Page 2 of 3

[ 34 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Tau Air power, Part 1, Introduction and Fighters
Legion 4	Post subject: Tau Air power, Part 1, Introduction and Fighters Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:25 am
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm Posts: 36989 Location: Ohio - USA	Thanks Neal ! (You too may know how to call in CAS, sorry if I forgot you ! ? ?) ?And good points, Tactica ... ?Since the Tau don't have FA and the IG more than any other Epic force, that is part of the armies' predilections or "favor"... Like the way the armies of say WWII. The Russians fought war differently then the Japanese. ?And the same goes for the IG, Tau, Orks, etc. ... _________________ Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Top

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: Tau Air power, Part 1, Introduction and Fighters Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:23 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London

First off - yes Baron I don't think there is a problem with the balance of the craft, just its feel. Balance wise the latest changes I believe make it a good thing power/points wise (though I'd change the missile range to 30cm's still - if the argument is its a waste to use a flight of three for a stand off attack why not keep the fighter ranges below 45cm?). Second, to avoid comments later - I love the Thunderbolt. I guess 90%+ of its sorties for me are ground attack but I have never played an Imperial army that didn't have two along for the ride. I've even painted names on my favorites (I've got over 40) - now I moved away from using micro machines as too many of my opponents groaned! And in what must be almost a hundred games I have lost a grand total of 12 to enemy fire. (How do I know? The dead ones get put to the back of the box and free ones are taken out. Sad I know.) Consistently hunting LV formations they have always made back their points, broken formations and placed critical blast markers. Marauders do suck however. I am not surprised to see aircrafts be an important component of a Tau army, because these are used to cope with the lack of ranged attacks over 75cm. Our local ork player maxes out on Gargants and fliers too for the same reasons: getting some staying power with WE and some extreme range weapons with flyers. By the way can you tell us what were the outcomes of these games where you were Flak-heavy for the least? Good note about Orks - however their air is individually the worse in the game its the formation size and 1+ activation that boost it. Plus 9 strong squadrons strike fear into artillery companies! Gargants seem less universal however. Though I'll never forget Tiny-Tims Great Gargant! Landing craft are starting to appear as the models are bough, but that?s another issue Flak heavy? I see this to be honest as normal flak for my armies and this seems to gel with the other 'competitive' lists I face and see. That?s only incidentally 400 points of flak for both Siegemasters and 'Guard. The outcomes of the games were for Tau verses IG a Tau win. The Tau shot up my big 'killer' formations (regimental HQ, Leman Russ company) and garrison formations (2 inf companies) using a combination of air to ground attacks (the flak was quickly killed), coordinated fire actions and activation advantage. They had the drop activation wise and the fact I never won the initiative didn't help. The Siege/Tau game was a narrow win for the humans. The aircraft and tanks destroyed the 15 artillery pieces and 6 flak guns but not before I had killed everything that had ignore cover as an ability. I had 15/16 activations to start with at 3000 points (and over a hundred units) and the objective placement was in my favour (I started the game controlling a Tau objective!). Despite the loss of the support weapons to almost a man the infantry sat in their bunkers and with -1 to hit and a 3/4+ save enough survived to the end of the game for me to win 2-1. If anything with the siegers I wished for more flak! Actually Tau flyers do lack the missile pods, and the twin-linked railcannon is quite toned down now.

It was a general comment. See previous post.

*snip* comment on fighter giving slightly better ground maneuvering
Do you think it fits to be better than a Thunderbolt/equivalent

And IMO, you are under-estimating the 4+ save of the nightwing that is the main reason for its high cost. Such resilience allows a Nightwing to fly through flak hot-spots if necessary, and to carry-on ground-attack missions whenever it is intercepted or fired at.

This did jolt my memory about being attacked by high save fliers (from a vault list). Its a point I think I have forgotten as I have become so used to 6+ save fighters and the tactics associated with them (don't get shot at on the approach at the very least) and have got so successful with them I had forgotten there were other ways of flying

The problem with your change is that Epic:A is a ground-based game. Therefore, having a flyer that would not be any good at attacking ground units points-wise seems a bad idea.

Not quite so - as a general point certainly they should be able to conduct some level of ground attacks so they are never redundant against the opposition. But an air superiority fighter still has its place - especially with the idea of letting CAP be like overwatch. A squadron of fighters could supplant a lot of flak if it were more cost effective (which would mean cheaper planes).

I have a contrasted view with portions of this topic.
Didn't think that was allowed!

1) E:A is a win/loss game based upon objective control across two of the typical 4 turns.
2) Win/loss is determined by ground units capturing and maintaining objectives. Air units (that cannot land) may only support ground units by design.
3) Air units that due land become immobile targets for a period of time and have their own liabilities from doing so.
4) An army may only have 33% of their forces in Air/spacecraft/Titan points.
5) One must forgo or completely sacrifice spacecraft and titan options in order to have a maximum of 33% of aircraft in their list.
6) Opponents can counter aircraft threat with their own aircraft, or by spending a reasonable amount of points in anti-air flak.
7) A given flak capable unit may fire at more than one enemy formation (assuming range restrictions of course)
Flak results are always tallied before aircraft is permitted to fire - so the craft in question must survive its attack run in order to impact the game.

As long as the above remains true, flyers can only have a measured and limited impact on the game. They can never win the game by themselves.
I think the relative "worry" is a bit inflated.
Keep in mind, my statements above are in regard to flyers as a whole and their potential impact on the game. As long as pointed correctly, flyers should never 'dominate' a game of epic:a.
A completely different argument is whether or not a given unit/formation in an army is too 'strong' for its assigned value. 'Strong' meaning a host of definable unit specific values and measurable metrics/game impacts.


First the minor points.
4) and 5) ?- That varies by army, for instance for marines and guard spacecraft aren't included. Guard also have in many peoples eyes better options than titans in the shape of SHT's.
6), 7) and - flak has differing abilities, costs, effectiveness and different planes have different levels of survivability against flak. Plus certain armies are better at killing/suppressing flak than others. Its a massive set of variables that are easily upset as it is not a core part of the game. What happens if I have a flyer with a weapon that completely outranges your flak. Which brings me onto the major point.

How can you 'point correctly' high powered aircraft. Air that can avoid flak for instance - how to point that? Planes that will fly nearly ever turn without fear of crashing or have weapon systems where only one has to get through. The level of threat aircraft face is very variable across armies and lists. Do you cost for an aircraft in ideal situations? How much opposition do you take into account? What about supporting units in the army that can clear flak away from the operational area?
The more powerful he craft the wilder these values become and the more destablising they are on the game. If I go to a tournament I have to design to meet all potential lists. If one list can have flying death cannons I have to design to take that into account. Now Epic is supposed to have a variety of successful armies from each list (bar space marines ). Flak options are very limited in every list bar the eldar. This would lead to more and more similar lists with a lot of hydra/hunters/thunderbolts (maybe not thunderbolts) because there is no other available weapon.

My experience when looking at the Tau list as a whole vs the IG list as a whole is that Tau flyers have a greater impact on their success/failure than IG flyers. Tau as a result do indeed rely upon the supporting nature of their air superiority fighters and tiger/white shark bombers, mantas and mooray's to compliment the ground forces for successful engagements.

I don't see anything out of place here. Tau do rely on their air support to be effective against the might of the IG's ground based potential. Your 'normal' compliment of AA may or may not have been the right choice against them but the fact that you felt out-classed a bit is a good thing. Tau should make the IG feel out classed a bit.

Does this mean the unsuspecting IG player could get blind sided if he didn't take enough flak and/or air power to protect himself - sure it does! But I've played against Ork lists that you could say the same thing about. I really don't see it as a problem at all after playing dozens of games with both lists.

Just a reminder, the lists are blind tournament lists. If a list is introduced to the tournament setting for which the lists are designed that does need air to win it would precipate a change in the armies fielded if they wished to defend against this and remain competitive.

Out of interest has anyone ever had one of the 2 hit bombers shot down or found an investment in air power to be ineffective when playing tau? And if so how/why?

So - upshot of all this.

Would the Tau group consider a late change to the Baracuda?
To place it firmly between the Eldar and the Imperium but reflect its greater ability in the air and the fact the tau pilots are still developing ground attack strategies?
Essentially an upped save representing aerial combat skill, fighter-bomber to show the ground side of things is under development and a slightly toned down weapons set so the save advantage doesn't increase the cost of the plane?
Something like
3 for 225
Fighter-Bomber
Save 5+
Light Ion Cannon 30cm AP6+/AT6+/AA6+ Fixed Forward Arc
Twin-linked Burst Cannons 15cm AP4+/AA6+ -
Interceptor Missiles 30cm AA5+ Fixed Forward Arc
Seeker Missiles 30cm AT6+ Guided Missiles
Or maybe 5/5/6 for the ion cannon and the same cost of 250?

I do ask again though if anyone ever had one of the 2 hit bombers shot down or found an investment in air power to be ineffective when playing Tau? And if so how/why?