Page 7 of 12

[ 177 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next

Tigershark
nealhunt	Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:36 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	On the other side of the coin, is it also possible that Tac's observance of a tightly integrated AAA environment, which tends to diminish the overall performance of said vehicles... If defended against properly, can they be negated. This is what I disagree with.  As far as I'm concerned, no one has addressed how to significantly inhibit a 45cm range, DC2 aircraft.  There hasn't even been a theoretical discussion. I use my aircraft in a method very similar to TRC precisely because that makes it difficult to defend against.  I'm sure that's why in his play group, flak vehicles are ubiquitous (IIRC, TRC plays with a minimum of 5 Hydras at 2700 points). Personally, I'm pretty much to the point that I wouldn't even bother taking an Ork Gunwagon in a force because I'd rather have the Flakwagon in virtually every case.  Our group has a sort of gentlemen's agreement that we just don't take a lot of aircraft in order to avoid the air arms race, but that obviously doesn't work for everyone and it doesn't work in a tournament. As to supposedly tight AA defenses: Any flak under a 45cm range will simply never get to fire.   For flak with 45cm range, it will never get to fire on the approach unless it is the closest target (or near to it), which would mean it is very vulnerable to all fire.  Technically, it should definitely be able to fire in the disengage move, but frequently that doesn't happen because it has been sufficiently suppressed. Flak greater than 45cm is currently limited to SM Hunters, Eldar Fire Prisms, and Tau.  SM Hunters can easily be suppressed down to 45cm range.  Eldar Fire Prisms could be a solid defense, except that they are fragile and would be a pretty high priority target.  Even if the Prisms fire while completely unsupressed, they only average 2/3 of a point of damage against a 2DC aircraft.  That only leaves Tau, which is the problem in the first place. What about interceptors? Well, I think it's been well-demonstrated that covering the entire Tau army with large volumes of defensive AA is quite simple.  Readily available ICHH's and a couple Skyrays will make interception of a Tigershark under the umbrella a near-suicide mission.  With the 60+cm range of Tau flak and 45cm range of the Tigershark, the TS can effectively hit targets 75+cm from the main Tau battle line without even approaching the edge of the umbrella.  I would reasonably expect any intercepting formation to take ~2 hits for trying to intercept the TS (based on ~8 ICHH and ~2 Skyrays in the complete army). All those restrictions on how to deploy it limits the damage that the TS can do, right?  Yes, it absolutely does.  But let's look at what kind of damage remains: Picking at the edges of formations that are moving across the field towards Tau positions.  Worst case scenario is a horde army.  Let's say they average ~25 points per model.  The TS averages 1 TK hit per turn, plus several auxiliary systems.  There are a lot of variables about marked/unmarked targets, how far under the umbrella the enemy has moved and so on, but I'm going say they average another .5 hits.  In a horde army, that's usually kills because of low armor saves and no way to keep big horde formations completely in cover.  As a rough guess, that's 1.5 kills x 3 turns x 25 points = 112 points. That's assuming that there is never a higher-value target to go after and that the Tau player never decides to risk them, even in the third turn - not exactly realistic expectations.  More accurately, there will probably be an opportunity to hit some higher-value targets, say 50 points each, that have advanced under the Tau AA umbrella.  One round of decent targets of opportunity and the TS has killed its points worth with minimal risk. Worst case scenario, against a straight horde army, a TS will only kill ~2/3 its own point value.  In any sort of vaguely realistic situation, it easily kills its own point value or greater. Obviously, some of the cover and such will degrade over several turns and the TS can always fail to activate.  But that point-for-point calculation also ignores the hindrance that the TS can cause via suppression or pushing a formation near the break point over the edge, or hitting an already-broken formation to finish it off with hack-down hits.  As far as I'm concerned, it's a wash with respect to those factors. === Like I said, I will give it one more shot.  I'll even tell my opponent that I'm taking an air-heavy army so they can prepare.  But unless something is dramatically different than what I expect, they will still be unbalanced. _________________ Neal

Top

Tactica	Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:28 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	TRC, I think Honda has summarized it well enough. I disagree with your analysis on the SSw vs TS. Not only do I think its apples and oranges, but I don't think you've encountered the same opponents I have. Example: my SSw is always having to fire into cover so sustain fire is very important to it. My shadowsword co's at 500 for three can take upgrades and do so on a regular basis on further stabalizing the foramtion and insulating the main firing element. They've been involved in more than one counter insurgance roll defending against the h-t-h hordes and supporting other formations... can't say the same for the TS... we could go on and on. The end result is like I said - apples and oranges. I value the 4+ Ra SSw with 90cm range 2+ TK(D3) more than the 5+ TS with 45cm  2x4+ TK(1) all day long. You clearly disagree. OK - no sweat - I can agree to disagree. I don't want this to get into a long winded debate. However, although I don't wish to engage in this apples and oranges comp any more than I have, I just don't want the silent masses think if your comments go unopposed - that it is synonomous with acknowledgement and agreement. From my perspective, its not. I will concede to you that: ==================== 1) if not properly opposed, any and all aircraft will have a damning effect to the opponent's army. 2) if 1) above is true, the better the armorment, the more damning the effect. 3) Many experienced players before you and I have reported both successes and absolute dismal failures with the light railcannon TS when it was at FP3+. I do not intend to ignore that feedback. I will however value that feedback as much as I value yours. 4) In another thread you've mentioned exploitation of MW shots for sniping effect gains. I voiced this as a concern of the main ruleset more than a concern of the TS. In this same thread, Bretan, the author, was commenting how his TS had a relative minimal impact on the game. So much so that he may avoid taking the formation in the future. His opponent didn't even take flak. His opponent also didn't have any choice targets from the general's eyes. If such is the experience by some players, that data too cannot be ignored. 5) Others report that the TS can adequately be suppressed if not destroyed if airpower is prepared for. I tend to be in this camp from my own experience. 6) More than any of this - more extensive (not one or two games) of playtest is required of the AX-1-0. 7) NH has brought up a relivent point that the formation is more durable in formations of 2s than originally anticipated. The relatively SHT weak armor can be overcome by the see saw effect. That makes the air MW more of an impact than intended. CS has taken this into consideration. Not only has he reduced the FP to 4+ netting the unit 1 hit on average, but he's also reduced the formation to 1 unit. Again - more playtest is now required as FP and durability of the formation have broth been adjusted. I'm much more in favor of minor tweaks than major tweaks. At 175 and 1 unit per formation, I don't think its nearly as complicated to defend against well built airforce as you seem to think (NH may be in your camp on this). Our group doesn't seem to have a problem with it. I also conced that we typically field them in 1 per formaiton historically speaking, so NH's report was eye openning for us. I'm going to arrange a game where my opponent plays tau 4.3.3 and I play something else... perhaps IG with only 45cm AA and planes to deal with the TS. Hopefully we'll do a second game and switch table sides to see if we can learn anything and use that knowledge to break the TS in its 4.3.3 format. I think I can effectively prove that the airpower of the Tau can be dealt with to the point of a solid IG victory. We'll see. My hypothesis, Tau generals may go nuts with fliers, just as Eldar may attempt to do so, just as any race's general may attempt to do so... However, with a proper defense, the air heavy army will not have the formations left to adequately win the game. (Tau in this case) Even if I cannot manage the aircraft heavy army with my approach, I should be able to manouvre to deal with them during escape routes. My IG typically out activates my tau all day long. Shouldn't be an issue for me to even have a couple 150 point fighter formations to move in and rid the skys of the TS after he's out of activations. Again, we'll see. I'd rather back up theory with game play designed to exploit and results either proving or disproving my theorys. Cheers, _________________ Rob
Top

Lion in the Stars	Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:59 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm Posts: 1455	Excellent points.   I see aircraft as specialty artillery.  It does have a few vulnerabilities that conventional artillery does not, although I see that as a wash with on-table arty's vulnerabilities that air does not have. Is it hard to balance?  absolutely, but no harder to balance than conventional arty, IMO. Hang on a minute... Sustaining with aircraft?  that's an option?  That changes the variables. Tactica, I look forward to your battle reports. _________________ "For the Lion and the Emperor!"
Top

Tactica

Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:27 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241

Quote (nealhunt @ 11 Jan. 2006 (13:36)) ? On the other side of the coin, is it also possible that Tac's observance of a tightly integrated AAA environment, which tends to diminish the overall performance of said vehicles... If defended against properly, can they be negated. This is what I disagree with.  As far as I'm concerned, no one has addressed how to significantly inhibit a 45cm range, DC2 aircraft.  There hasn't even been a theoretical discussion.

DC2 aircraft pop 1 out of 6 hits due to crits. My IG take several combinations in their lists to have several hydras and fighters to deal the AA necessary to place 6 hits on a TS that has entered the field. Its typically a combination of approach, intercept (not CAP) and departure if necessary.

Against the Tau - there's no fear for BM. I tend to field in a large clump against the Tau and move as a large army. My AA umbrella is usually quite significant. If you deploy within <45cm to a table edge, One can only skirt the edges of one of your flanks. Its typically quite easy to hide from the Tau LOF and place objects closer to my tanks than the tau so they are forced to work on a very large multi-turn flanking manouvre or work aircraft into digging out my foramtions. My artillery is usually buried on a corner heavily protected from any teleporting troops. and the AA umbrella over my IG force is a great deturrant of any TS assault manouvres. 1 or 2 formations of fighters usually counter anything the flak can't handle. With armor 5+, in my experience its not that hard to put the 2-3 hits required to pop a DC2 aircraft out of the skies.

I should caveat that our group typically plays long table edge to long table edge. We use 4x6 and 4x8 tables, no 4x4 games played typically. We find that there's a fair amount of forest, ruins, hills, etc to block LOF effectively enough on our tables. Aircraft is quite common in our groups. We have opinions from some that say aircraft just stand no chance and we have others that swear by its necessity in lists. All agree that its a challenge to use in our group due to the amount of counter air taken as a default staple in our armies.

I use my aircraft in a method very similar to TRC precisely because that makes it difficult to defend against.  I'm sure that's why in his play group, flak vehicles are ubiquitous (IIRC, TRC plays with a minimum of 5 Hydras at 2700 points).

I think thats a fair assesment of how much we take, if not more when you add it all up and also count figher aircraft.

Personally, I'm pretty much to the point that I wouldn't even bother taking an Ork Gunwagon in a force because I'd rather have the Flakwagon in virtually every case.  

I'll agree with that. Then again - if I were a general in a real war, I'd want as much airpower and as much anti-airpower as I could get my hands on. Perhaps that's my American mentality of serving in the US armed forces... but nonetheless, I like air. I also know what it takes to adequately defend against it. I also fully appreciate the impact air can and should have on any epic army based game.

Our group has a sort of gentlemen's agreement that we just don't take a lot of aircraft in order to avoid the air arms race, but that obviously doesn't work for everyone and it doesn't work in a tournament.

Definitely would not work for our group and is not something that's part of the game so wouldn't expect that when I travelled either. House rules and gentlemen agreements are fine, but that's not something I think we want to take into account when developing rules for races. However, it does help shed light on your perspective so I do appreciate the information.

We find the 33% limit to air in an army allows for quite a bit of air, but at what sacrifice to your ground forces? Well, thus is the challenge to build an effective force.

With that 33% limit and challenge to build an effective force, the opponent knows going into every battle that they must adequately plan for the air assault and counter measures. We've had some 1st turn air assaults win the game basically. We've also seen them lose the game due to a landing craft taking a critical and an entire force going away in the blink of an eye and the turn of a die! Such are the risks of air assaults.

I've yet to see a more effective marine based army than when the landing craft, drop pods, and thunderhawk are center pieces around the army's performance. On the other hand, I've yet to see any ground based marine force be effective at all. Furthermore, I've yet to see 'any' marine force that has a 50/50 or better win percentage against all comers. I think the marine list has problems... but I digress. The most effective marine force I've seen is that which incorporates an adequate if not significant amount of airpower - and they are the worst E:A list. The air haeavy 'strike' list of the marines has also seen the worst defeat due to criticals and planes being blown out of the air prior to land or loss of combat after landing and fighting. There's no question to the power of air, but the risk also comes into question when properly defended against.

As to supposedly tight AA defenses:

Any flak under a 45cm range will simply never get to fire.

A statement I fundamentally disagree with. We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't agree with the rationale behind this at all.

One can always move a formation to deal with the upcomign departure move of the flier unless the foramtions is broken. suppression is usually not an issue for us. Maybe we just take larger formations. Remember, you can suppress other units in range that don't have AA weapon systems.

What about interceptors?

Well, I think it's been well-demonstrated that covering the entire Tau army with large volumes of defensive AA is quite simple.  

Doing so and effectively doing so are to different things. Tau have a lot of AA... its also typically AA6+ unless you are playing a ML heavy army. Even then, you have to pay 75 for each one of those skyrays to get GM bonus'. Furthermore, the ion-cannon (the majority of the tau AA you speak of) doesn't even get GM so ML are irrelivent.

E:A Tau are not known for taking out fliers so well with their flak in our circle. Eldar and IG - heck - ORKS are better at taking out the air power than the tau ground flak from my perspective. Tau barracudas on the other hand are where the tau anti-air really comes to bare IMHO and in my experience.

Therefore, interceptors are quite valid anti-tau TS tactics IMHO. I highly recommend them in fact.

Readily available ICHH's and a couple Skyrays will make interception of a Tigershark under the umbrella a near-suicide mission.
We'll agree to disagree, see above. Just not my experience.

With the 60+cm range of Tau flak and 45cm range of the Tigershark, the TS can effectively hit targets 75+cm from the main Tau battle line without even approaching the edge of the umbrella.  I would reasonably expect any intercepting formation to take ~2 hits for trying to intercept the TS (based on ~8 ICHH and ~2 Skyrays in the complete army).

LOL, disagree with this as well. (sorry - not trying to be obstinent) My army usually beats on the tau pretty good before I fly in my interceptors in - so all those ICHH and Skyrays are usually suppressed if not broken if they are going to be in the area I plan on putting my planes in. I fully admit that this all takes planning and timing from activation 1 in the turn in question.

All those restrictions on how to deploy it limits the damage that the TS can do, right?  Yes, it absolutely does.  But let's look at what kind of damage remains:

Picking at the edges of formations that are moving across the field towards Tau positions.  Worst case scenario is a horde army.  Let's say they average ~25 points per model.
Are we talking about chaos?

Unfortunately, I've seen eldar in the form of horde armies... but that may be a different problem... I've seen massive - and I mean massive almost all infantry ork armies... i don't think the points average was anywhere close to 25 points a stand in those...

Not sure I know what you mean by horde in this sense. anyway... for the hypothetical purposes of discussion...

The TS averages 1 TK hit per turn, plus several auxiliary systems.  There are a lot of variables about marked/unmarked targets, how far under the umbrella the enemy has moved and so on, but I'm going say they average another .5 hits.  
That may be generous but as you noted, too many variables.

In a horde army, that's usually kills because of low armor saves and no way to keep big horde formations completely in cover.  As a rough guess, that's 1.5 kills x 3 turns x 25 points = 112 points.

Well, we have so many hypotheticals and unanswered questions about this scenerio that I'm not sure this data is all that valid or accurate, but I'm trying to follow...

That's assuming that there is never a higher-value target to go after and that the Tau player never decides to risk them, even in the third turn - not exactly realistic expectations.  More accurately, there will probably be an opportunity to hit some higher-value targets, say 50 points each, that have advanced under the Tau AA umbrella.  One round of decent targets of opportunity and the TS has killed its points worth with minimal risk.

Sorry we are stretching in so many different directions without understanding all the possibilities that I really don't think this is valid.

Worst case scenario, against a straight horde army, a TS will only kill ~2/3 its own point value.  In any sort of vaguely realistic situation, it easily kills its own point value or greater.
That assumes so many things - not to mention, it assumes that the TS is left unchecked. I don't think anyone in their right mind would just let the TS have its way over 3 turns. I no my group won't.

Obviously, some of the cover and such will degrade over several turns and the TS can always fail to activate.  But that point-for-point calculation also ignores the hindrance that the TS can cause via suppression or pushing a formation near the break point over the edge, or hitting an already-broken formation to finish it off with hack-down hits.  As far as I'm concerned, it's a wash with respect to those factors.

Not a wash IMHO however, I will agree that there are sooo many variables at play here that the analysis is questionable - at best.

Like I said, I will give it one more shot.  I'll even tell my opponent that I'm taking an air-heavy army so they can prepare.  But unless something is dramatically different than what I expect, they will still be unbalanced.
I disagree with the summation, but I appreciate the perspective and statement. Afterall, your group has a gentlemen's agreement on aircraft as it is. Its likely that any and all aircraft beyond the thunderbolt is more than you guys want to see played. I realize that now. I also fully appreciate that you don't find the rules for E:A fliers all that sound in the first place, so I get the impression that your group would really like to see fliers removed from E:A all together. That's OK, but that also tells me that you guys simply don't like fliers.

Powerful fliers are even more taboo to your group. OK - no problem. I appreciate that. However, I don't feel we should develop to that mindset. Afterall - your group has a gentlemen's agreement in place to address any flier concerns. The mass population is working with a rules set where up to 33% of a force may and can be fliers if the general so chooses. The mass population better full well plan on dealing with that threat and they better come to each tournament game erring to the side of caution when it comes to either SHT or Fliers because any army they come across can have 33% of their points spent in this area - and they can skew to all 33% being SHT or Fliers.

If the enemy army doesn't take an adequate amount of counter measures - in tournament games - then shame on the enemy general... there's no shame on the Tau TS or the IG Shadowsword heavy lists out there. They are legal and powerful against the right foe.

Cheers,