Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Tau Indirect Fire rule
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=13623		 Page 1 of 5
Author:  Dobbsy [ Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:28 am ]
Post subject:  Tau Indirect Fire rule
We were discussing this last week in the various threads and I still think it seems like a feasible idea to reduce the complexity of ML/GM tech and the number of Tau special rules in one hit. So I thought perhaps if it was in a more solid form people could mull over it a little easier. Anyway, barring the fluff bit, here's what we came up with last week:


Fluff

Tau conduct warfare in a high-tech manner, using markerlights and guided weaponry to attack their targets, even when the enemy is out of sight. Remote sentry turrets, and even some Tau infantry units, carry Markerlight technology that can paint a target so that other Tau units can fire upon it from distant and hidden postions. These sentries are scattered about the battlefield and act as Tau forward observers for other Tau units using guided weaponry.

Rule

"Units with the Guided Weapon designation in their data sheet may fire at targets without LOS, out to their maximum range, if conducting a Sustained Fire action. They still receive the +1 to hit for doing so as the normal Indirect Fire rule dictates. In addition to this however, units firing GMs who do not take a Sustained fire action receive a +1 to hit modifier if the target is within 30cm of a Tau unit with the Markelight designation in their data sheet."

This is obviously a very basic wording and we can play with it some if people aren't keen on the wording, but hopefully you get my drift.

Individual unit weapon to-hit values and also what number of units actually carry markerlights and GMs could be adjusted if necessary. That's easily played about with IMO to give lee-way to this proposal's changes to ML/GM rules. Like I said in a previous post about this the ML coverage would be more abstract in general but Pathfinders and Stealth suits would still keep their fluffiness and provide a reason to use them.

Anyway, that's the proposal but it can be adjusted if needs be obviously. I'm going to try it myself and hopefully others might like to try it as well before bagging it wholesale.  :;):
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:35 am ]
Post subject:  Tau Indirect Fire rule
This and the other proposal. Is there anything actually wrong with the current rules? They always worked fine even before teh turrets made them a sure thing. I would have thought we either want to keep them as is or bin them entirely and abstract it. Whats the reason for the halfway house?
Author:  Ginger [ Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:52 am ]
Post subject:  Tau Indirect Fire rule
Dobbsy, I can see where you are going here. Essentially, Markerlight and "support Craft" are effectively the elements that form "Indirect fire" - allowing long-range shooting passed cover with a boost provided you sustain. It is certainly a plausible suggestion and would remove a number of special rules and elements, but doing this would also remove some of the things that add character to the list.

Check my response here. Your 'fluff' says it all - there are two elements to Tau long range fire ability; the gun and the markerlight unit. The implication of this suggestion is that the opponent cannot escape being markerlit anywhere on the battlefield, while the 'fluff' implies otherwise. (I might add this inability to hide is also one of my personal beefs with artillery in general)

I agree with Hena that I like the way the rules work currently because you can hide from the Tau markerlight units so you are then not so vulnerable. Indeed, if you adopt my suggestion, by hiding from these units you cannot be shot at all - so the game then takes on a new twist of fighting over turrets and infantry to enable this kind of accurate long-range fire.
Author:  Onyx [ Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Tau Indirect Fire rule
Quote: (The_Real_Chris @ 26 Sep. 2008, 16:35 )

Is there anything actually wrong with the current rules?

I don't think that there is anything majorly wrong with the rules as they are now but I guess dobbsy is considering what might happen should some vocal members get there way and remove units that allow the present rules to function (Sentry Turrets, Heavy Drones etc).

If the units were to be removed then I would totally support dobbsy's ideas. If they stay the need for change is lessened.

Using dobbsy's rule would still allow for the relationship between ML's and GM's but reduce the need for including units like Sentry Turrets (which some other players seem to have such a problem with).

Thanks for taking the time to write it all dobbsy.

Steve.
Author:  Onyx [ Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:21 am ]
Post subject:  Tau Indirect Fire rule
Quote: (Hena @ 27 Sep. 2008, 00:21 )

Current rules work fine with Turret showed to section 6 and it's special removed. Let that be done with another list. As I pointed out, heavy artillery isn't norm for lists. Why should Tau have such a thing?

Sorry Hena (I really don't like confrontation  :rock:  :tongue: ), but I disagree with this comment.

I'm not going to rewrite all the same old comments that have alredy been written (and I have read every word in the recent discussions).

Cutting bits out, without adjusting the army list is not the solution. People want Sentry Turrets/Heavy Drones gone, then they are going to have to compromise on whats left in the list, and help make the army work fairly without them.
Author:  Onyx [ Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:43 am ]
Post subject:  Tau Indirect Fire rule
And we've found the army works fairly well with them...
Everyone has a point of view which can be valid.

If you get your way then I will probably end up using a different list (something based on whats available at the moment). I don't want to do this. I can see us using dobbsy's suggestion here to help negate the use of Turrets if you get your way. I'll be running the idea past my regular opponents soon (mind you, they don't have a problem with the use of Turrets so they will think it's much a do about nothing).

The idea that several parts of the list should just be removed without any adjustment to the rest of the list is not realistic.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:32 am ]
Post subject:  Tau Indirect Fire rule
So in essence Onyz you found that gm's weren't worth it before the current turrets were added?
Author:  Dobbsy [ Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:45 am ]
Post subject:  Tau Indirect Fire rule
Markerlight and "support Craft" are effectively the elements that form "Indirect fire" - allowing long-range shooting passed cover with a boost provided you sustain.

Actually I wasn't using the support craft as the basis. I was using Hammerheads or the like with Guided Missiles.

The implication of this suggestion is that the opponent cannot escape being markerlit anywhere on the battlefield, while the 'fluff' implies otherwise. (I might add this inability to hide is also one of my personal beefs with artillery in general)
It essentially becomes artillery, yes. Which means they have to sustain to gain a +1 just like everyone else. It just has a little more flavour as the hand held MLs can provide a more flexible bonus(e.g. can use it on advance) if - and only if - those infantry units are within 30cm of the target.

In essence, both sides of this argument get what they're after to some extent. No one side "wins out" because it's what they want.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:52 am ]
Post subject:  Tau Indirect Fire rule
I don't see it making things particularly more streamlined than currently. Would it not also affect the costing of GM armed units?
Author:  Dobbsy [ Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:02 am ]
Post subject:  Tau Indirect Fire rule
It's not about streamlining TRC, even though two rules get merged into one, it's about compromise. Something we here in Tau land seem to have a problem with.

Also, I don't think there would be a need to re-cost stuff. You have simply adjusted the way in which units can fire without a major change to range and hitting power etc. You can still hit a target behind cover if you spend the time to do it (sustain). Basically, you have to be more tactical/think to use them - which I believe is what one of the arguments floating around here is. .
Author:  Onyx [ Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:20 am ]
Post subject:  Tau Indirect Fire rule
Quote: (Dobbsy @ 29 Sep. 2008, 08:02 )

It's not about streamlining TRC, even though two rules get merged into one, it's about compromise. Something we here in Tau land seem to have a problem with.

Never was a truer word spoken!  :whistle:  :vD  :tongue:

My Tau army has a similar win/loss ratio with or without Sentry Turrets. I don't believe they are essential to the list but I really think dobbsy's idea is a great way to get GM's working well and allowing the removal of Turrets from the list entirely. Heavy Drtones would still be a useful part of the army to use in Tigersharks as TRC has mentioned.

Steve.
Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/