Everything Markerlights |
|
Tastyfish
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights  Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:43 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 120
|
|
Explaination wise yes.. (you've mixed up some AP and AV in a few places)
Ruleswise it is just seeker range reduced to 30cm, and the weapon moved onto Firewarriors squads.
I don't like it for that reason, I think firewarriors and seeker missiles need to be seperated to maintain the feel of the Tau. The concept of the Tau and Seeker missiles going off the background in IA3 and the codex seems integral to how they fight under most circumstances though I do certainly see the problem Red Devil is talking about to a point (though I think its exagerrated, mech cadres are an expensive way to get seekers if you just want tetras for spotting).
Though perhaps just altering the Devilfish's missiles to 30cm 'sparse seekers' (which halves the units AT firepower compared to Red Devil's plan) and not having the markerlight/sustained fire bonus being cumulative (if SF even applies to seekers at all) would do it.
I don't really think there is a problem on Hammerhead seekers other than a competition with Sky Rays - but that is a different issue, changing the whole markerlight mechanic for that is massive overkill. You are wasting points if they are just being seeker carriers. Pirhanas might want to have the same reduction, rather than being potential artillerly in this case, perhaps the same as the Devilfish
Other other big problem I have with Red Devil's plan is that markerlights are a much bigger thing to the Tau than just a means for seeker missiles reducing them almost entirely to just an AT attack from firewarriors and the few other guided missiles around the place doesn't do them justice, especially with the new emphasis on them in the new codex.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:46 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
Explaination wise yes.. (you've mixed up some AP and AV in a few places)
|
Just for clarification..
AP is Anti-Personnel fire that affects infantry. (and LV - light vehicles)
AT is Anti-Tank fire that affects armoured vehicles. (and LV - light vehicles)
AV is short for Armoured Vehicle.
I apologise for stateing the obvious.
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tastyfish
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:23 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 120
|
|
Was speaking of Red Devils 75cm 4+AP Devilfish, its just unfortunate that the devilfish does have a 4+ AP already without taking missiles into account - I can see the point he was making, its just if people are already thinking it seems complicated when worded out having a few significant typos isn't going to help (especially in a debate that is essnetially about the power of Tau tanks in a way)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Soulless1
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:56 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:46 pm
Posts: 14
Location: Leicester, UK (termtime). South Essex, UK (holidays).
|
This all seems needlessly wordy and complicated (read: my eyes glazed over at the top of this page  ).
With the current GM rules we have a 75cm shot which is limited by a 30cm radius around marker units. This is simple and effective and pretty true to the fluff, except for the missiles being shot as part of the vehicles' activation.
Well then, why not make it exactly the same, but linked to the markerlight-wielder's activation instead? Nothing else need be changed.
When using markerlights, simply have this rule:
-A unit with markerlights that is within 30cm and LOS of an enemy formation and carries out a shooting attack on it, may nominate one guided-missile-carrying formation within 75cm of the target (it must not have marched or be broken) which can include its own formation.
-This formation will immediately fire its guided missiles at the target, but they will count as being part of the markerlighting formation's own shooting attacks in all respects and must be targetted at those stands inside markerlight range.
-The missile-carrying formation does not use up its activation for the turn and is completely unaffected, though each formation may only fire its guided missiles once per turn.
Pretty simple IMHO. 
That way, the seekers etc are still limited by the number of vehicles, and are still dependent on the vehicles' type and number of GM's, but the shots are fired as part of the markerlighting formation's activation. Flak attacks could be made the same way: They would technically be made by the formation with the markerlights (which could of course include the skyray itself) and then the seeker missiles would be called as above.
Personally I'm in favour of getting rid of the firing unguided option as it is unneccessary and doesn't follow the fluff, but you could keep it in if you want as part of the carrying-unit's attacks (remember GM only be fired once per turn though, whether guided or not!).
Thoughts/criticisms? Its probably not perfect but I'm sure it can be tweaked. 
PS: For those fans of markerlights doing more than just calling seekers, we could add the option of (instead of calling seekers) nominating one formation (NOT including the markerlighting one) to get +1 to hit against the markerlit targets in their next shooting attack. I'm not particularly bothered about that, but the possibility is there if you want to discuss.
_________________
'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 Nov 30, 2005 4:06 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:14 pm
Posts: 390
|
|
The result would be that, yes, Firewarriors would get an AT attack. |
That's the bit that is provking the knee jerk reaction. As has been explanied several times this is how it used to be and it was changed because it didn't fell right. I know that I am not alone in fielding a force that is mounted in Orcas so, regardless of in who's activation the missiles were fired, giving these Firewarriors a missile based attack would not be reasonable in terms of fluff as I don't have any missile carrying unts on table.
Orde
_________________ "I'm smelling a whole lot of 'if' coming off this plan." Tau Army List Archive
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tastyfish
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:07 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 120
|
|
I like the idea, though it does have more effects than just the feel. Mainly you really need an equal amount of markerlight and seeker carrying units to stay efficient. Its going to certainly make the armoured cadre a less popular choice and give infantry a more meaningful role. As to whether unguided stays or goes I'm not sure - on one hand it helps reduce book keeping (so you don't need to know which units have fired seekers with their own firepower and which have fire with ML), on the other it does further stress the importance of equal ML:Seekers.
Also, perhaps if we did this, perhaps Skyray seekers can be activated as many times as there are ML units to call on them? Combined with guided only seekers will help sort out the balance between infantry and vehicles.
Were we to go this way I would be tempted to give Crisis suits markerlights seeing as other than tetras and heavy gun drones, other markerlight carrying units have their own seekers to fire as well. Fits with the updated codex too.
so...
-A unit with markerlights that is within 30cm and LOS of an enemy formation and carries out a shooting attack on it, may nominate one guided-missile-carrying formation within 75cm of the target (it must not have marched or be broken) which can include its own formation.
-This formation will immediately fire its guided missiles at the target, but they will count as being part of the markerlighting formation's own shooting attacks in all respects and must be targetted at those stands inside markerlight range
-The missile-carrying formation does not use up its activation for the turn and is completely unaffected, though each formation may only fire its guided missiles once per turn, with the exception of Skyrays
-Seekers can not be used unguided
-Crisis suits have Markerlights?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Nerroth
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:28 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Canada
|
|
And the handy thing about the current rule system is that if you run out of vehicles with missiles on them, you can't fire any missiles no matter how many targets you have lined up.
Every missile we have is neatly tied to a vehicle, War Engine or spacecraft carrying them. The limit of missiles we can fire is already represented by the fact that it is the vehicles - not the FWs directly - who launch the missiles in their activation.
In short, my vote (if we're counting them) is to keep the Markerlight rule as is - with the possible exception of keeping the +1 for shots marked by Tetras and Pathfinder stands only - to represent the Pathfinders' skill and numbers in using them.
Gary
_________________  Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers v7.3 pdfHuman armed forces for the greater good.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tastyfish
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:56 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 120
|
|
Its mainly because the Skyray appears to be moving into more of a main battle role (again in 40K) and whilst other vehicles will be limited to 2 missiles each, they have 6 - and probably the chance to reload them in epic unlike 40K. I could see it just been given one guided missile if this was the case though.
Its also a game thing that would make the sky ray more of an option in an army with decent flyers and flak on the hammerheads. Also means that more heavily infantry based armies don't suffer much more from a lack of AT than other armies.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:30 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
RedDevil,
OK, thank you.
Although your AP, AV, and AT references confused me at first, I think I have it now. I believe I fully appreciate your plight in regards to markerlights as presently defined in E:A Tau lists.
Before I begin, this is my understanding:
Your motive/premis for your suggestion:
1) Markerlights should work more like they do in 40K
2) Seeker Missles should work more like they do in 40K
Your suggestion:
1) GM rules remain unchanged
2) Seeker Missle weapon is no longer a weapon
3) Seeker Missle weapon itself is removed from all vehicle entries
4) Seeker Missile effects become part of markerlight
5) Seeker Missile effects no longer receive GM bonus
Effects of your suggestion:
1) All units currently with Seeker lose it,
a. thus the units are reduced if effectiveness against infantry targets
b. Some units are reduced in effectiveness at placing blast markers at 75cm.
2) All units with Markerlights gain an AT6+ shot at 30cm that at best will go to AT5+
3) An opportunity now exists for units that lost Seeker Missle to have another weapon system added to those units as needed/deemed necessary.
So do I have it correct RedDevil? Assuming I do have it correct, I don't agree with the premis or solution.
The premis assumes the solution will make markerlights work more like they traditionally do in 40K.
There are two problems IMHO.
1) the suggestion doesn't make them work like they do in 40K
a. 40K markers are weapons fired with a Ballistic Skill
- in E:A, they are not
- nor are they in the proposed
b. 40K marks increase the hit probability from 4+ to 2+ on a D6
- in E:A, they do not, they mark yields +1 chance
- the proposed does not 'fix' that either.
c. 40K weapons, any Tau 40K weapon, may use a marked target to improve a single weapons chances to hit - not just Seeker Missles.
- in E:A, they only work for GM, not all weapons
- the proposed doesn't fix that either.
d. There are even more abilities such as no cover saves and the fact that a markerlight is a heavy weapon in 40K, but I'll not drone on. A. B. and C. are the important points right now.
2) the way the work in 40K is changing very soon.
a. Markerlights will still do the above in the new 40K codex presumably, but we don't know for sure.
b. Markerlights will also instill modifiers to rally attempts to enemy units, or at least that's rumored
c. Markerlights may even have further uses in the new codex
So in either case, the proposed does not make E:A Markerlights work like they do in 40K currently. It doesn't appear to make them work like they will by the end of 1st Quarter 2006 either though.
On to the second part of your premis as I understand it, Seeker Missles are guided from a vehicle and not fired from the vehicle in 40K.
Their are exceptions of course. The tigershark and the Skyray (and Manta if I'm not mistaken) are examples of such exceptions. When equipped with NETWORK MARKER LIGHTS in 40K as the aforementioned 2-3 vehicles are (again, in 40K) they may guide their own seeker missles to to a target. They do not need to rely on another unit firing their weapon systems for them. That said, other units in 40K may still fire the Seeker Missles on these network marker light equipped vehicles - so they get the best of both worlds. Furthermore, in the case of the Skyray, it can actually fire 2 shots per turn, not just one in 40K and it can fire at two different targets with its network marker lights.
The proposal does work to simulate the guided nature of the Seeker Missle in 40K. I will give you that one RedDevil. However, that is only one of many abilities of the markerlight in 40K as I've noted above.
I do like the idea of the FW receiving an AT shot and if the best it can get is 5+ on sustained at 30cm, I don't think there's much harm in that. I think it would encourage their use, and I think more people would consider them in their list. That suggestion alone is worth considering. I see this as a completely seperate topic from Seekers being GM or not in E:A though.
The Guided Munitions rule in E:A Tau works on Seekers just as it does Hunters and Tracers for a reason. In E:A, the activation simulates roughly a 10 minute window. Its not the fast paced 'live action' a 40K turn is representing.
So in that 10 minutes, the FW unit marks the target and calls in the shot from the vehicle in question, and the vehicle in question also fires away at the target in question with his other munitions - if he has them. This is very plausible.
Regards to the unmarked firing, this is easily justifiable as well. A rogue FW, pathfinder, stealth suit or heavy gun drone in the field marks an enemy target at some point and time during that 10 minute window of opportunity, but then subsequently goes to ground, runs off the field, drops his gun, has an itch, needs to releive himself, dies, or is otherwise disposed prior to being able to maintain a mark for the firing formation to fully benefit from the marked target... therefore, the target was fired upon, but simply wasn't guided very well to the target. Alternatively, the pilot on board the devilfish just taken over by the spirit of Aun Clint Ea'st'wood and "Was Feeling Lucky" so he tried to take out that enemy "punk" hiding in the woods. in an all out war, if I had a warhead on my vessile and had a target in my sites - I very well may want to take him down if nobody was calling coordinates in - but I thought I had a shot and the situation was desperate in nature. Whatever... the point is, an unguided shot is not out of question.
Now, regarding the impact to the list. I think this is huge. You are talking about first giving an AT shot to 4 infantry formations due to their markerlights. Those are:
FW
PF
Stealths
Heavy Gun Drones
So all four infantry formations receive an untested uptick in power by your proposition. That alone should be tested before implimented.
Now, you're also talking about adding a 30cm AT shot to 1 LV formation and 3 AV formations due to their markerlights. However, only one of these are an uptick, the other three are downticks. I'll explain in a second. Those vehicles with markerlights that are affected by your proposition are:
Tetra (LV)
Skyray
Stingray
Scorpionfish/Narwhal(AV).
Of the 4 vehicles you are affecting right here (that have markers) you are upticking the Tetra because it didn't have a seeker missle before and you are now giving it an AT6+ shot 30cm shot that it currently doesn't have. You are downticking the three AVs as they would go from (75cm AT6+ GM), to (30cm AT6+ with no GM) as they had markerlights but also had seeker missles before the proposition.
You are also downticking 6 other vehicle units that have seekers but do not have markerlights. Your proposal suggests removing their 75cm Seeker Missle shot all together (as they have no marker lights to replace them). Those that you are downticking by simply removing their 75cm At6+ GM shot are:
Piranha
Devilfish
Rail-Hammerhead
Ion-Hammerhead
swordfish
Dragonfish
Then there's also the question of whether or not the Barracuda and Orca would be impacted with their "Aircraft Seeker Missles."
So the net impact to the list with your suggestion is 5 units receive an uptick in AT potential (4 infantry 1 vehicle) and 9 units receive a downtick in At potential (9 vehicles).
In a list that has had trouble with AT potential up until the very recent past, I think your proposition would potentially hinder the list as a whole without a recomended weapon repalcement for each vehicle. In addition, I think there is a possibility of this suggetion to make 'guided' a very disjointed concept in the Tau list - between 'built in markerlight guided seekers' and 'Guided Munition' for all other non-seeker missiles such as 'Hunter Missiles, Aircraft Seeker Missiles and Tracers Missiles."
Furthermore, I think the requested/proposed change is significant enough that it would cause the need for several units to be 'touched' and thus put us back in playtesting by a noticable amount.
Finally, the logic of 'removing seekers' from the stat line of many vehicles that really do have them in itself seems a bit wrong to me.
Now - all this said, I would like to go back to the point you made about units carrying marker lights losing their 'direct' ability to cause damage to vehicle targets when converted from 40K to E:A.
I think this particular statement probably has merit worth exploring. I tend to agree with this sentiment.
I don't know if others even have the same feelings on this topic... but *if* others had a similar feeling, I think we could explore something like giving certain markerlight wielding units a single additional weapon that resembled them calling in a generic missle and avoid messing with any other weapon systems or established units or GM rules in the list.
Again - this is all hypothetical, and not a suggestion - just a 'what if' scenerio to satisfy the disjointed feeling you mentioned having - I would think we *could* award an additional weapon profile *only* to units that don't already have on-board Seeker Missiles as part of their weapon profile. So for the following units, they would gain a weapon profile something like:
fancy name 30cm AT6+
Firewarriors
Pathfinders
Stealth
Heavy Gun Drones
Tetra
That's it.
Of course, this would cause a revisit of points and cause playtest all over again for each unit. I don't see how you are going to avoid that *IF* the masses see fit to have markerlight wielding units have the ability to have an AT weapon.
OK - that was long... just trying to give this issue proper attention gents,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tastyfish
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:51 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 120
|
|
Its hard to abuse I think, taking advantage of cheap ML units just for the one AT6+ shot the multiuse Skyray can provide isn't a cost effective way of getting AT fire. Even if Skyrays were given a contingent (small, 2 or 3) it would still not be a particular good source of AT, especially given the short range for the ML unit. Its just to make up a little for the new difficulty of either having to pair units up (ML and seeker) both in the army roster and the battlefield.
It seems a lot closer in power to the current system than giving ML units a 6+AT, which wierds things up across the board
[Edit] I have realised another possible difference between this and the other system, having the seekers fired from the Firewarriors rather than the tanks does mean that the same amount of AT fire from an existing hammerhead contingent/cadre will produce an extra blast marker due to the seekers counting as coming from the ML unit. Its not a huge thing, but could certainly be a potential for some abuse if the Sky ray was altered in the way I suggested and lots of small ML carrying units taken. It would be dangerous to the tanks, but would cause a lot of supression.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
RedDevil
|
Post subject: Everything Markerlights Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:53 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:58 pm
Posts: 112
|
|
Your suggestion:
1) GM rules remain unchanged
2) Seeker Missle weapon is no longer a weapon
3) Seeker Missle weapon itself is removed from all vehicle entries
4) Seeker Missile effects become part of markerlight
5) Seeker Missile effects no longer receive GM bonus |
Bingo
Effects of your suggestion:
1) All units currently with Seeker lose it,
a. thus the units are reduced if effectiveness against infantry targets
b. Some units are reduced in effectiveness at placing blast markers at 75cm.
2) All units with Markerlights gain an AT6+ shot at 30cm that at best will go to AT5+
3) An opportunity now exists for units that lost Seeker Missle to have another weapon system added to those units as needed/deemed necessary. |
1) a. You mean Vehicles I think. Devilfish have no place having a 75cm AT shot to begin with. Hammerheads are already being hinted at needing either a points adjustment, or a nurf. This would be a nurf to them, but allows for the "upgrade" vehicles to be upgunned to better round them out. More on that below.
2) Incorrect. It uses the IG autocannon mechanic. Markerlight stands devided by 2 (rounded up) gives you the number of AT6+ shots. The rest is correct.
Note: I recommended that Pathfinder stands
each get an AT attack due to their specialized nature.
There are two problems IMHO.
1) the suggestion doesn't make them work like they do in 40K
a. 40K markers are weapons fired with a Ballistic Skill
- in E:A, they are not
- nor are they in the proposed
b. 40K marks increase the hit probability from 4+ to 2+ on a D6
- in E:A, they do not, they mark yields +1 chance
- the proposed does not 'fix' that either.
c. 40K weapons, any Tau 40K weapon, may use a marked target to improve a single weapons chances to hit - not just Seeker Missles.
- in E:A, they only work for GM, not all weapons
- the proposed doesn't fix that either.
1)a. Irrelevant. Nothing in Epic uses a ballistic skill. It's about likelihood of scoring a kill over 10mins. If a Tactical Marines missile launcher can do this on a 6+ while on the move, then so can a single FW with Markerlight.
b. The GM mechanic models this, and it is unchanged by my proposal. I change how seekers work, not Markerlights. Seekers can't be fired without a Markerlight hit, so they never benefit from the increase anyways, it is part of their overall chance to hit. See 1)a. for how this is modeled.
c. One thing at a time. Once we fix Seekers, I hope to figure that out.
On to the second part of your premis as I understand it, Seeker Missles are guided from a vehicle and not fired from the vehicle in 40K.
Their are exceptions of course. The tigershark and the Skyray....This is already covered in my proposal. Skyray's have a Markerlight (1 devided by 2 rounded up is 1xAT6+ @30cm), and get this Seeker shot as a result. Infact this point of yours makes the proposal even more accurate as the "self marked" shot is limited to 30cm, as it should be, by the range of its own NETWORK MARKER LIGHTS.
So in that 10 minutes, the FW unit marks the target and calls in the shot from the vehicle in question, and the vehicle in question also fires away at the target in question with his other munitions - if he has them. This is very plausible.Yes this is plausible, but does not show the feel of the tanks pounding on another target, while their Seekers self launch and attack something else across the battle field, called in by the FW/PF. This is the "feel" that I am talking about that is missing: Seekers doing something else independently from whatever the tank is concerned with. The crew should never have to think about the Seekers, they are not their concern. The railgun, and point defense systems are their concern. If infantry are calling in Seekers with their markerlights at the same target the tanks are firing at, all the better. Combined arms in action.
Regards to the unmarked firing, this is easily justifiable as well. This is a good thing, and helps my case. If unguided shots can be this easily justified, then having seekers around the battlefield that are
also not stuck to vehicle can also be easily justified, see my skit for possible sources of Seekers other than vehicles. This abstracts out the ammo issue of Seekers, it is suffice enough to say that Seekers are common enough in a Tau army that ammo is of no concern, just like it is for all other weapons (besides Single Shot). The newer GM's are a different story though, as they are an Epic creation, and are only found on specific vehicles. Let us no longer use either argument as they cancel out.
Now, regarding the impact to the list. I think this is huge. You are talking about first giving an AT shot to 4 infantry formations due to their markerlights. Those are:
FW
PF
Stealths
Heavy Gun Drones
-FW's with Transports already have 4xAT6+ @ 75 cm no LOS shots than can go up to AT4+. This is NOT an uptick, as they would drop to 4xAT6+ @ 30cm shots LOS required. This is a downtick.
-PF trade in 1xAT6+ @ 75cm shots (from the transport) for 2xAT @ 30cm shots that need LOS (Each pathfinder gets an AT shot rather than 1/2, due to their specialized nature). Even, to a Downtick I would say.
-Stealths: Giveing them 1xAT6+ @30cm (per two stands) along with teleport is just what these need for people to take them. Now they can actually law down potentially more than 1 BM when teleporting in on enemy Artillary.
-Heavy Gun Drones get upticked.
LV effects.Adding Seeker attack to vehicles with Marker Lights only "upticks" one formation: Tetras. They would now get 1xAT attack per two stands. The AP on these could already be considered too high, reduce that down to AP6+ and call it even.
-Piranha's shouldn't have a 75cm AT6+ no LOS attack to begin with. That makes them a broken unit as far as their role of close support is supposed to be. Loses the Seeker attack, Good riddance.
AV effects.-Devilfish - loses 75cm AT no LOS attack. Good riddance.
-Hammerhead - Looses same attack. Already there are some rumblings about this unit being undercosted. No arguements about this now. Drop to 350pts.
-Swordfish -Loses same attack. Already a wierd design like others have mentioned. More longer range power, and more shorter range power. Conflicted. Without completely redesigning this though, give it "RA" and "Leader" and call it even.
-Skyray - Seeker drops to 30cm. Most people don't want to take this unit over an IonHead anyways, as currently every tank has a Seeker anyways. Perhaps the Epic version should get a Tracer shot to make the +75pts worthwhile.
-Stingray - Seeker drops to 30cm. Makes it a more dedicated AP vehicle like it always was meant to be. No need to bump up points like has been hinted at.
-Narwhal - Most people don't really know why they would take this either when you could get a Moray for little more. Give it another Tracer shot, fix the Hunter so that it doesn't have an AT attack anymore, and call it even.
-Dragonfish - has a Seeker plus other GM's but no Markerlight anyways. Already a conflicted design because of this. This vehicle design is likely to change in the future. Let's worry about the balance this has when we start to make it's stats final.
Aircraft"Aircraft Seeker Missiles"?? What are those. Give these a different name, since they aren?t acting like Seekers anyways. Aircraft Seeker Missiles always seamed like a stopgap till they got their own name anyways. Call them "Maverick's" in homage to Top Gun
