Guys, we still seem to be debating this despite Honda's earlier hint. Is this absolutely necessary at the moment?

Although I apreciate the very valid points expressed on both sides of this debate, we know that GMs will stay because they provide part of the flavour of the Tau list. Equally we know that being restricted to Markerlit targets should tone them down quite a bit and will produce a very different game.

Please can we try the restricted GMs first and see if they still cause problems.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Thanks Vytzka.

That is an interesting read.  My French is poor, but I got the basics of the changes they made.  Some of it was good stuff and pretty creative, others, well not so much.

It is based on the 4.4.2 list from here as well as taking some ideas from Chroma;s list.  I might have to give it a try if I find time for a game before the next list comes out here.

Personally I like their GM solution. Pretty tough AT fire at (4+) a pretty range (75cm) but only if lit up. And the lighting units are something more restricted if I remember 4.4.2 right. The only two sentences the meaning I didn´t undferstand where this two: Maybe someone could help me out?

-faire feu avec une arme guidée
-relancer un tir raté (pas pour une arme guidé)



The Aircraft solution is not that good but we discussed about this in another thread. And the much, much much overpowered Skyray. (there are some warengines that have lesser armament than this monster)

My french is non existant but the words are easy to understand because german and french are not that different in meanings. But don´t ask me the exact grammar  

RS

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

That took me a bit to figure out, but I think I get it now.

Units are not auto Marked in the french list.  When a ML unit fires, it can mark a unit within 30cm.  (Pathfinders have the ability to mark 2 units).  It looks like you would place a "Marked" marker on the unit or something.

Later when another formation fires at the unit, it can use a marker to either fire a GM (the first line you asked about) or re-roll a missed attack (the second line).

At least I am pretty sure that is how it works.

I guess they wanted to emulate that a ML can provide targeting info to more than just GMs.  It's a cool idea, but might be odd in practice.  It notes that any extra Markerlight 'marks' are lost at the end of the turn.   It would certainly add another layer in Tau tactics as you would have to pay attention to the order that you fired your units.

Now I like this idea even more....

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

So basically it's an almost exact copy of the 40k mechanic, minus the instant GM fire?

Too fiddly. Firing MLs as a weapon and keeping track of which units are MLed will just slow the game down.

At the scale we're talking about, just being within 30cm of a markerlight is definately enough to justify counting as marked. We don't need to roll to hit for every single markerlight.

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

There is no roll to hit to get marked. You simply say which unit is marked. Then you can reroll one missed hit per marker on this unit or fire an formations GM on them. (if I understood right)

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

I proposed something similar a while ago.
I didn't proposed a to-hit rollfor Markerlights, but each Markerlight would give a "token" to a formation within 30cm. Each token could be "used up" to fire a Guided Missile or to improve one to-hit roll. After atokenis used it is removed from the formation. Unused tokens are lost after the turn.

EDIT: Here is my first draft i made some while ago, which i agree is too cmplex

*Markerlights can be fired under the same circumstances as any other shooting attack (eg broken and marching formations can’t use the Markerlight) but before any shooting takes play.
A formation with at least one unit in range and line of sight of a unit with Markerlights is considered to be marked.
Each Markerlight can be used up to bestow ONE of the following abilities to ONE friendly unit (regardless if this unit is from the same formation which uses the Markerlight or another formation)against the targeted enemy formation. Multiple Markerlights can be stacked so putting a marker on the enemy formation for each Markerlight is recommended:
- add Ignore Cover to one shooting attack from a fiendly unit.
- add Disrupt to one shooting attack from a friendly unit.
- fire a Seeker Missile from a fiendly unit.
- improve one to hit roll by +1 for a shooting attack from a friendly unit.
Markerlight markers remain on the enemy formation until used up or if the targeted formation moves out of range of ALL Markerlights (including those of other formations). In the end phase all remainiung Markerlight markers are removed.

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

If it's done per formation and not per-unit (which might or might not be the way the French are doing it) then it's actually less fiddly than now. As far as I understand it, right now if you want to fire GMs on a formation, you have to measure ranges from it to ML units to see if it's marked.

With the simplest version of this system (AFAICT F-ERC system is more complex than that) there is no such extra measuring.

1) Everytime a ML carrying formation fires upon an enemy formation, along with normal firing effects and blast markers a Markerlight token is placed on the target formation.

2) Another Tau formation (or multiple formations with Coord Fire) firing on an enemy formation that has any Markerlight markers can elect to either shoot it's Guided Missiles (declare before firing) and/or reroll all misses (declared after rolling to hit). Both effects might or might not be allowed, I don't see much reason why not, though "double dipping" on GMs could be forbidden. For each effect a Markerlight is removed from the target formation.

3) At the end of the game turn all leftover Markerlights are removed, or perhaps kept.

Fiddliness increases minimally if it doesn't actually even decrease, as markerlit units are immediately visually identifiable. It also allows placing more cool looking markers on the table during gameplay (I'm a sucker for cool toys for my wargames) and at least for me presents a nice "game" aspect. Now I won't deny that it is a lot more restrictive on the Tau player. So I'm mainly just throwing it out as something to think about.

I *REALLY* like the sounds of this.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

I think this hits the purpose of markerlights..... and I like the token idea really...also the two proposed effects.

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

Ya know, I had not considered that implication either, but I like that as well.

Although, an enemy formation could be marked, then march 90cms away and still be marked....hmmmm.....not as sure about that.

That is a good point. I could imagine it either way - marking could mean (correct me, o Tau fluff hounds as I'm a tad clueless about that) uploading some kind of signature for a target vehicle or unit, that could allow it to be tracked over short distances.

Or you could make this part of the game and allow units to "shake off" markerlights by adding

"A unit performing a March action loses all markerlights". Or alternatively "A unit loses one markerlight marker for every Move action it performs" though that's a bit more gamey and fiddly.

I see two possibilites:

-An unit stays marked if it has already taken his action.
-If the unit moves out of the 30cm range of the markers it shrugs off the marking. (if you retreat when marked it´s really normal thar you shrug off the marking if the enemy doesn´t follw you)

So you have to plan a bit. 1st You can mark a unit and activate the shooting in a sustained action to ensure maximum damage. 2nd you mark units alrady activated. So marking would be a tactical option which has to be planned and is not an I-WIN Button.

Soren

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy