This is absolutely my opinion. Losing the unguided mode allows the Tau to remain a gunline, but a more interesting one to play with and against. They keep their long ranged death (hell, I'd probably increase the range of GMs), but need closer support units to make use of it.

That's how they work in the background, that's how they should work in Epic.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

That's how they work in the 40K background, that's how they should work in Epic.

_________________
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.

ML units are too easily destroyed to be depended on solely.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Actually, from all the reading I've done recently, GM's are a cornerstone of Tau tactics. They are used in just about every type of battle and are quite devastating.

With that in mind, (I had another idea whilst on the toilet...    gotta love Crohn's Disease   ) what about the following idea if GM's can only target lit formations.

Give all Seeker Missiles Lance (or even MW) in their stat line.
I don't fully understand the 40K stats but it seems to me that Seeker missiles are not far off from being quite powerful. If GM's become totally dependant on fragile formations to be used, why not make GM's worth taking, even if you only get 1 or 2 rounds of shooting with them?

Again just an idea to meet half way...

Can't a laser guided bomb still be dropped unguided? Is there some built in mechanism that stops the pilot from pressing the trigger? It may not be as acurate but it will still make a big hole where it lands. That sounds just like the current GM rules...  

_________________
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.

Seeker Missiles have the same stats as a Krak-Missile from an imperial MissileLauncher (Strength 8, ArmourPiercing 3). So AT6+ would be the devault to-hit value. But they hit the target on a 2+ (insteasd of 3+ from SpaceMarines or 4+ from an ImperialGuardsman) so AT5+ is ok.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

That's how they work in the 40K background,that's how they should work in Epic.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Quote slightly edited by me.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

I really must get round to finishing my post!

But on this -
If you want long range sniping/damage and short range devestation. It is very simple. You do not need to alter the current GM mechanics (though I do like the ml only idea).
You simply need to have only AT GM's and the majority of at least AP (and preferably MW and TK) as short range. So you take down the transports, damage the tanks - thats your long range game of manouver using skimmer, gm's, ML units and direct fire weapons like railcannon - then engage at close range to handle the infantry and pile into the disrupted formations, all with your ml units and infantry and short range units.

If you keep the variaty of GM's then you are looking for stuff like no firing without ML's, as I've always felt you can use gm's to make other units redundant.

_________________
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

TRC - That makes a lot of sense to me.

Believe it or not, I actually really like the No GM fire without ML idea aswell but I do not believe it is playable.

LitS earlier comment about only losing about 1/3 of your firepower by losing GM's is very important to me. 1/3 is a huge percentage to lose if the ML units are broken/destroyed.

I'm sure there are other examples of where the fluff has had to give way to playability (eg. Thunderbolts not having Lascannons - I've read Double Eagle) and I believe this is one of those times.

_________________
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.

It is very playable - my group has been playtesting it for at least a year. It's not even a nerf if you increase the range of GMs in the process.

You'll almost never not be able to fire due to ML units being destroyed/broken, because most GM vehicles will have a markerlight. Admittedly it'd be pretty risky...

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Has anyone followed up Dobbsy's idea of letting the ML formation fire the long range GMs using Tau co-ordinated fire principles?

As for the fragility of ML formations, this is overcome either by using the above idea (so the ML formation doubles and shoots using the distant fire formations as well) or by retaining (so the ML formation doubles and the Tau retain with the distant fire formations). Either way, the ML / GM capability is used, though it is true that it may only be a one-off.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

though it is true that it may only be a one-off.

_________________
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.

That 1/3 was a rough guess off the top of my head.

A Hammerhead loses about that much without GMs (AT3+ and AT5+).  Sky/Stingrays obviously drop to 30cm.  Devilfish and Piranhas lose ALL their long-range fire.  Scorpionfish loses it's missile battery (and basically becomes a point sink or your SC transport).

This gets ugly when you talk about Air support, since 'Cudas don't have markerlights in the fluff, and neither do Tigersharks.  The AX10 can mark it's own targets, however.  I would add MLs to both the Tigershark and the AX10, but the 'Cudas can do without.  This helps push the 'Cudas to a more air superiority mission and gets the Tigersharks pounding the ground (at 30cm ranges, making placement risky unless there's MLs close, in which case you could hit that target with 'Cudas or anything else).

The Scorpionfish should lose the Hunter missile shots in trade for the Orca's twin-linked Burst cannon (15cm AP4+/AA6+) and a markerlight.

Orca could lose the Seekers entirely.

Moray doesn't need a ML if the rest of the weapons stay long-ranged, but could use one if the weapons range is reduced to 45cm.

Changes to the Manta will depend on whether it's a Support Craft or a Bomber.

=====

I don't get it, Onyx.  You're railing against the gunline army design for Tau, but you're also against changes that build vulnerabilities into that gunline?  GMs were the *opening* of most Tau engagements on Taros, not the entirety of the attack.

TRC does make a point:  The AP and MW GMs are things we created to fill gaps in the list... (I think I proposed both of them, at different times)  Removing them would remove all but one MW from the Tau (Crisis fusion guns), and I don't think that's a good idea.  APGMs are harder.  A FW+PF cadre can chew up a unit of Orks, but need to be close to do it.  Right now, IG artillery can break units with barrages, although it's a slim chance.  Tau have no real capacity to do so at range without the APGMs...

While these changes would probably require some repointing, let me show you what I'd generally take:

300 - Battlesuit+Commander
250 - Battlesuit
600 - AMHC+Hamerheads+Skyray+networked drones
400 - Fire Warrior+DFish+PF
400 - Fire Warrior+DFish+PF
300 - Stingray+Skyray
225 - AX10
175 - Tetras
175 - Tetras
175 - Tetras

3000 points.  3 really fragile formations (4-5 units),  fragile formations (6 LVs), and 3 really beefy units (6 or 15 units).  Low on air support, though it has good AA coverage.  It's also dependent on activating first to deal with Reaver titans or paired Warhounds.  So, how many units do I have to lose before I lose GM capability?  All three Tetra formations, the pathfinders, Skyrays, and Stingrays (although if I'm down to the stingrays, I have made a grievous tactical error)

For a more GM-spam list:
350 - Scorpfish SC
250 - Battlesuit (because it's not Tau without crisis suits!)
600 - AMHC+Hammerheads+Skyray+networked drones
400 - Fire Warrior+DFish+PF
300 - Stingray+Skyray
175 - Tetras
175 - Tetras
225 - AX10
225 - AX10
300 - Tiger Sharks (2)
3000 points again.  Lots more air support, but less activations on the ground (7 activations this time, 9 last time). This list has a lot fewer redundancies than I like, as a lot of your ML coverage is based on doubling the Tetras forward and co-firing to smash whatever unit needs to die.  On the other hand, Titans would NOT like this list.  Even the Stingrays or FW could lay some smack onto a damaged Titan, and the TS/AX10 combo will make even Reavers unhappy.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

So in order to get to the situation where GMs couldn't fire, you'd need to have basically lost the game anyway.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Brainstorm

On the issue of fragility with ML units, could we give FWs back MLs to compensate for other ML unit losses during a game? They're "reasonably" solid due to numbers and will be in the fight most often than not. The more ML coverage in standard unit types will still force those units into harms way but there'll be more of them to balance that up...

If people think PFs wont be taken why not make them snipers w/ MLs? Both formations have a role then. Give them I dunno ... long range(45cm?) disrupt sniper drones in their weapon stat line - it's an abstract way of incorporating Sniper drones too. Sniper would make PFs a little more "pin point" firepower/"ambushy" in my mind - laying BMs to hamper enemy formations command and control. The long range weapon stat could be because the drones range out across the battlefield.