
|
| Swarm Tyrant |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9348
Location: Singapore
|
| Quote (RedDevil @ 06 Dec. 2005 (03:33)) | | CyberShadow: ?What is out of character with FW squads getting an AT attack from the Markerlight? ?This is how it actually works in all published GW games that use Markerlights. ?I am a little confused. |
I agree that this is how it works in 40K, but the level of abstraction and mechanics here is different. With the FW squads getting ML AT fire, you may as well say that they all carry heavy weapons. They dont, but the mechanics are the same, and this brings the FW one step closer to the rest of the infantry out there and masks the combined fire incentive.
Personally, I like the fact that the Tau player needs to judge the distance of both ML and SM shots to target. I am sure that there are ways of making this even more 'characterful' but mosy (if not all) of them would involve added complexity and record keeping, for what is effectively simple AT fire.
The key here for me is the fact that the current ML system does not seem to be 'broken' in any way, or not working the way that we would like. To my mind, it has the intuitive effects which 'feel' right while keeping special rules and book-keeping to a minimum._________________ https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond. https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:43 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (CyberShadow @ 07 Dec. 2005 (15:07)) | [/quote]
[quote="RedDevil,06 Dec. 2005 (03:33)"]CyberShadow: ?What is out of character with FW squads getting an AT attack from the Markerlight? ?This is how it actually works in all published GW games that use Markerlights. ?I am a little confused. |
I agree that this is how it works in 40K, but the level of abstraction and mechanics here is different. With the FW squads getting ML AT fire, you may as well say that they all carry heavy weapons. They dont, but the mechanics are the same, and this brings the FW one step closer to the rest of the infantry out there and masks the combined fire incentive.
|
CS - not saying I agree with Souless and RedDevil, but just so we're all clear... the Firewarriors are already working on a very gross abstraction as it is. The Pathfinders all carry a marker light on a per model basis. The Firewarriors - at BEST - have a single markerlight in the whole squad of 12 models, and that assumes a shas'ui (sergent) is present and that further assumes he's taken the marker light upgrade for his gun.
BTW: that's absolutely no different than the Stealth squad and the Human Auxiliaries squads. The most any of these squads could have, is a single marker light per 6-12 men.
Again: only the SkyRay, Pathfinders, Tetras, and Drone sentry towers carry a markerlight on every MODEL in the UNIT.
Therefore, we are already making a very large abstraction to the FW squad in E:A from Epic. This is also why a Pathfinder squad doesn't look that much different from a FW squad in E:A.
In 40K, a pathfinder squad of 8 models could call in 8 Seekers, or make 8 railguns hit on 2+ or make 8 stealth burstcannons at 3 shots each go to 24 shots of 2+...
A single Firewarrior squad od 12 could at most, call in a single seeker shot, make a single railgun hit on a 2+ or make a single burst cannon have 3 shots to hit on 2+ each.
This abstraction has been a hard pill for me to swallow for a long time. The E:A markerlight system artificially weakens tetras, pathfinders, and sentry towers from 40K and it artificially abstracts FW, stealths, and Human Auxiliars as all can carry a single marker light in 40, but are treated differently in E:A.
So what I'm getting at here is - although I don't necessarily agree with the solutiong that Red Devil and Souless make, I do agree that there is a severe if not abstraction between 40K and E:A markerlights and further gross abstraction in which units receive the markerlight ability and basically flat level of benefits in E:A whether your unit carries 1 or numberous markerlights in 40K.
Personally, I like the fact that the Tau player needs to judge the distance of both ML and SM shots to target.
|
Judge??? E:A allows you to pre-measure everything. In fact, the game auther recommends you pre-measure everything unless you and your opponet agree otherwise. LOL, there's no 'judging' to do in E:A everywhere I've played. I've played E:A in 3 different major cities in the US so far.
Aligning markerlights and units with GM is a mental excersize, but no distance judging in my book.
I am sure that there are ways of making this even more 'characterful' but mosy (if not all) of them would involve added complexity and record keeping, for what is effectively simple AT fire.
Hmm... not sure I agree with the summation, but I do agree that there are other ways we could consider it. I also think there are other ways we could look at the units that actually have markers and the amount of markers to justify the 'level' of bonus the formation receives. See above.
The key here for me is the fact that the current ML system does not seem to be 'broken' in any way, or not working the way that we would like. To my mind, it has the intuitive effects which 'feel' right while keeping special rules and book-keeping to a minimum.
I can't disagree with that. The existing system is working as designed I think. Is it ideal...
I do question whether or not some units should even have the ML capability.
Example: above. FW, Stealths and Human Aux only have 1 ML each per UNIT in 40K - how we justify the entire Stealth and FW unit benefiting from the ML rule - while saying human auxiliaries can't have them at all in E:A is simply beyond me. To me, there is no logic to this decision first off.
Second, how we justify the FW and Stealth as being as effective at marking targets as units where ever model in the unit has a marker (such as SkyRay, Tetra, Pathfinders, and drone sentry towers) is also beyond me. Again, there's no logic here, I think its just a rule we've made in E:A for some reason I've yet to gain an appreciation for.
I've just come to accept that FW and Pathfinders are operating as designed. I don't agree with it though. I do think its a very abstract.
Just my thoughts.
_________________
Rob
| Top |
|
|
|
Steele
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:06 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
|
|
@Tactica,CS:
if you remember , there was a time in that existed 2 different bonusses from Markerlights (namely Multiple Markerlights). Which were subsequently reduced to a single +1 due to "too much" effectiveness. So again it was toned down, like the FF Values.
Cheers!
Steele
_________________
Quid pro Quo
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:40 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
@steele,
I'm generalizing... so regardless of the ML rule we settle on - even assuming we keep the existing one.
My personal nit-pick is this:
1) I'm not saying that the tetras and pathfinders should receive a bonus. I think they work fine.
2) I do think the FW and Stealth (whom which have 1 markerlight per stand at best) should not be 'as effective' as the units that carry a markerlight per unit in the formation (such as pathfinders and tetras)
3) If there is justification for FW and stealth to have Markerlights - why don't human auxiliaries? All three recieve the exact same amount of access to the markerlights. 1 per 6 man unit. The only difference is that the human aux and firewarriors can go up to 10 and 12 man units. So ... if we are being fair here...
a. should firewarriors and stealths be as effective with markerlights in E:A as tetras, pathfinders, and drone sentry towers when FW and stealths only have a single marker per unit and the Tetras, PF, and drone sentries have a markerlight per model?
b. Whatever access to markerlights we agree to provide Stealths and Firewarriors - even if it stays just like it is, shouldn't Human Auxiliaries have the same access to markerlgihts as stealths and firewarriors do? Afterall, all three units can only have 1 marker light per unit in 40K, and all three units get that single markerlight in their unit the the same way - sergent and weapon upgrade?
Note: this has nothing to do with Souless and RedDevil's suggestions - these are just general design principle questions we need to be prepared to defend.
I'm just curious if we are OK with justifying this level of abstraction in the list.
Personally, my vote is that an E:A Tau FW unit or Stealth unit shouldn't be anywhere near as 'effective' at marking as a pathfinder, tetra or Skyray, unit is.
Tetras and Skyray's can take a better vehicle system upgrade to make their vehicles target better in 40K. Skyrays also have two shots per every one of the firewarriors and they can target seperate targets. Pathfinders just have a lot more models with the markerlight in the unit, even though they don't shoot as good at the Tetras and Skyrays.
The firewarrior and stealth just have a single shot per unit (not model) and they don't fire any better to hit than the entire pathfinder unit.
Again, just a design principle thing.
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:19 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
Ok, I'll weigh in on this as it seems to be taking off again.
/* HONDA OPINION ON
I think the ML rule, regardless of the number ML's in a 40K should work the same. The count of individual ML's is a level of detail that doesn't enhance what we currently have. Giving everyone the same ability regardless of ML count is KISS.
Now should the Human Auxila have ML's? The only justification not to, would be that we just don't want that unit to behave that way.
If they had ML's would I take them, because currently I don't? I would seriously consider that viable now with the experimental Garrison rules that were recently posted.
My preference is to run 100% Tau lists. However, if you added ML to Human Auxila, they have to be considered at the current point level. I think just about everyone will consider taking them if you add ML. To dissuade some, you'd have to up the points.
Do I think we should go through the exercise of adding ML to Human Auxila and then trying to figure out how much this should cost (and I know that some will have already figured out the unit cost ? )?
No, I do not. It's not a big enough issue to me. I'd rather just say, "this is what we did" and come up with some "fluff" reason why we did it that way.
So count me in with those who think it's fine as is.
/* HONDA OPINION OFF
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Steele
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:30 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
|
|
While I understand your Points, in Fact I have to because I don?t play 40k, though having read the Codex. But are we going to suppose that every player also knows of the 40k Tau?s? Or are we trying to setup a list that is playable as it is/will be written, without having to worry how they feel or work in 40k? For me, as I was thrown into Epic the second time, I adopted the Tau as they were at this moment, without ever having heard about them before. So bottom line: We already made a list that is playable at most, basing on 40k on most of its aspects, so why worry with this kind of details? I assume that once they are released, after a year the ERC will go through them and pick those rules that aren?t in line, or not? Sometimes I wonder what we are discussing or better say rediscussing, not that it is a bad thing, but basically we are rewamping the whole list down.
Cheers!
Steele
_________________
Quid pro Quo
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:04 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
Steele & Honda,
I'm just playing devil's advocate. CS made this comment:
I agree that this is how it works in 40K, but the level of abstraction and mechanics here is different. With the FW squads getting ML AT fire, you may as well say that they all carry heavy weapons. They dont, but the mechanics are the same, and this brings the FW one step closer to the rest of the infantry out there and masks the combined fire incentive.
|
I'm not trying to suggest that we do anything at all. He also made this comment:
The key here for me is the fact that the current ML system does not seem to be 'broken' in any way, or not working the way that we would like. To my mind, it has the intuitive effects which 'feel' right while keeping special rules and book-keeping to a minimum. |
To which I absolutely agree and said as much. I like the list the way its playing.
That said, when our AC makes a claim:
With the FW squads getting ML AT fire, you may as well say that they all carry heavy weapons.
My point is - we are talking about abstractions anyway. Our FW and Stealths are based on abstractions - severe ones at that.
I don't agree with RedDevil and Souless' request. I definitely don't want to book keep or deal with some missles one way and other missiles another way.
However, in this discussion - its brought out the pain of an old topic.
Are we still prepared to justify the level of marker light abstractions in the points I've made?
If so - great, but we all need to be prepared to defend that stance. I have a feeling, it will come up by the masses.
I can already hear it... why does a FW unit with 1 marker light just as effective at marking in E:A as an 8 man Pathfinders with 8 marker lights?
Perhaps our answer is - It only takes one marker light to cover the area - so the other 7 are just redundant and unnecessary.
Perhaps our answer is over a 10-minute window of time, a single markerlight can mark the same targets that a pathfinder unit with 8 markerlights can.
I don't know... again, I like the list as is... but we better be prepaired to defend our stance when we are sticking with such abstractions.
I fear the same firewarrior and stealth comments are going to come up when human aux come up.
If I'm the only one concerned about these things - OK. I just wanted to make it known. Principle based - I don't think FW and stealths should be as effective as Pathfinders. However, the pathfinder coordinated fire and sniper work to address that problem - albeit in an abstract way.
just stuff to think about lads,
Cheers,
