| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
So if I hear the general feelings accurately,
CS - doesn't feel right in fluff to have AA on ionhead, would like to remove the AA on the ion-head if possible without disrupting balance of list.
Evil & Chaos - AA on Ion-head does not align with fluff. Although commonly seen on aircraft, ground based units armed with ion cannons in the background & rules are not AA mounts. This is the same phenemonon observed with the Imperial Heavy Bolter.
Tactica - Agree with CS, but concerned for trickle down impact. Also, concerned that if AA is removed, balance will be impacted. Right now, we walk a delicate balance of AA to deal with the air-assault which causes the army to fold quickly. Don't want to see the balance damaged. Also, if we are forced to buy more Skyrays, rest of list will suffer from whate we are playing today (trickle down impact). Do not have a viable proposal but willing to entertain other's proposals if reasonable.
Dobbsy & Honda - feel AA on ion-head is justified considering the ion-cannon weapon itself is the main armorment used by many aircraft. Also, list is performing in balanced manner right now as it pertains to AA coverage. Do not want to see balance impacted - simply for change sake.
Hena - quote, "AA on a MBT is stupid." Also does not believe Tau need more AA than Barracuda and Skyray. However, he has not played against the Tau with ion-heads. Uses bugs mainly so doesn't have in game perspective from present Tau AA.
Illusia - argues that 1 statistical hit from the entire ion-head formation could be over the top.
Ragnarok - proposes a comprimise to appease all parties. Ionhead AA stat be changed to 30cm instead of 60 indicating its reduced accuracy at range.
+ + +
Although I do not with Hena or Illusia's premis or findings, I think they speak for the opponent's perspective.
I do not feel the Tau AA is out of balance presently as based upon the amount of times Aircraft assaults are still successful against the Tau and considering the amount of damage my Tau still suffer from fliers in general. However, that is a Tau perspective speaking.
I'm adimately against reducing the amount of AA in the list as only a Tau player can truly appreciate the damning affects of a successful air assault to the Tau list. However, I don't think we need to put an umbrella out 60cm away with every AA on the field to accomplish this goal either.
I do not see a way presented that satisfies my concerns and still achieves CS's objective/goal.
I do see one comprimise solution that may have merit - and - is at least worth trying.
I think Ragnarok's proposal could still satisfy my concerns, and reduce the overall AA coverage the ion-heads yield. Reducing the AA value to 30cm to reflect limited accuracy could be very justified and although some formations may have to tighten up until the AA threats are dealt with, its probably still manageable and its probably still delivering the desired impact to the game of giving the Tau some kind of reasonable answer to the air assault.
Furthermore, a points review by that reduction of effect may be all that is at play after tested. That's not to suggest that a points reduction is necessary, just that we should be mindful that with effect reduction that points reduction *may* be requiremed. I would want to test it without any reduction in points first though. The suggestion has the least impact on the rest of the list too. The AA umbrella is reduced in size by the proposal, but I would hope that it doesn't necessarily cause a significant trickle-down impact. I can see players possibly wanting 1 more skyray to compensate for the reduction, but that's not a huge impact to existing lists.
On paper, if all accept it Ragnarok, I think its worthy of a test as a comprimise between parties.
However, the comprimise doesn't address CS's initial goal. He'll have to decide if your proposal gets us close enough to his vision. If it does not, he may be happier not messing with the current balance at all.
He'll have to weigh in on this at some point.
Thank you for your suggestion though, either way. 
EDIT: place E&C objection as I originally missed it!
_________________
Rob
|
|
.