Page 1 of 3

[ 34 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Tau Air power, Part 1, Introduction and Fighters
The_Real_Chris	Post subject: Tau Air power, Part 1, Introduction and Fighters Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:27 am
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London	Air power is a bit of a pet subject with me. I like it, I use it, but I worry about it increasing in Epic as I don't think the game is set up to cope with it - reasoning?s here (Air arguement) Also it?s worth saying at this point that the stats fitting the models guns should not be 100% in the air. Doing so ups the power of the aircraft as literal 40k translations, like for tanks, doesn't seem to be possible whilst keeping the balance with the existing game and fliers.. So, how do the current Tau craft shape up in comparison to the Imperium and Eldar? I say these two as I think the Tau should fall between them in ability. So here?s a little comparison. Now I admit I've only faced Tau twice but both times the air caste was maxed out (though not all on planes) with the two players seeing it as an area of core competence for the list and a strength. Facing them both times was my normal AA mix. 2 Thunderbolts (who never got shot down) and 5 hydra/6 emplaced flak pieces. I did feel though the air (a squadron of each plane in the second game, and 2 fighter squadrons plus a Tigershark squadron in the second) had me outclassed. I have seen them in action several times as well. So how do the planes look? Well, currently I'd ditch my Imperial gear for the tau in a second because they have some great ground attack stuff. Here?s what informs that decision. Note all this assumes the Tau suggestions will come into effect (GM range 45cm, TK weapons for bomber etc). TAU BARRACUDA SUPERIORITY FIGHTER In the fluff the Tau?s mainstay air defender now starting to explore ground attack. Both times I've faced them they chose to explore ground attack ever turn of the game. Indeed the description fails to match the stats with the barracuda coming across on paper and in the game as a great ground attack fighter (I recognize the GM changes and similar are meant to tone down the plane in relation to the tau bombers proper). Barracuda vs Thunderbolt Cost 3 Tau Barracuda Superiority Fighters 250 points More expensive than a thunderbolt but cheaper than a nightwing. Survivability The Tau is a small fraction better than the Thunderbolt due to the fact it is a fighter. On ground attacks it can turn tighter potentially dodging flak arcs. The Eldar are far better on the approach, and everyone is equal exiting. AA ability Better than a Thunderbolt squadron. 1 activation brings to bear a lot more firepower but that?s a fault of the thunderbolt squadron size. Plane for plane the Tau have a slightly better attack at 15-30cm and within 15cm have a statistically even number but also a chance for a high number of hits. It also has something both Eldar and Imperium fighter planes lack ? defensive flak. Not much help verses elder but a big deal verse Orks and cutting the number of attacks from a cautious Imperial pilot by half. Eldar have them beat on firepower however. Longer range and lance make the nightwing the most able interceptor to date. Ground attack ability. The Barracuda is ahead of the Imperium here. Firepower is matched or exceeded. First off being a fighter means it can turn sharper on ground attack approach moves. The burst cannon have the same AP4+ as stormbolter but can fire 360. The ion cannon is simply a lot better than the multilaser and the seeker missiles have a longer range than the underwing rockets making stand off sniping attacks a lot easier to do (with 45cm you will be outside of most armies flak umbrella as flak is typically in the centre of formations, not at the edge). Ignoring fire arcs and weapon ranges against an infantry target the barracuda can deliver 2 AP4+ shots and one AT5/6+, against armour 1 AT4+, 1 AT5/6+ and 1 AP4+ - the Thunderbolt AP4+, AP5+, AT4+ or AP4+, AT6+, AT4+. Better I think in both mission profiles. I've ignored squadron size here but it is another advantage for the Tau meaning the same number of planes take less attacks reaching the target and get to lay down more firepower once they are there. Against the Eldar its less clear cut. For hot zones the save is a big advantage. However at 100 points each effectively Eldar air players seem very cautious and attack similar targets to the other races (near suppressed/dead flak). Both are fighters so it comes down to weaponry. A lot of words isn't needed here, the tau have the advantage of range on one weapon, a choice of AP4/AT4 on the ion cannon and a good AP4+ back up shot. The eldar AT4+ and AP4+ is outmatched in number of weapons and overall hit chances. Overall I have the say the Barracuda does not come over as its background suggests and I do not think it falls between the Imperium/Eldar power range, surpassing the Eldar in the ground attack role. Indeed the plane come across more as a ground attack fighter that doubles as an interceptor than a fighter that is now starting to explore and develop ground attack missions. Also it could be a fault of the air rules but in the games I've played and the ones I've seen the barracuda has been almost exclusively ground attack. Hammerhead Ion cannon are enough to blastmaker transports and similar and players are going for ground kills instead. I would suggest making it a fighter bomber (and thereby degrading its ground attack profile), making the seeker missiles 30cm range and the ion cannon AP5+/AT6+, AP6+/AT5+ or even AP6+/AT6+. I think the AA ability is fine but the ground attack capability should be reigned in to match. With the AP6+/AT6+ ion cannon option (call it a light ion or something ) the Imperial plane would be slightly better at ground attack and worse at air attack. And since it seems to be far more ground orientated I think this would be fine. The price could also drop to 225 points for three Barracuda. As a final fighter note how does air superiority in every field translate into a very small price increase over the Thunderbolt? _________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com! 'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
Top

KivArn	Post subject: Tau Air power, Part 1, Introduction and Fighters Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:35 am
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:51 am Posts: 487	ak, no... changing the Baracuda Air Supiriority Fighter would not be good, it is a fighter their basic pilots can perform manovers that only the most experienced imperial fighter pilot can pull off. They are fighters first and formost not bombers, a fighter bomber brings the image of a ground attack craft anyway. which is what you want to get  away from. Fighters are like the lightning, not much weaponry, fast and only really AA Bombers have cargo holds or massive weapons-they do not chase other planes and drop their cargo from hight onto enemy possitions - a la marauder Fighter bombers remind me of thunderbolts... racks of rapid fire weapons that mow through an enemy horde. If you are worried about there ability to do ground attacks... why not change the stats so it is more AA orientated.. and less AT/AP
Top

Legion 4	Post subject: Tau Air power, Part 1, Introduction and Fighters Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:52 am
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm Posts: 36949 Location: Ohio - USA	All aircraft should have ground attack (CAS) stats, regardless ... We don't play Air2Air rules, only CAS and AAA/ADA/Flak ... ?But do what works for you. ?Bottom line - everything that flys should be able to perform CAS ... ? ?IMO ...          BTW, I like the Tau, they are the most hi-tech/modern force in the game !   _________________ 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: Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:58 am
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London	Damn, pc crash ate reply. In essence ? Fighter/fighter bomber has no realation to name. Its an in game term. The Barracuda would remain a fighter - just as an interceptor remains an interceptor. However they could be fighter or fighter bombers in the rules sense. The fighter/fighter bomber bit comes down in the stats section. It refers to how manoverable a craft is making at a ground attack. Fighters are better at ground attack than fighter bombers. Fighters turn 90 degrees n ground attack approach moves, fighter bombers turn only 45. In the air for intercepts they both turn 90 degrees. The way to show air superiority is through increased save, damage or AA weaponry. Fighter/fighter bomber has no impact. _________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com! 'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
Top

JimmyGrill	Post subject: Tau Air power, Part 1, Introduction and Fighters Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:00 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:05 pm Posts: 61	Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 14 2005 July,08:27) Also it?s worth saying at this point that the stats fitting the models guns should not be 100% in the air. Doing so ups the power of the aircraft as literal 40k translations, like for tanks, doesn't seem to be possible whilst keeping the balance with the existing game and fliers.. Honestly, I am becoming a bit tired of hearing that argument over and over again, simply because it doesn't even apply here. I agree with this concept, that's why one of the first things I did with the Barracuda was to replace the 'twin missile pods' (40K) with the current interceptor missiles - meaning dropping an AP4+/AT4+ weapon for AA5+ only. I don't care for 40K stats for aircraft/titans *at all*, there have been several people on the old boards accusing me of this (quite rightly). What I do care about is what the Epic model carries. It is a good concept to put the Tau between Imp and Eldar, that was the design goal. However, the problem with this is that while the Barracuda is similar in many ways to the T'bolt, the Nightwing is somewhat different to both, in that its greatest strengths lie in its excellent save and range. So, how much better than the T'bolt is the Barracuda really? >>AA is equal in total, with the Barracuda being a pip better at range (30cm). One further benefit is that the burst cannons have a 360? fire arc, so the Barracuda has a 6+ AA defence within 15cm. This is really just in for consistency reasons, as all Tau flyers have those all-round burst cannon defences. So all-in-all slightly better, but not a big deal. (I would also like to dispel the myth here that 'more dice at equal mean value is better, because you can potentially get more hits', as TRC has mentioned it. This is one of those things that may seem to make sense intuitively, but is simply false statistically. Look, there is the *mean* value (aka average), which means that, calculated over an infinite (or at least very large) number of attempts, this is the score you will get. It is true that whith more dice, you *potentially* have more successes, BUT there is also the increased chance of getting less hits, exactly to the extent to cancel out the bonus you may sometimes get - because the mean value is the same. This very fact means that for any hit you can get more, there must be an equal chance to get less. The average number of hits is identical, and this is all what counts if you want to consider more than a few select instances.) >>AT is also equal, with an AT4+ and an AT6+. Some points here: First, what almost all non-Tau players like to ignore is that the GMs are factored as much into infantry cost as into the cost of the carrier; they aren't so much 'free' shots for flyers or tanks, as a recompense for *total* lack of AT attacks on most infantry units. Second, the main source of AT power on the Barracuda is the Ion cannon, meaning that when firing at mixed formations (and the majority of formations includes at least some vehicles and infantry), you lose either AP4+ or AT4+ as you have to decide. With the T'bolt, you always get the AT4+ from the rockets, and can drop the AT6+ from the Multilaser for an AP5+. The seekers have a 45cm range, but this on itself is pretty meaningless. If you really want to waste a flight of Barracudas for a 45cm standoff attack with just 3xAT6+, go ahead. But apart from using a 250 points air formation for placing a BM, you aren't going far with that. So AT is pretty equal in total. >>AP is slightly better with AP4+ at range and 2xAP4+ close up for the Barracuda, while a T'bolt has AP5+ at range and 5+ and 4+ close up. So again, one pip better, this time in both cases. Even if we assume infantry targets with no save, this is equal to 0.5 more infantry units killed per aircraft per game. >>Mixed Targets (AP&AT): when attacking formations including either LVs or both infantry and vehicles, which is very common due to transport vehicles, Barracudas are actually inferior by a pip both at range and close up. So firepower-wise, the case is quite clear if you look at it exactly enough. The Barracuda *is* better, but not by much. Certainly not as much as some people would like to make out. >>The Eldar: as I said, it is difficult to compare those to both Imperial and Tau craft, as they are a somewhat different concept. Their two big strengths come from their high save and long range, giving them excellent survivability. Their firepower isn't boosted by the same degree, but what one should never forget is that higher survivability often means higher number of shots, as living longer entails shooting back longer. AA is plain superior than both contestants, AT is about even, depending on how useful 'lance' is against your targets, and AP is weaker than both, at least up close, but equal or even better at range. They can also compare quite well against mixed targets. So Eldar have similar firepower (dependng on targets) than out two contestants, but trump with range and save. >>Fighter vs. Fighter-Bomber This decision was made to get across the better manoeuvrability of Barracudas, and it is a small benefit indeed. Actually I don't feel it makes any meaningful difference for avoiding flak, I see its main use in getting back to your own table edge easier after G/As. I would not change this, unless for very good and convincing reasons. >>Formation size Yes, this is the one area where Barracudas (and Nightwings) are clearly better than T'bolts. However, such small formation sizes are not problems in the Tau but should be addressed in the Imp lists. It's not so much a Tau, Eldar or Ork strength as an Imperial weakness - T'bolts should have been 3@200 in the first place... >>The aircraft hype Most of this is new army syndrome, really, or rather 'haven't really played that new army but airforce looks damn broken on paper syndrome' (without singling out any particular person with this comment, there have been several posts to this effect already). With an army lacking any IDF weapons at all, while supposed to be working as a ranged army, other elements have to take up this role. It is true that with Tau, airforce is powerful (but expensive); however, this is not a bug, it's a feature. You just need some weapons to deal with threats like artillery. Actually, one reason why aircraft are not so widespread in other armies (Imp most notably), is that these armies have other units that are more effective at getting their payload to enemies anywhere on the table - artillery springs to mind. Imagine the following scenario: the rulebook contains the Eldar, SM and ork lists. The IG list is being worked on now. Comments by players: 'OMG an army full of RA and artillery! That's soo broken!' >>What is all boils down to however, is the question whether Tau can gain air superiority too easy, and whether a Tau army with a high proportion of airforce is at an unfair advantage. The answer to both these questions is, in my experience, no. And I have played some games with my entire 33% allowance blown on bombers and fighters. Air superiority, against Orks okay, granted, against others it's more of a contest. To this day,duels between 1 flight of Barracudas and two flights of T'bolts are far from being a foregone conclusion.
Top

asaura	Post subject: Tau Air power, Part 1, Introduction and Fighters Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 1:18 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am Posts: 481	Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 14 2005 July,08:27) Also it could be a fault of the air rules but in the games I've played and the ones I've seen the barracuda has been almost exclusively ground attack. Hammerhead Ion cannon are enough to blastmaker transports and similar and players are going for ground kills instead. It's the fault of Thunderhawk stats. There's no way anyone can shoot one of them down, so the name of the game is just getting the cheapest "BM-placer" flak. With Tau, that's generally the Ion Cannon HH. Vulnerable transports, like the Tau Orca, *are* affected by enemy fighters.
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Tau Air power, Part 1, Introduction and Fighters Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:52 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	AA ability - I don't think it's wise to ignore the proposed +1 on AA shots under Interception/CAP orders in the experimental rules.  I feel confident that it will be implemented, and it adds more to the 3xAA Tau aircraft than other interceptors which have no more than 2xAA. At the very least there should be significant playtesting done both ways to determine the extent of the effect. _________________ Neal
Top

JimmyGrill	Post subject: Tau Air power, Part 1, Introduction and Fighters Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:04 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:05 pm Posts: 61	Neal, we've been using those exp. rules in most of our games, yes. That was the reason why the burst cannon stats have gone down from AA5+ to AA6+ (meaning without bonus a Barracuda doesn't have better AA than a mere T'Bolt, only when range and modifiers are brought in).
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Tau Air power, Part 1, Introduction and Fighters Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:42 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	Okay _________________ Neal
Top

Guest

Post subject: Tau Air power, Part 1, Introduction and Fighters Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:47 am

Strange, I can't seem to post to this thread as The_Real_Chris Honestly, I am becoming a bit tired of hearing that argument over and over again, simply because it doesn't even apply here. Sorry Jimmy, I know the barracuda doesn't do this, it was a comment I forgot to put in the air thread and stream of conciousness stuff put it in here. >>AA is equal in total, (snip). So all-in-all slightly better, but not a big deal.

Indeed, I think the AA is spot on on the fighter. It has the edge on the thunderbolt, is slightly better at interceptions at 15cm+ and has a defense differentiating it from the Eldar.

(I would also like to dispel the myth here that 'more dice at equal mean value is better, because you can potentially get more hits', as TRC has mentioned it. This is one of those things that may seem to make sense intuitively, but is simply false statistically.

True - but it has implications in general for mechanics. Say on the ground sustain fire bonuses and similar come into effect. Likewise a plane with two AT5+ attacks is on average worse off attacking units in cover than a unit with AT3+. For AA as Nealhunt points out it may have an effect (however that effect would need so much testing I hope it is on trial for a year before coming out officially).

>>they aren't so much 'free' shots for flyers or tanks, as a recompense for *total* lack of AT attacks on most infantry units.

Wish my siege masters got that

If you really want to waste a flight of Barracudas for a 45cm standoff attack with just 3xAT6+, go ahead. But apart from using a 250 points air formation for placing a BM, you aren't going far with that.

Its a small advantage for extremely hot/dangerous situations. Why do you want to give it to them?

So firepower-wise, the case is quite clear if you look at it exactly enough. The Barracuda *is* better, but not by much. Certainly not as much as some people would like to make out.

I think it has numerous small edges which add up. And I would still be for tipping the AA/Ground balance or altering the background slightly. It seems strange for the Tau not to have used a good G/A fighter before now, even just on mopping up or wild weasel runs.
Oh and I think my seeker views may be coloured by barracudas making markerlight assisted runs at my artillary out of range of my blitzen

>>Fighter vs. Fighter-Bomber
This decision was made to get across the better manoeuvrability of Barracudas, and it is a small benefit indeed. Actually I don't feel it makes any meaningful difference for avoiding flak, I see its main use in getting back to your own table edge easier after G/As.
I would not change this, unless for very good and convincing reasons.

Rules check (I assume a lot rules wise and don't thave the pdf's to hand on this telephone modem). I was always under the impression that fighter bomber only came into effect on the approach move. In intercepts and exits it reverts to being a fighter. I'm pretty sure about this. Ironically being a fighter rather than a fighter bomber makes you better at the approach move, not the exit or dogfighting or anything else. To that end fighters with similar weapon loads are better at making ground attacks than fighter bombers.

I take it from your comments you think a fighter bomber exits the table like a bomber as well as enters?

It does make a difference, I was far more daring with my t'bolts until I realised I was on 45 degree turns on approach. Limits my chances to avoid flak and get off my own table edge. And to give the barracuda an edge at an area that is new to them seems to be slightly strange.

>>Formation size
Yes, this is the one area where Barracudas (and Nightwings) are clearly better than T'bolts. However, such small formation sizes are not problems in the Tau but should be addressed in the Imp lists. It's not so much a Tau, Eldar or Ork strength as an Imperial weakness - T'bolts should have been 3@200 in the first place...

As a ground attack plane the thunderbolt is really good if used well. But yes its poor in the air. Te formation size does act as a multiplier to the other Tau advantages, multiplying them (by a factor of three ).

Most of this is new army syndrome, really, or rather 'haven't really played that new army but airforce looks damn broken on paper syndrome'
Nothing beats the saim haine 360 degree 45cm range flak yet

It is true that with Tau, airforce is powerful (but expensive); however, this is not a bug, it's a feature. You just need some weapons to deal with threats like artillery. Actually, one reason why aircraft are not so widespread in other armies (Imp most notably), is that these armies have other units that are more effective at getting their payload to enemies anywhere on the table - artillery springs to mind.

I think with Orks it is pretty common to see half a dozen planes at least - as they are there doing the projected firepower thing as you note. However I'd echo nealhunts comments about indiviual planes getting more powerful, they require more counter-measures and the current epic lists can't all deliver those counter measures without being rather bland. I've already seen Orks running around with 2 dozen flak wagons to combat eldar air (and that isn't an attractive choice compared to the titans). And other people I know who go to tournaments are loading up with ever more flak. Powerful air (which I am not accusing the barracuda of being mind) then has a problem. How to cost it? If used right you can never take a single shot of flak in the game, do you cost for it being untouchable? (That THK annilator spring to mind.)

Imagine the following scenario: the rulebook contains the Eldar, SM and ork lists. The IG list is being worked on now.
Comments by players: 'OMG an army full of RA and artillery! That's soo broken!'

You kidding, judging by the eldar list last couple of months development the commissars would go from 2d6 to one per formation And a special rule for tank assualts would pop up

>>What is all boils down to
however, is the question whether Tau can gain air superiority too easy, and whether a Tau army with a high proportion of airforce is at an unfair advantage.

I should note you have to put flak into that equation. Would you have air supierority with 24 flak wagons runing around?
Conversly how does the air force look with the support of the ground flak?

Also verses Orks - should they have air superiority if they were really trying for it? Its what there armegeddon list seems to assert.