I want to state at the outset that I new to this site, but I am not new to this game, and that I am not interested in reviving the debate over whether or not the targets of seeker missiles are granted cover saves from intervening models or terrain.
This debate can be found here:
http://advancedtautactica.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=10734&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=seeker+cover+save
It ended without a conclusive ruling as far as I can see, though P'Shar's makes a pretty convincing final argument that these cover saves are applicable. Regardless, what was conclusive was that models targeted by seeker missiles are granted cover saves from terrain that they are directly in or touching, or cover effects such as smoke launchers, from having turbo boosted etc, as is clearly stated for our smart missile systems.

So, since seeker missile inflicted wounds can be deflected by cover saves in some instances, my question is thus:
How do markerlight reduced cover saves work in relation to salvos of multiple seeker missiles directed at the same target?
I have looked around and I cannot find any conclusive statements to answer this question, but please forgive me if this has already been discussed somewhere else.

Our conversation has already begun here:
http://advancedtautactica.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11216&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
And the contributions relevant to this question begin about halfway down the first page after Rathstar's suggestion to use Seeker Missiles against Biker Nobz, and then eliminating their dust cloud cover save with markerlights.

A few positions were advanced, and good arguments were made, but we thought it prudent to open it up in its own thread in order to get more input on this question.

The only reference to removing cover saves with ML's for seeker shots that I could find on ATT was by P'Shar's Rifles in the thread about seeker missiles and smart missiles and cover saves:

and this does nothing to clarify which option is correct except to emphasize that it is possible to do.

There are three ways to interpret the situation as far as I have been able to see:

1) Each Seeker, regardless of its provenance or the provenance of the markerlight which requested it is its own independant unit, and thus ML hits used to reduce cover saves must be applied individually for each missile.
This is supported by a number of pieces of evidence.
-The statement in the codex entry: seeker missiles pg 31, where it says: "each is a single shot weapon" and "ordinarily, the vehicle carrying the seeker missiles has no control over them and cannot launch them itself."
-The Markerlight rules on pg 29 state: "To allow a vehicle to fire a single seeker missile at the marked unit."

Here we are emphasizing the single shot nature of the weapon, its independence from the vehicle, and from the markerlight bearer over and above all other details.

2) Seeker salvos are determined by the vehicle firing them. Thus all seekers fired from the same vehicle at the same target, regardless of the provenance of the markerlights, can count as firing from a 'unit' and thus together benefit from one or more ML hits to reduce the cover save of the target unit.
This is supported by a number of pieces of evidence.
-The Markerlight rules on pg 29 state: "To impose a -1 penalty on and cover saves the marked unit may have from the effects of the firing unit's shooting." and expanding on the above reference to include the sentence that proceeds it, "and one or both (SM's) launched in a single turn, each using different markerlight hits. To allow a vehicle to fire a single seeker missile at the marked unit."

Here we are emphasizing the use of 'unit' to indicate the vehicle which is doing the firing, and the 'single seeker missile' is only referring to the limitations of a single markerlight rather than to isolate the SM from the rest of the vehicle's firing.

3) Seeker salvos are determined by the markerlights requesting them. Thus all seekers fired on request of markerlights from a single unit, regardless of the provenance of the seeker missiles themselves, can count as firing from a 'unit' and thus together benefit from one or more ML hits to reduce the cover save of the target unit.
This is supported by a number of pieces of evidence.
-The Markerlight rules on pg 29 state: "To impose a -1 penalty on and cover saves the marked unit may have from the effects of the firing unit's shooting." and "Any model equipped with a Markerlight may request a seeker salvo as detailed in the markerlight rules. ... The Mechanism is remote and responds only to markerlight users."

Here we are emphasizing the use of 'unit' to indicate the markerlight bearing unit, emphasizing the fact that SM's are fired by markerlights only, and these are generally independent from the vehicle carrying the missiles.

As I stated in the other thread, i asked a redshirt and he said that option two would be his ruling, counting all seekers fired by a single vehicle on a single target as part of that 'unit's' firing, and thus benefiting together from ML reduced cover saves. As I said earlier, this is not authoritative, just an opinion.

There are further implications for the order of our firing of seeker missiles, in relation to the firing of the vehicles that carry them, depending on which option we subscribe to. I won't reiterate these at the moment since T'au Doran'ro has set these out well in the previous thread and I'm already feeling like I'm going on too long with this, but they are at the bottom of the page here:
http://advancedtautactica.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11216&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=0

I hope that with contribution we can get some clarification on this. I don't expect a firm ruling since the rules are very vague as far as I can see, but I hope that we can come to a consensus from close reading of the rules so that I know my ground when explaining it to others. I know that it is not a hugely important issue since most vehicles can only carry 2 SM's, and not many people likely bring 2-3 ML units to the field, but for alpha strike lists, or any lists which combine Pfinders and SkyRays it could be something that is regularly encountered.

Thanks

Personally I subscribe to system 1.
Each missile requires it's own ML hits to reduce cover.

Rules aside for a moment, I think this is the wisest interpretation to use as it is 'worst case scenario' so it prepares you tactically for having the most difficult circumstances.
Important if you were writing a list for a tournament where the ruleing may not go they way you expected.
If a ruleing goes a different way, then it's a plesant surprise, rather than a kick in the guts.

When I bring the rules to bear though, I tend to swing with system 2, simply because the statement in the ML box says that the Vehicle itself fires the seeker.
Vehicles being a unit are then technically permitted to have the rest of their shooting benefit from the ML cover reduction too.

So I would say a Skyray for example, could have ML hits reduce cover by 1, then fire off some seekers AND use it's drone based guns, all gaining the benefit of -1 cover save on the target.
Assumes that there is only 1 target unit in question.

Gniknok :
First, thanks for taking this discussion out of the other thread. It helps us by not having to worry about it, it helps the members for making it easier to find, and it keeps everyone happy!

Now, for the actual topic: I, when using Seeker Missiles, am of the firm belief that each missile requires its own set of Markerlight tokens to diminish or negate a target's Cover Save. My support comes from a combination of the Markerlight and Seeker Missile entries, looking only at the rules portions and not the added fluffiness that sometimes don't translate directly to the implementation of the rules.

From this, vehicles that have equipped Seeker Missiles can only fire them off after a successful Markerlight hit. Seeker Missiles, however, are not limited by vehicle firing limits (i.e. they can be fired if a vehicle moved 24 inches), and are treated similar to a separate firing unit, hence the phrase "resolved normally," meaning that the missile needs to hit, wound, etc.

The problem with this, however, is that Seeker Missile fire in itself is not normal; doesn't need Line of Sight, ignores Night Fight and vehicle shooting limitations, etc. To allow Seeker Missile fire to be closer to normal, then, we must treat it as a separate unit that fires once, after the restrictions are met, and then we can take it normally.

Yes, not really ground rules, but I haven't even looked at the Seeker Missile entry yet...

The biggest point here is that the vehicle "has no control over them." You cannot argue that a vehicle and its launched seeker missiles can use the same cover-denying Markerlight tokens if the vehicle itself cannot control the firing of those missiles; the firing of them is resolved by first the Markerlight carrier then the launched missile. Seeker Missiles, as described at various points in the entry, are basically an add-on to the vehicle that operates via a separate source.

As each missile and their parent tank are separate, all two or three (or up to seven) separate entities cannot use the same Markerlights for cover save negation. For the separate missiles, this comes from the "each using different markerlight hits" portion. While this does describe the launching mechanism, it also relates to the "resolved normally" portion of the Markerlight rules (Page 29). Once released from the vehicle, the shooting of each missile is resolved normally, one at a time like everything else in the army. The Markerlight hits for reducing a cover save are removed after a single missile hits, as per the notes at the end of the Markerlight rules.

So, combining all of this together in an example, I score twelve Markerlight hits on a unit in cover. I use two to launch two Seeker Missiles from a nearby Hammerhead, another six (three each missile) to negate the cover save completely for each missile, then the remaining four to raise the Hammerhead's BS and negate the cover save completely for the vehicle's firing. Each of those is done one at a time, so I would completely resolve the first missile's attack, then the second, then the vehicles.

Hope this helps, and if I accidentally misinterpreted any of the rules or misquoted something, just tell me, and I'll fix it right away.

Thanks, Gniknok !

You have done a great job with doing all this searching and writing long and exhaustive OP, and thank you for giving me some credit. Sadly, I was too busy to do it myself, but now I feel it's time for me to take my part in the discussion.

I agree with all of you that 1st system is the most intuitive and natural. I always used to do it this way. I had no need for many seekers or any need for Sky Rays at all, so I haven't notice any problems with that. However, there is something that bothers me now, and it's not only the cover reduction issue. Let's forget about that for now, I think that if we should solve more basic problem, and it could point us in the right direction.

The real problem is the shooting sequence, and how seekers are implemented in it. BRB p.15: "Pick one of your units, check its line of sight and choose a target for it". That it looks in general - you pick a unit and a target, than next unit and next taget and so on. Markerlight entry, TE p. 29 : Counters may be expended by subsequently firing Tau and Vespid units [...] at the "marked" unit. Every counter expended grants the firing unit one of the following effects." But what is that firing unit? Seekers are vehicle upgrade: "fitted to a single vehicle", "single shot weapon", "armed with six turret-mounted seeker missiles". So they are weapon, no hint that they are unit. So who else? "Any model equipped with a markerlight may request [...] as detailed in the markerlight rules". So the model with markelight could the firing unit, but we are directed to markerlight rules. There, under "Every counter [...] grants the firing unit [...] the following effects [...] - To allow a vehicle to fire a single seeker missile at the marked unit." So third option is that the vehicle is the firing unit. As for the wording "single shot weapon" and "a single seeker" I think that it doesn't mean it's a single unit firing, but only that you expend one missile for every shot, and you can only expend one for one counter, nothing more.

"Why to complicate so much?", you ask. Because there is something of abusing the shooting sequence in concept of every seeker being an "independent unit". Seekers are of single use so you would do anything to save as much as you can and not make an overkill. There wouldn't be any moment in the shooting phase that you would be forced to make a decission, to declare how many seekers you want to spend, on which target, and when. Examples: you have marked 2 times a Deamon Prince with his last wound, and you have 'fish with 2 missiles. Reasonalby, you should send two missiles, couse he has 5+, maybe 4+ Inv, but you can lauch one and check if his is still breathing, then send another or save it for the next turn; you have marked each of 3 predator tanks 2 times and have a Sky Ray, so you send first volley of 3 missiles, 1 on every tank and check the result.. etc. You got my point? In seekers description on p. 31 there is a line: "one or both lauched in a single turn". That doesn't say that they are lauched at the same moment, but there is something of decision/declaration. Finally, where is the logic of equping the Sky Ray with Networked Markelight? You don't think it's just that SMS/BC could benefit from those counters. If you can lauch seekers anytime you want, why do Sky Ray shoots with NML before any other weapons?

Offcourse, there is still an option that the markerlight user is the firing unit for the purposes of the shooting sequence, but that would mean you have to lauch any seekers just after markerlights hit to fit in his turn of shooting, which is odd, and would lead to conflict between Sky Ray and other ML users - how and when should I lauch all SR's missiles?

I don't mean that this will automatically solve the problem with cover reduction for seeker salvo, but as a professional Tau players, whe should find an explanation to know how and when we are allowed to use our seekers.

T'au Doran'ro :
Sorry about that. My use of the phrase "a separate unit" was more to clarify the point that seekers are resolved individually like you described. You do have to look at the contradiction between the two portions of the rules that we are looking at:

Yes, this will probably go in a circle debating about which entry provides more weight to the argument, as we have a seeker both fired by a vehicle (Markerlight) and remotely operated and not under the control of the vehicle (Seeker Missile). Personally, the "[allowing] a vehicle to fire a single seeker missile" looks like more of an concise explanation of what is happening. If we include a Seeker Missile as a fireable weapon by that vehicle, and then both the missile and the vehicle can use the same cover-reducing Markerlight tokens, but then the Seeker Missile would then have to follow vehicle movement and shooting rules (limit on main weapons), which is not the case when we look at the Seeker Missile entry.

As for "how and when?" on Seeker Missile usage: whenever you have any Markerlight hits available. If you have some tokens available, then you can choose whether to use those for Seeker Missiles or something else; as you said, they allow you to "save as much as you can and not make an overkill." Personally, I fire all of my Markerlights first so that I have the maximum amount of options (the rest of my army can use them). You could easily fire off Markerlights at random points during your shooting phase, but then you take away some of the flexibility that taking them in the first place gives you.

I hope this clears things up a bit... Hopefully.

I think that markerlights should always be resolved first, then normal firing, but don't you have to fire unit-by-unit?

Yes, shooting is resolved unit by unit. (BRBp.15 - 2nd column, 1st paragraph)

So Markerlights in units (Stealth, FW, Skyray etc) are somewhat limited in their application.
Probably why you would have pathfinders being your first unit to 'shoot' each pahse.
Of course, if you were using stealth teams to JSJ your markerlights then you'd probably use them instead, but they wouldn't end up being able to benefit from the ML hits themselves, since you have to declare the use of ML tokens before rolling to hit.

Back to Seekers though, good spotting on the contradiction SpartanTau, I missed it completely, and it casts my opinion on option 2 into the shadows...
Makes option 1 significantly more sensible (IMHO)

LTgland :
Yes, unit-by-unit firing is still followed; you just pick the order of your units, as djhg also explained, with a page reference to boot!

djhg :
Networked Markerlights, as they allow the unit using them to benefit, operate a little differently than our standard ones. As the unit can benefit, I break up the shooting between the Markerlights and whatever other weapons are in the squad. This is using the idea found on Page 18 (using different colored dice), but breaking it up into two steps. I still fire the remaining weapons right after; I just have a few Markerlight tokens that I can use.

You can't really follow Page 18 exactly and just roll the Markerlight hits with the weapons, unless of course you state that you are using any hits to raise BS or drop cover, for example. In that case, declaring the use of the tokens still comes before To Hit rolls are made; you just don't know the outcome or effect beforehand.

No problem about the contradiction. I flipped between the two pages five or six times, just to make sure I wasn't seeing things that weren't there. I guess Option 1 is a lot more credible because of it...

Actually, according to Codex Tau p.29 under the Networked Markerlight entry it specifically states that the ML is fired before the remainder of the units shots, so you will in fact know the outcome before your unit makes a generous charitible donation of ammunition to the enemy.

I guess I should have read a little closer. Thanks for the clarification! - ST

I should be working now, I'm a bit over deadlines with some work, but I just can resist to reply .

I agree with you, SpartanTau in almost everything, but for one thing. You are right that both statements are totally contradictory, and there is no point for making camps of followers of either of them, as the debate would run in circles to no end. I agree that vehicles don't use seekers as their own weapons, in generally. So I won't defend the concept of seeker salvos benefiting form cover reduction, this seems to have not enough support in rules. But I can't agree that you can use seekers whenever you want as long as you have counters on the table. I think you concentrated too much on seekers not being lauched as vehicle weapons, and you missed my main points against using them on every ocassion, and it's unfair consequences that I described.

I will explain:

1) We agreed that seeker missile are not the "separate unit", right?

2) Shooting phase, except for "start of the phase" (some special rules) and "end of the phase" (morale checks), consist only of parts that look like this: pick a unit, choose a target, check range and LOS, roll dice etc. and again pick a unit... and again, until you've done it with all your units. There's nothing in between those parts. There is always some unit firing. Tau have two modifications to this: target lock and networked markerlight. Still the parts remain the same, they only change inside: pick a unit, choose targets... roll for NML, expend counters, roll for weapons etc. This is the main principle of the shooting phase - "the shooting sequence".

3) Markerlight table (p.29) has a general description of ML usage and 6 points describing specific effects. In general "counters may be expended by subsequently firing Tau and Vespid units [...] at the "marked" unit. For now, everything corelates with the shooting sequence: you pick Tau/Vespid unit, you choose target, you expend counter for benefits, you roll dice... Ok, now "Every counter expended grants the firing unit...". So we have the effects, and 5 of 6 entries include wording such as "to allow a unit", "to allow the firing unit", "by the firing unit's shooting", "the effects of the firing unit's shooting". Very consistent, and it still obey the shooting sequence, to get the benefit you must pick a firing unit. The last entry says" to allow the vehicle". So where did the firing unit disappeared? Who is granted this effect? Is it a mysterious "vehicle"? To obey the shooting sequence you must pick someone and grant him this effect before rolling dice, so you can't just expend the counter between one unit's shooting and another. So how would you choose, ST?

4) In the shooting phase you pick a unit and it can fire only once, right? So if "one or both seekers [may be] lauched in a single turn", it would seem you must choose whether you lauch: no missile, one or both (or more in case of Sky Ray). Then there would be no turning back until the next turn.

I don't try to prove that seekers are fired just like any other vehicle weapon. I only mean that their usage must fit in the shooting sequence, so their lauch should be "attached" to the moment when the vehicle gets it's turn to fire inside the shooting sequence. That's why I suggest System 2. If that has to do anything with cover reduction, it's an another story...

interesting point T'au Doran'ro.

The first bullet point though...
it says it "will allow a vehicle to fire a single seeker missile" Which means the Missile counter is expended at the same time as the vehicle upon which the missile is attached chooses to perform it's shooting.
Only point of note is that the missiles targeting and whatnot are independent of the vehicles own shooting, hence it cannot benefit from the vehiles further use of ML tokens (+BS, Cover reduction etc)

Thank you everyone for your input, this conversation has really helped me to work through the labrynth that is GW technical language.
While it is still 'unofficial' I feel that the consensus is to follow option one, especially given djhg's advice that there is no sense in planning around a rules interpretation which if someone were to challenge, would throw an entire battle plan in disarray. This is fine with me despite the fact that it is the least advantageous for us. Now I'm just trying to decide whether to tell the redshirt or to just go along with his ruling until someone calls me out

As for T'au Doran'ro's dilemma about when to fire seeker missiles: I imagine that the GW team did not really think this one through very well.
Just to draw from a somewhat similar situation: if I'm not mistaken then for IG or Marines, Hunter Killer missiles are required to be shot at the same time as the rest of that vehicle's shooting. There is a logic to following this example with SM's, but the fact that they are requested independantly from the vehicle, and fired using its own bs, throws this interpretation into question.
The fact that we can put so many ML's on the table, and use them for so many different purposes at different times in the shooting phase lends a bit of weight to the argument that despite the fact that SM's are not their own unit, they can be called upon outside of the normal sequence of units shooting.
While I appreciate the attention you bring to this issue T'au D'oran'ro, I wonder if we are making a mountain out of a molehill?
Am I mistaken in thinking that most players have generally used seekers relatively independantly from the vehicle's own shooting? Has this ever caused a problem in professional play? I get the feeling that to force players to fire all of their SM's at the same time as the rest of their vehicles shooting might inordinately complicate things... but I am willing to test it out to see. I do also feel that our decision to follow option 1 as opposed to the other two also offers more weight to the independance of the missiles from the vehicle, but that is just my opinion.

But if I am right and if it is indeed the case that this has not become an issue thus far (and I may not be, I'd like to hear people's stories on this one), then regardless of the unclearness of the rules which might suggest that you are right about how we should do things, there might be an established consensus about the rules in practice which can carry its own logical weight and more significantly, weight of precedant.

Or, to put it more succinctly "if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck"

Sadly, a single clause such as "will allow a vehicle to fire a single seeker missile - at any time during the shooting phase as long as there are ML hits available" would have really helped clear this up, but I guess that just isn't GW"s way is it

Regardless, it is good that you have brought this up. It is helpful to realize some of the things that we take for granted as they may not seem as clear or evident to our opponents who might have less experience with or who have never played with or against Tau before.

That's exactly how they are used. HKMs equate to a main weapon so they will determine what else may be fired, should the vehicle have moved. They also use the vehicle's BS, since they are launched by the vehicle's crew. The rule for "all firing from a single unit must be completed before moving on to another unit" applies to a vehicle with multiple weapon systems just as much as an infantry unit, so if the HKM uses the vehicle's BS then it stands to reason that it must be fired at the same time as the rest of the vehicle's weapons (depending on permitted use - defensive, etc).

As to when SMs are fired: well, the ML rules say that once MLs have been placed on target units, you have to declare what you're using those MLs for before you start to fire anything at all. So declaring that 1 out of 4 MLs is going to bring in a Seeker, 2 others will reduce the cover save for the shot from the Railgun which is using the 4th one is perfectly legal and the correct way to play it. Then let rip with the firepower!

This has been a very good thread, guys. Thank you all for your efforts.

E.

Don't worry , E., I'm not done yet .

Thank you, guys, for being a great discussion partners, and you, Gniknok, for cooling my over-enthusiasm and bringing me back on Earth. You're right that in practice, in most cases, our popular "system 1" will work just fine. However, if you allow me, I still want to add few things, but I need you to give me some time, I just can't spare it today. Meanwhile, you can meditate on this again if you like, maybe someone will discover some another piece of puzzle .

Fair enough - I'll change the words "has been" in my comment about the thread being good to "continues to be"!

E.

Okay, I think we have something like a consensus that "System 1" has it's foundation in the established tradition and common practice, but we also agree that I prooved that "System 2" is rules-wise better (let's forget about any other "systems").

System 1 is easy to use, and as long as everybody knows what is happening and when, and has no problem with that, i'ts okay. I'm not a person who takes all those phases and sequences too strict and serious, who only try to catch an opponent on mistake of moving to the next step too fast. There's always a chance to move some unit in the shooting phase, or shoot somebody on the other end of the table in the assault phase, as long as you remember the order of things and this doesn't give anyone any unfair advantage. Most of the time, doing otherwise would only spoil the fun of the game. In 6th ed. of WFB everybody forget to wait with resolving break test and retreats to the end of the CC phase, and as you called it G., this "precedence" forced GW to change the rules in 7th. Ed in the player's way.

System 2 may seem like "an art just for the art", as it's mostly disadvantageous for a Tau player, it's only a self-constrait.
Well, first advantage you get from it, is your satisfaction that you obey all the rules you can. There are less grey areas, less place for any abuse. I don't like the idea of sending just one seeker at a time to check if it, for example, destroys a vehicle, and then sending another. I don't think it was meant to work this way. I think that we should at least consult our use of seekers with the System 2 when we fell that something is wrong.
The other advantage of S2, the one, because of which we started this whole discussion in the beginning, is the probability of reducing the cover saves for all seekers from one vehicle, so we can give it another try:

1)I know, that: "vehicle carrying the seeker missiles has no control over them and cannot lauch them itself", but what does it mean? Mainly, I say mainly, it says that vehicle's crew just can't fire the seeker on their own, they need a ML. Further we learn, that seekers override almost any shooting limitations: LOS, Night Fight, Crew Stunned, range, vehicle movement, number of weapons firing. It may sound controversial, but it still doesn't say strait, that seeker salvo doesn't "count as" vehicle's shooting. Gun Drones, for example, fire as part of the vehicle, but they use their own BS (different story, I know, but just an example).
[Side note based on the other discussion: it's interesting in this context, that Drones don't suffer from Weapon Destroyed result, but Seekers do.]

2)"Every counter... grants the firing unit [= the vehicle] one of the following effects, which may be combined."

3)Effect bullet one: "To allow... a vehicle... fire a single seeker missile...This shooting is resolved normally in all regards..." As ST would say, you exchange one ML counter for one "different colored dice" that hit on 2+.

4)Effect bullet six: "... to impose... a penalty on any Cover Save the marked unit may have from effects of the firing unit's shooting."

5)"In any case, the use of a counter must always be declared before the hit rolls are made by the firing unit." So, after declaring the use of counters for seeker salvos and cover reduction you roll all dice, those for normal vehicle weapons (if they are allowed to shoot this turn) and those for seekers.

That's all I can come with, feel free to make your own conclusions. I'm very interested in your opinions. I admit that this time not everything seems convincing, but even if this "cover issue" will turn out to be impossible to solve, I am sure this whole discussion wasn't for nothing .

[EDIT] Few spelling errors corrected and whole part about Eiglepulper's idea erased, as I believe it's in fact similiar to the System 2.

Sportsmanlike no - the rules tell me to do this.

Correct. However, if I remember correctly, there was mention of using extra ML hits to negate the cover save given if a Seeker missile was used. If you intend to drop the cover save for the target of the SM, then you have to say so before you actually roll to see if the missile hits.

E.

Okay, so I misinterpreted your post, E. . I thought that "before you start to fire anything at all" meant that you declare use of all markers before all other units start to fire. It sound too general for me, but in fact there is no difference between us. We agree that after picking a firing unit (vehicle) and after choosing target, checking range, LOS etc., but before any rolls to hit are made we declare how we use all the markers that this unit want to spend, including lauching seekers and reducing cover. Spare counters will wait for another unit, which again will declare how it's going to use them, but before any dice are rolled (and the seeker I just another dice that is rolling to hit).

Sorry for the confusion .

[EDIT] The part: "once MLs have been placed on target units, you have to declare..." was the the one that confused me the most, E., but nevermind .

Oops! I should have checked my own post before finally submitting it to see if I made myself clear. Sorry about that.

Anyway - Poland and Northern Ireland agree, and that's the important thing!

E.

Unfortunately I cannot add to the thread it belongs to, in the Rules of Engagement forum. I hope moderators will find it useful enough to move it there. Hopefully the responses you got before this merge were adequate... - ST

I've just added a Sky Ray to my Tau list and I find all the peculiarities of this weapon platform very interesting.

The discussion in the thread deals with two aspects of SM employment.

1) Distribution of ML tokens to remove cover saves.

2) Order of fire.

I'd like to add a comment to the second problem.

If I understand correctly, Seeker Missiles are not fired by the unit actually carrying them, but by the unit which lights up the target. For that reason movement rules for vehicles do not affect Seeker Missiles at all. I do believe though, that the unit-by-unit way of shooting does affect how you employ them. IE. If a unit which is firing Marker Lights wants to employ a Seeker Missile, it must do it while it is still in it's shooting phase.

In other words:

1) Not Networked Marker Lights (Pathfinders, Fire Warrior Shas'ui, Stealth Team Shas'vre) - they can usually either shoot or mark up targets. If they want to call seeker missiles, they should mark up the target and then call the missiles or shoot in whatever order they like (they can't use their own MLs for anything else than Seeker Missiles though). However, you should call the SMs before you move to the next unit.

2) Marker Light Drones, Sniper Teams and Sky Ray - they can mark up the target for their own shooting, so they generally fire marker lights first. After that you can either immediately use the tokens to call a SM strike, or you can shoot first, using some of the tokens for the unit's own weapons and then call Seeker Missiles with the remaining tokens, before switching to the next unit.

As a consequence, Seeker Missiles are exceptional in one more way - they can be fired multiple times in one shooting phase, by multiple units. On one hand, you do not have, IMHO, to fire the entire SM salvo together, on the other you cannot use them for all the MLs remaining at the end of the firing phase, should you wish so - you have to fire them unit-by-unit, using up the tokens generated by the units calling the Seeker Missile(s).

The rules I base this interpretation on are mostly on pages 30 and 31, where the Codex describes the mechanics of SM employment. Specifically the rules that: "Any model equipped with Marker Light may request a seeker missile salvo" and "Ordinarily, the vehicle carrying the seeker missiles has no control over them and cannot launch them itself. The mechanism is remote and responds only to marker light users.". Obviously the Sky Ray is an exception here, but that's because of its networked marker lights.