Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
Morays http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5390 |
Page 1 of 3 |
Author: | Nerroth [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:40 am ] |
Post subject: | Morays |
Hi! I was wondering how much use people here have had from either variant of the Moray assault ship, and which variant they mostly ran with. I tried the railcannon variant a while back trying out a T'au force, but recently with the Gue'senshi I have flown two squadroned IC Morays and in my mind the amount of hurt those ion phalanx attacks can dish out each turn is far more useful than the slow-loading Railcannon (except maybe against a force with lots of war engines), the flexibility offered by the pair is a serious asset against infantry or AV formations - plus that amount of hits on SF from a pair of IC Morays is enough to leave plenty of smoking holes in SHTs... (I generally use them as a mobile fire support to whichever group of allied formations need them - they helped keep my opponent's Eldar formations on their toes and punished any Scorpion foolish enough to pop out of cover - a trick the Vultures shared in abundance!) Thoughts? Gary |
Author: | baronpiero [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 7:18 pm ] |
Post subject: | Morays |
Yes, there was a dicussion about this before, and it seems people agreed that Railcannon moray suffers from over-specialization. |
Author: | Tactica [ Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:51 pm ] |
Post subject: | Morays |
BaronP has it. Even considering that the tau really suffer from a lack of long range MWs one can rely upon. The Moray's railcannon has two problems hindering its use. Itss 1) slow firing and 2) single main gun instead of 2 seperate guns that can fire each turn. IMHO - To be worth the points, the heavy main gun option needs to go to something like: 2x Railcannon 90cm MW3+ TK(D3). |
Author: | clausewitz [ Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:43 am ] |
Post subject: | Morays |
Tactica, I think the problem there is that you would create a Suoer-Shadowsword*. This was why the slow-firing version was tried, to offer a WE deterent (RC) or rapid fire regular fire (IC). The 2x TK(D3) attack is possibly too much the best of both worlds. * Super-Shadowsword: a tank like a shadowsword (DC3 WE, with TK long range weapon) but with extras: deflector shield, Support Craft (no CC, more LOS), extra weapons, faster move. |
Author: | Tactica [ Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:13 am ] |
Post subject: | Morays |
Clausewitz, Your point is valid and a concern of mine prior to posting the suggestion. Now I may be wrong, but allow me a moment to plead my case... Shadowsword co = 3 shots & 9 hits. Shadowswords can hide behind terrain and get out of LOS Shadowswords have RA 4+ (Shadowswords have Thick RA too I think) It would take 9 blast markers to break this formation. It takes 3 blasts to do half blast marker hits to each vehicle. Shadowswords can contest and hold objectives. This 3 unit Shadowsword Co costs 500 points. 2 Moray at 4 shots for 600 & 6 hits Moray cannot hide behind terrain and get out of LOS Moray have 5+ RA and shield which is typically 6+ Moray does not have Thick RA but It would take 6 blast markers to break this formation. It takes 2 blasts to do half hits to each vehicle. Morays cannot contest and hold objectives This 2 unit Moray formation costs 600 points. Off the top of my head, I don't know what the shadowswords FF value is, but I suspect its much better than the morays. In addition, the Morays have other weapon systems that the shadowswords do not - but most of these items are somewhat pidly on both sides for the point here. As Morays always being seen has proved a pretty hazardous prospect, their reduction in armor, the loss of three hits in the formation - oh - and the Additional 100 points, I think my proposal is quite a bit closer to balanaced than you may have initially given it credit for. Please consider the above. I'll be interested in your response. |
Author: | Dobbsy [ Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:32 am ] |
Post subject: | Morays |
Good points there Tactica. One thing on the cost you could take into account though is that they can planetfall right into enemy lines and wreak havoc if they take the 6x Ion cannon shots (you'd obviously have to retain initiative) Maybe the cost of the Moray is designed to reflect the choice of weapons you can have and it's other abilities. It is, afterall, the Tau version of a "light Titan" Just thinking out loud here |
Author: | Tactica [ Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:35 am ] |
Post subject: | Morays |
Dobbsy, Agreed, but in order to take advantage of that ability, the tau player must throw even more points into the pot. You have to spend a further 150 points to get a ship... now you are comparing 750 of units vs. 500. I should hope that 750 points is more devistating than 500. As long as you start talking more pints - keep in mind that the Shadowswords have the option to reinforce themselves with 3 more upgrades if one so desires. The Morays don't have that option either. |
Author: | clausewitz [ Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:19 pm ] |
Post subject: | Morays |
Tactica, as is often the case these things are often a matter of perspective. Your comparision of the defensive strength of the IG SHT coy. versus the Tau Moray pair does indeed show the Shadowswords to be more resilient. But are the Tau Morays meant to be that resilient? A SHT coy. is one of the most resilient formations in the game, that kind of heavy armour is a theme of the IG, while the Tau dont really go for that usually. For the record there are a few things that can be added to the analysis. Armour: SS 4+RA (no TRA), Moray 5+RA and Deflector Shield. The SS is probably slightly better versus AT fire, but the Moray is better versus MW & TK (due to deflector). Since a WE formation is a target of choice for MW/TK this benefit should not be over-looked. Speed: SS 15cms, Moray 20cms and Support Craft to ignore terrain. Secondary Weapons: SS 2x Heavy Bolters AP5+ 30cm, Moray Twin-linked Burst Cannons 15cm AP4+/AA6+, Interceptor Missiles 30cm AA5+, Tracer Missiles 75cm MW6+ Guided Missiles. Two AA weapons are worth a fair deal, flak units are always more expensive than their ground equivalents. With also a 75cm MW missile the Moray has more than just an irrelevent difference in secondary weapons. Firefight: SS 5+, Moray 6+ but can force FF to deny CC to opponents. Not a strength of either unit, both will almost always choose to shoot instead of assaulting. The defensive ability of the Moray to avoid CC specialists (eg terminators) probably makes this just about equal. Notes: SS just the RA, Moray has Support Craft, Planetfall, Reinforced Armour, Fearless. While Support Craft can be a mixed blessing, Jaldons recent battle report showed its value (IG arty being neutralised in the first activation) and if the experimental pop-up rules are made official then Support Craft will retain that ability when skimmers will not. Planetfall while requires a space ship it is still a very useful ability. Last but not least FEARLESS, a highly valued ability. In my mind the Moray already has enough advantages to justify 50 points extra (ok, SHT's are cheaper in a coy.). If you were to give the Morays main weapons twice the firepower of the Shadowsword this would increase the difference between the units. Oh and the IG strategy rating is lower than Tau, the Moray has a choice of main weapons and the Moray doesn't use up a contingent/support slot. Finally, the comparison itself is against possibly the best rated tank in E:A. |
Author: | Tactica [ Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | Morays |
Clausewitz, (Sorry had that as Dobbsy before! - doh!) I agree, perspectives are at play. I also think one can deduce a relative cost comparison across lists - as long as you do not lose sight of the overall armies capabilities in addition. In the end, a math equation can sort out a 'rough' comparison of these formations IMHO. If you disagree, I respect that. Your comparision of the defensive strength of the IG SHT coy. versus the Tau Moray pair does indeed show the Shadowswords to be more resilient. ?But are the Tau Morays meant to be that resilient? |
Author: | clausewitz [ Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:51 am ] |
Post subject: | Morays |
Tactica, I have enjoyed the discussion too. (Though I'm not Dobbsy, though I am sure he's a nice enough chap ![]() I dont really like the TK(D6) Slow-Firing Rail Cannon myself. But I do feel that for 250 points it gives the right amount of TK ability. Just to throw an idea in the pot. You mentioned that the Moray is more like the Scout Titan for the Tau, rather than a SHT equivalent. Perhaps it could be adjusted to more that role. Perhaps make it DC4, 2x 60cm MW2+ TK(D3) and 300 points? Its now not a shadowsword at all and the 600 points for two gives DC8 and 4 TK shots (plus shields, AA etc etc) versus the shadowsword coy. DC9 3 TK shots. Please note I will take no offense at this idea being shot down in flames, its just a thought. |
Author: | Dobbsy [ Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:12 am ] |
Post subject: | Morays |
Yes I am a nice chap - just ask me! ![]() ![]() If I had to say something should change about the Moray I would definitely say the slow firing rule. If you look at the Tau rail cannons across-the-board, none of the other types are slow firing, so the Moray's RC should really fall in line with the others. It doesn't makes sense to have one RC type slow fire while all others can ping off shots to their hearts content - even the Manta's RC isn't SF and it's a larger craft! I'm not fussed about it's cost personally(sorry Tactica) but I am about this rule. To me, it almost seems like the rule was introduced because light titan weapons like the Plasma blast gun are slow firing so the moray's needed to be too, just to fall in line. Of course I'm sure this isn't the reason just thinking out loud again -damn my loud brain! ![]() |
Author: | Irondeath [ Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:43 am ] |
Post subject: | Morays |
An extensive discussion can be found in the old forums, here: http://forums.specialist-games.com/epic....ID=5181 |
Author: | Tactica [ Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | Morays |
Dobbsy, ![]() The Manta - heh, completely seperate beast which needs addressed in a seperate debate. Don't get me started ![]() My reason for focusing on the Moray is because one of its two main-gun versions works right now while the other doesn't. You said my suggestion would make a super shadow sword if I recall. I was only attempting to challenge that perspective by showing the other side of the coin while attempting to defend my recomendation. My point in summary is/was - while two morays have proven to be more suseptable to fire, less resilient, do not have durability options, and come out of a restricted point base - they also cost more than the 3 unit shadowswords company do. In exchange, removal of 'slow firing' does not seem enough of a change. However, I will agree with you - this definitely needs to be changed. In addition to our agreed upon perspective, I feel better main weapons are not out of the question for the points paid, and mathematically, the comparison *seems* justified on paper. I've enjoyed the discussion. I think its good to get these differing perspectives out there for people to chew on! IronDeath: noted on the older forum. Unfortunately, that debate is a bit dated. It definitely has valuable info on originating consepts. I do think that debate left out some interesting items that were covered in this debate. All good information. Thanks for posting the link. |
Author: | Honda [ Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:54 am ] |
Post subject: | Morays |
Well as an interested observer I would make the following comments: 1. Based on your combined experiences (Rob and Clausewitz), it is possible that you are both correct. 2. The concept of moving the vehicle away from the SHT category and closer to the Lt. Titan category is an obvious "out of the box" solution if both parties feel strongly enough about their current positions. I for one, like this as a middle ground. 3. I don't know that we "need" to have TK on everything we have. What if the Moray was the Ion Phalanx carrier and the Whiteshark was the Railgun carrier? Just a thought. 4. As part of my purchase, I got two Protectors to represent Morays should they become a viable choice. Some from a purely monetary perspective, let's please solve this soon. ![]() |
Author: | Tactica [ Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:24 am ] |
Post subject: | Morays |
Honda, The intent has always been for the moray and manta to fill the titan roll for Tau. That's why they both come out of aircraft/titan points. Titans (imperial and ork) ground pounder traditional titans don't really make sense from the Tau way of thinking. Ergo, Support Craft special rule. The single Moray is meant to be better than a whiteshark and is much MUCH larger in relative size. I would not mix the two from a game mechanics perspective. The Whiteshark is a bomber and WE / Titan hunter specifically designed for that role. The Moray from a role perspective, is in many ways half of a Manta and without transport capacity. The two main-gun modes of operation for Morays are very important to me personally. The 2x ion-phalanx 3x AT/AP version has proven itself and has been balanced for the points very nicely in contrast with the vehicle's fragility and always being seen aspect. My vote will be to leave that main weapon system as is for the ion-phalanx. From that perspective, no sense in changing what works. The question is the rail-whatever main gun option. This version needs to be worth the points paid. It also needs to be a viable alternative to the ion-phalanx. Slow firing does not do that. Furthermore, for the points, the main gun as a d6 TK weapon does not do the trick. This version is designed to do a better job at titan / WE hunting in fact, it should damage space craft in fluff! The chassis is still quite fragile however. From this gun, I think you can count on the elimination of slow firing, but the rest is up in the air on this main gun. Tau really have 4 formations that make up the significant portion of TK/MW ability. Manta Moray Whiteshark Space ship All of these come from the restricted points section of the list so its not like we are going to have all of them in a game typically. FYI - Tau actually have a limited amount of resource to long range quality MW/TK weapons when compared to many other lists. |
Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |