I guess it depends on your outlook on how it performs. If you're sick of two planes doing very little then the boost may actually increase its performance and your interest, regardless of points. If the squadron lasts longer and shoots more stuff down then in my view the extra 75 points would make it more attractive. Having 3 chances of downing enemy planes as opposed to 2 makes it more attractive to me at least.

This. This is a big deal if you don't capitalize on it. TRC brought that up a couple years ago in a thread and for me it was a..."that is so bleedin' obvious", but not how I was using my A/C. Since that change, when I do take barras, they do a good job of getting their points.

Also, just so that we don't burn a lot of calories on this, the only change in store for the barra is the switch from seeker to missile pod. We're not going to revisit all of the stats one more time, especially because of where we are in the development cycle.

The other thing to keep in mind is the macro picture. Any changes at the micro level (e.g. change the save from "this" to "this") has to be evaluated within the context of the overall army capabilities at the macro level. The last thing I want to see happen, especially at the last minute, is some sort of equivalent of the earlier version of the Eldar's Invulnerable Air Umbrella = [Firestorm + Fire Prism + Nightwing] situation.

At this stage, I am only looking at refining the existing capabilities, i.e. small changes. I'm hoping this weekend that I'll get a chance to write down what's left to do/decide.

Until then, play on!  

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

'cudas cost 175pts? why? if they're the equivalent (more or less) to t'bolts, why wouldn't they cost the same?

Honda, with all due respect, sometimes it takes a bigger shift, rather than just stats tweaking, to make a fm viable. Obviously tactics will always play a role, hence the need for play testing, but I don't see a major issue with making 'cudas 2-3 for X points each. Then the player can decide relative worth of activations vs. firepower/sustainability.

_________________
numquam culum es

They're 150pts in the version I've got.

Morgan Vening

hokay, my bad (must check latest list before posting again)

_________________
numquam culum es

Sorry, my fault. I based the 175 points off my memory of an older Tau version.

I just noticced, Barracudas now have a 45cm ground attack shot from the missile pods (so longer requiring ML like the seeker).  That makes them unique as fighters.

And it means all Tau aircraft have 45cm shots, thats really very nasty against any army with 30cm flak.  And even 45cm flak can be avoided in many cases.

I remember TRC telling me after one of our tournament games that I was the only person to have ever (yes ever   ) destroyed his T/bolt formation.

I've destroyed his fighter bombers before, but that was his fault for GA'ing my nightspinners on my blitz - 3 Nightwing hits = 3 dead FBs. He was pretty pissed about it, but then he hates nightspinners

_________________
numquam culum es

Well I've found the BC to be fairly average-crap at damaging broken formations at current stats. Maybe the missile pod will make a bit more of a difference but as they stand with a GM needing a ML most people put their broken formations well away from MLs in their back half. As I've mentioned in the past, the BC mainly used to just put a BM on formations and do little to no damage versus normal formations and 1-2 kills if you were lucky versus broken ones. That's not really getting your points worth IMO.

Anyway I'm desperately hoping the new stats will make the plane more usable to me.

Ahh Dobbsy, so apparently you are working with the 6.01 list rather than 6.2?? In which case I can sympathise with your comments.

Replacing  Seeker Missiles with Missile pods changes the aircraft from primarily an anti-aircraft / anti-tank role into the generalist Fighter/Bomber role of the TBolt - while keeping the fighter movement. So, with better range weapons and better movement, it is now definitely better than the TBolt.

The only comment here being a question whether the Missile pods should be 30cm rather than 45cm (following usual air-weapon range reductions etc). This would also open the  possibilty of optional weapon variations on the weapon stats . . .

However I stand by the earlier comments that every Tau army should have at least one formation of Barracudas because of their versatility and cost; it is one of the few formations below the magic 200 points that enables the Tau to take other higher cost formations while still having the 10-12 activations that IMHO seem necessary to make the Tau work as desired.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Yep the last time I tried them was pre-CANCON and the tourney was the last time I played any epic. As i said I hope it does make a difference.

Thought I'd post this here rather than start another thread.


This is quoted from the Armour discussion in the Epic Armageddon Forum (last statement is by Dobbsy).

I have sadly come to a similar conclusion. Last night I was wiped off the board by a Scions of Iron, Marine army (5-0 Marine win).
The key moment came when a Heavy Tactical Detachment (2x L.R. Crusaders + 4 Tactical Marine stands) assaulted a loaded Manta with 8x Firewarriors, 2x Pathfinder Stands, 5x Crisis suits and 4 Hammerheads (Twin Fusion Cannon). Now the Marines had PLENTY of supporting fire but the Tau only managed to kill one Marine stand and one Crusader. With 27 FF rolls, they scored 2 casualties.

The Manta was broken and then destroyed easily by Thunderhawks (1x Close Air Support and 1x Saturation Bombing). Most of the other formations were lost in the assault resolution.

I thought that Tau were supposed to be death incarnate at 15cm range?

I KNOW it's late in the day for this kind of conversation (sorry Honda). I know there are others that think 5+ on FF isn't bad. I know the Tau are hesitant to get themselves into dangerous situations.

All that said, I really feel I have to state that FireWarriors should be FF4+, Crisis Suits should either be FF4+ or FF5+MW, the Manta should definitely be FF4+ (or better) and there should be a -1 for all Tau formations (except Kroot) to perform an Engage action. Tau should not go looking for firefights but the really should be able to defend themselves when the enemy gets into close range. I have no issue with CC6+ for most Tau formations.

Epic Armageddon is a great game that I really enjoy. It has simple rules that offer great playability. One of the steadfast cornerstones of Epic Armageddon is Assaults. The game is really influenced by the win/lose outcome of Engagements and the Tau are simply not playing as they should when the enemy gets within 15cm (not CC) and then beats the stuffing out of them. I don't think the artificial nerfing of Tau FF values is getting the desired results.

I understand that Honda is keen to lock the list in soon (sorry again for bringing this up again so late in the piece). I just hope we're not slavishly following Jervis' guidlines when GW hasn't shown a bit of support for Epic for years. Could Jervis be wrong on this? He is only human afterall...

Anyway, I had to get that off my chest, for what it's worth.

Steve.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Was it only bad dice rolling on this occasion, the reason for the loss of only 2 marines?

27 attacks on a 5+.
9 hits.
Assuming the target has a 4+ armour save, 4.5 kills.

Statistically he should have killed 4.5 Marine units (more, if there were any 5+ armour save units taking saving throws). So that's definitely an abberant situation.

Also he was using a Manta, which I believe to be underpowered.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

It's abberant, but not so much so. It was 2 Crusaders and 4 Marines.

Assuming he had the Crusaders forward, he'd get 2 saves on each (losing one as a statistical norm), 2 saves on a Marine (statistical norm), and 3 Marines with a single. So he rolled 3 above normal. Good, but not exceptional.

The problem is the lack of variation when it comes to Assaults within the rules. I can understand the desire to make assaulting to be a weakness of Tau (because they should always sustain/advance/double instead), but they should have a bit more defensively. Something like a reroll on FF (weaker than +1EAFF), or +1 to Firefights when being engaged, or something.

They need something to boost up their resilience, I'll agree on that. But I don't want them being a Firefight machine.

Morgan Vening