I am not in favor of removing the ML's from the Stingray or Scorpionfish. In fact I might go so far as to say that I am strongly not in favor of removing them. Now, I'm not just saying that because I am a heavy user of both vehicles, but because you are taking away a self-defense mechanism for each formation.
The ML allows each of those units to defend themselves when that all too nasty CC unit starts getting too close, by pouring in fire to reduce what is most likely going to be an unfavorable exchange from the Tau perspective. If you force these two units to be so dependent on other units ML's, then you are building a weakness into the army, in that if an opponent can just get past the front line (which isn't that hard to do in this game), then the rest of the forces can be easily dealt with.
I don't know how other people use these vehicles, but my standard method of operations is to use them to support other attacks, in defilade to protect them, flitting back and forth to lend fire where needed. I am already paying for the risk of exposing FW's to an opponent's troops to gain the benefit of ML's.
However, it isn't that uncommon for someone to figure out that if they can just get a unit within range to engage, then they have a pretty good chance of destroying, driving them off, or placing blast markers on that which annoys them. What softens up this strike back is the ability to hit the unit with a somewhat enhanced chance of doing damage in a self-defense action. Note, this means not firing at what I'd really rather fire at, because now I am trying to save/extricate the unit.
Also, removing the ML's from these two units is not going to cause people to suddenly start buying more FW's. What they may end up doing is just buying more HH formations (i.e. unintended consequence). Taking ML's away doesn't make FW's more attractive, it only degrades two formations that are working pretty well. JMO.
Also, I would like those who have an opinion on the subject to please define what they mean by "infantry". Are they talking about foot infantry or mechanized infantry. The reason I ask is that it almost sounds like there is a desire to move the list back to "Dark Ages" tactics where everybody marshals their forces in long lines and then have a go at each other.
That is not the model of modern warfare, which on a certain level, we are attempting to emulate. There is a reason why, excepting specialist units (i.e. SPECOPS, Lt. Infantry, etc.) that modern armies have evolved into the mechanized monsters that they are. Mechanized forces are more capable of waging war than foot borne infantry forces.
And if you want to bring up Vietnam or Afghanistan (the Russian version), just substitute Airmobile for Mechanized and you come to the same result. Mobility and firepower are king.
So, if you want people to take more infantry, then make infantry more attractive, don't make other units less attractive. Also keep in mind that some people are attracted to this list because it is (in it's current form) a tanker's dream. Don't penalize people because that is why they are attracted to the list.
Sorry if there is a little emotion in my comments, but this list has so much potential...it would be a shame to start shackling parts of it.
/* SOAPBOX OFF
)