Markerlights should not be a mainstay of the army.

As for the assault thing its always been there with the Tau - whether they get to be great short range shooters or great FF's. As FF is the best form of assault typically having the Tau looking to constantly engage seemed to be contrary to there fluff which preferred longer range cleaner engagements.

_________________
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

This argument again.

All the fluff points to Tau Fire Warriors being armed with some of the best small arms in the 40k universe, they are intended to fight decisive Firefights to crack the enemy infantry, with Hammerheads, Crisis, etc eliminating tanks from afar, and otherwise supporting the Fire Warriors at diatance.

All their fluff talks of sending a hail of high powered pulse rifles at the closing enemy, breaking their assault then relocating rapidly using Devilfish transports.

This mythical decree from upon high that Tau should suck at the most important action of the game means Fire Warriors are left with no role in the army list. They are banned from doing what they are intended to do, and so in ever more desperate attempts to compensate they require more and more extra special rules, extra Firepower shots, extra abilities (yet another design fault failing KISS).

If Fire Warriors where FF 4, CC 6 in an instant they would have a role (up the pts in necessary), they'd be the centre of a Tau army- every other formation's role would be to set-up Fire Warrior engagements and eliminate threats that would prevent this. Just like in the background.

Just letting you know I fully support this Jeridian, but it's still not going to get any traction here.  

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

I've said the same thing so many times i think it's pretty clear that i agree too.

sooo... out of curiosity, why don't you playtest with it and see what happens? worst case it messes up the balance completely and best case it fixes the problem. Having more data would be good to put the suggestion to rest either way.

_________________
-Vaaish

"Best shooting army in 40K" has always looked like a great FF army in epic to me too.

Many disagree of course.

Remember its not just firewarriors - lots of Tau formations become good/better at FF then. All those 15cm weapons pretty much dissappear as well (anything with range under 24 inches in 40k is typically held to be a FF weapon in Epic).

And of course it works. It is no harder to make an army like that than it is with many other things. But a skimming, charging FF army isn't that different to the rest. It just plays like a cross between guard and marines. The whole idea was for something more different. And with the whole short range firepower and mobility, something which was somewhat more of a challenge to play.

_________________
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

Only if you make them better Chris.

If you make Fire warriors FF4+ how does that make hammerheads better? I must be missing something here.

Stompzilla: I don't see why +1 to shooting at a markerlit target couldn't be applied across the board.

2 of the most frequent complaints (and ones i have mentioned myself on several occassions) are that Hammerheads and Tau in general are not as shooty as advertised

Why not? Seems appropriate for them to be an important part to me and it also helps with the synergy the army should have. Markerlights dual roles are meant to be helping guide friendly fire and launching seeker missiles and in my own W40k Tau army I did a lot more of the former than the latter.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

All those burst cannon, drones with carbines and stuff push up the FF of units. You can't have stuff wondering around with awful FF while the FW conspicuously have a great FF. What about gun drones, crisis teams, battlesuits in general, devilfish and so on? Why only recognise all the short range firepower on FireWarriors?

Or is it that all the rest of the armies units don't know how to use those weapons at firefight ranges (which is their range), while the FW do?

Why not? Seems appropriate for them to be an important part to me and it also helps with the synergy the army should have. Markerlights dual roles are meant to be helping guide friendly fire and launching seeker missiles and in my own W40k Tau army I did a lot more of the former than the latter.

_________________
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

Because they aren't in 40k?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Looking at the list the only 2 units that share a weapon (pulse carbine) are the fire warriors, pathfinders and drones. FW/pathfinder at FF5+ and drones FF6+ so some sort of usability function is factored in the list.

All the other units have different weapon systems at 15cm range.

E&C: The major reason for them staying was Tau players being unwilling to buy Fire Warriors, so they turned the Tau into some sort of tank based army instead. Until recently they had made up Skimming Titans too.

I was under the impression that few used them in 40k, though I've no idea if that was the intention.

That mechanic of having the ML's around to support is interesting. Currently they are used to call in fire rather than support anything close by (with the exception of embedded ML's in formations so they fire their missiles better).

However make them reliant on ML's and surely you have a one dimensional army? I'd like to see at least three styles of playing them, similar to the other lists various builds.

_________________
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