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.  

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?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

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.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

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.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Sorry Hena (I really don't like confrontation     ), 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.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

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.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

So in essence Onyz you found that gm's weren't worth it before the current turrets were added?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Markerlight and "support Craft" are effectively the elements that form "Indirect fire" - allowing long-range shooting passed cover with a boost provided you sustain.

I don't see it making things particularly more streamlined than currently. Would it not also affect the costing of GM armed units?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

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. .

Never was a truer word spoken!      

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.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.