Technically, the unit with the ML is *supposed* to pull the trigger to fire the guided missile, not the vehicle carrying it.  An early version of the Tau list (up to v3.1 or so) had the Markerlights as an AT attack (AT5+, if I remember right).  Weirdly enough, there were also GM attacks on the vehicles.  That was too powerful.  For whatever reason, it was decided to push to the GMs-as-a-vehicle weapon idea, and remove the AT attacks from the infantry (this was in 2003 or so, and I don't remember the reasoning).

Most Tau vehicles don't have a Markerlight installed, so they can't shoot their OWN missiles (Skyray/Stingray, Tetra, AX10, and Manta are the only units that do have MLs).

Every once in a while, someone talks about a HUGE revision to the GM mechanic, like removing ALL GM attacks from vehicles that don't have their own MLs, and turning them into a 'block' of GM attacks that costs some number of points.  I don't know that it's a BAD idea, but it's never seemed to work as well as putting the GMs on vehicles and forcing a closer unit to provide ML support.

=====
No, your ML units let formations with GMs use their GMs as an attack, and do not 'draw' that GM attack themselves.  That formation of Tetras/Pathfinders/Stealth suits does allow a distant formation of Stingrays or hammerheads to act as artillery.  If your 'artillery' needs to be shooting at a different target, then you need to get a Markerlight where you *want* your 'artillery' to shoot.

For example:  your hammerheads are shooting up that LRuss company, and only get to add the GM shots IF there's a ML within 30cm of the LRuss.  The idea is that you have Tetras double around to the backside of the LRuss company, and then you shoot the daylights out of the LRuss using a Co-ordinated Fire.  This forces a very integrated style of play.

I always put Pathfinders in my Fire Warrior formations, bring a couple formations of Tetras, and include a Skyray in my Hammerhead formations.  Every single formation on the ground has a ML unit in it (not all Air Caste units have MLs).

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Hi!
I am new here and only had one 2000 points proxed game, so keep that in mind please...  
But I finally got through the whole 12 pages of comments for 5.0 and had only few glances on a 4ish version in the Handbook 2008.

I am going to play my first 3000 points game today and I plan to make some pictures for a Batrep. But its a list without FW and PF, but some Crisis. I'm not sure, if thats going to work out. Still testing for my purchase list in the end.  Okay, enough introduction...

There was the idea about giving FWs +1 on initiative for initiating an engage. Well, I think in general that seems lika a good idea, but in the end it just comes down to luck and Im pretty unlucky with stuff like that. I dont really see how this makes the situation more ballanced. Yeah, its all about statistics and therefore should be viable, but in the end it absolutely does not help to have beefed up FWs that are doing nothing due to a failed roll. But I guess it just appears to me like that, cause I havent that much experience with the initiative rolls in epic. (First initiative roll ever for me for the AMHC and I failed it... and then my opponent broke them and this most expensive formation couldn't do anything for the remainder of the game...)


As for the ML/GM discussion:
I really like this aspect of play, even if it seems hard to pull of and is possibly easy to prevent for the opponent. But as I see it, you just have to let the opponent pay for attacking your ML units by having some units ready for retaliation. I think it comes down to strategy. And sinergetic attacks are often hard to pull of. In the list for today I only have two squads of Tetras. Considering how squishy they are it seems kinda hard for me to get GM shots off. You'll here about the outcome.

FireWarriors:
I would like to take them, if just for the visual aspect that infantry gives for a game of Epic. In that 2000 point game I had two formations and they didnt do that much in comparison with my other units. But yes, this was one game and I am pretty sure I need a few more. What I want to say, even for me, as an absolutely new player to epic (havent played 40k as well and I hopefully never will...) there is not much appeal to take them.

Well, seems enough for now...  

Welcome to the forums, Assariel!

If you want to make doing a battle report easier, take a look at these "Game Log Sheets" I put together specifically for that purpose!

Looking forward to your efforts.  For the Greater Good!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT. i didnt look close enough to realize that putting one of the units into the others to have  ML in the unit. like i said i saw 5.0 and bought all units . have to look at it closer. i wouldnt have too much gripe now.cool. also is their going to be an upadte we can print out like 5.1 so all changes are in one spot to playtest. i have MOSCOVIAN comming over to play soon. he does a good battle report every time.

Guided missiles were considered too powerful in earlier versions.

For starters, GMs should always be a secondary weapon in the army. They're a support, not the basis of Tau tactics, and if you find yourself unable to win without them that suggests they're overemphasised in the epic Tau list.

Secondly, I've been in favour of ML of FW for a long time, which gives the option for a lot of cheap ML units in large, safe formations, while also carving a role for FW. With MLs on FW there should be no issue with not having enough ML.

Of course Pathfinders would need some changes if that went through.

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

Heh.  And now we have yet another lap around the Tau circle...

When FW had MLs, the complaint was that MLs weren't that common among FW in 40K and it left little role for Pathfinders and that MLs were so ubiquitous that there was no effort involved in GMs.  Then, when MLs were removed from FW, the question became, "why would anyone take FW when Pathfinders did everything the FW, plus more, for the same price?"  So then Pathfinders were given a small price increase.

Now we are circling back to "FW need MLs because otherwise there are so few in the army that GMs cannot be used."

Personally, I tend to agree that the ML options currently available are insufficient.

I just found it ironic that yet another Tau issue has come full circle, like the pulse rifle/carbine weapon stat lines on the FW.

_________________
Neal

The Forgeworld list does this well, but giving Markerlights to Fire Warriors, but enhanced Markerlights to Pathfinders.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Heh.  And now we have yet another lap around the Tau circle...

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Could you elaborate further on why you feel the ML options are insufficient.

Leaving FW without ML but with the uption of "ML upgrades" either as Pathfinders or Stealth seems to provide reasonable balance and flexibility, while leaving distinct roles for each unit and infantry formation (with the possible exception of FW).

Tetras, Skyray and Stingray can be added to some armoured formations, leaving only Scorpionfish and Broadsides without the ability to have ML incorporated in their ground formations (and these provide long-range fire support anyway). Having ML onboard seems inappropriate for Aircraft and the Manta.

My only thought here might be for Gun Drones to have ML to fit in the generalised model for Drones - and that is also moot.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Heh.  And now we have yet another lap around the Tau circle...

Having playtested them with ML for at least a year I must seriously recommend it is at least considered as an option. It works really well, and gives FW a clear role. We have used 45cm ML on Pathfinders to not override their usefulness.

At least give it a try.

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

Please see earlier post. The design changes are frozen.

By saying that, I am not trying to infer that the change doesn't work. It does. What I am saying is that we've been there before, arguments were made to move us away from that position and at this time, for this version, the current capabilities will stand.

If through playtesting, an issue arises that would require a change, then we will deal with at that time.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I'm not speaking about this version, obviously I know that's locked down now, but is there a reason we can't think of ideas for future versions? You've been shutting down every idea lately with "It's not going into this version.". So we can't consider ideas just because they're not going in the current version?

If through playtesting, an issue arises that would require a change, then we will deal with at that time.

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

Let's see here:  How many points do I spend on MLs for my typical 3k list?

1.  100 per FW formation, since I always take PFs.  Since I try to take 2 FW formations (I'd take 4 if I could afford the models!), there's 200 points.
2.  150 per Tetra formation, and I usually take 2, because they're going to get blown away as soon as I use them to call a co-fire.  There's 300 points.
3.  75 per Skyray, and I almost always take 3, so there's 225 points.

I'm spending at least 725 points in MLs, and at least 500 just for MLs and co-fire (let's face it, you need the Skyrays for other things than MLs!).

I could get two or three more attacking formations in the army if I didn't need to pay 100 points per FW formation to get MLs.

However, what would my lists look like if Fire Warriors had Markerlights (and nothing else changed)?  I'd still be buying those Pathfinders, because Co-fire is valuable.  I'd still take 2 Tetra formations.  I'd still take 2-3 Skyrays.  It's not the MLs I'm really buying, it's the Co-fire capability.  Now, if the Fire Warrior Leader upgrade had MLs and Co-fire, then I wouldn't spend 100 points per FW formation, I'd only spend 25-50 (I'm pretty sure a Leader with Co-fire is worth more than 25 points).  That might let me take another small formation, like Stealth Suits or Stingrays.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"