Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

It is time to let "5 Aces" go...
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5539		 Page 1 of 7
Author:  HecklerMD [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:13 pm ]
Post subject:  It is time to let "5 Aces" go...
These are, in essence, my responses to the concerns that have been raised by the ?5 Aces? issue; I am finding it a poor usage of my time to keep rebutting these Ad nauseam arguments, as nothing fresh is coming of them.

There have been many proposals on limiting the number of A-X-10s that can be taken, either 0-1 formation of 1 or 2 per army, or 1 or 2 A-X-10s per X number of points;  These proposals all have equal merit to those proposals of alterations of the units stats, range, to-hit, ect.  Not only that, an adjustment to the units stats has already been made, and precious little time has been allocated to testing it at its new power levels.

It is time for equal time.  A stats change has been made:  Many say it was not enough.  Now we should try a ?Limited? approach, if you will forgive the pun.

The A-X-10 should be limited either 0-1 or by points, and playtested as thoroughly as the ?5 Aces? list has been, and then a consensus reached before moving on to further stats changes.

If we make it a 0-1 formation of 1 or 2, or limit the unit on points with the same stats and cost as in 4.3.3, I feel it will address current concerns as such:

Issue: 5 formations of 1 are too powerful, therefore 1 formation of up to 2 is also too powerful!

The whole point of the list isn't to show 'hey this is a killer list' but rather to try and emphasize by the shortest route possible the power of the aircraft.

This discounts two important factors:  
Synergistic effect that large numbers of aircraft can have on each other:
When the largest portion of your army is airborne, you turn your attentions first to elimination that which is the greatest, and in fact only, threat to a mostly airborne army:  flak and interceptors.  Both of these being only a fraction of the whole of an opponents army, they are smaller in numbers and scattered.  For flak, aircraft are able to roam the board and target them, say on the first turn.  More aircraft are able to target more flak assets on the first turn.  Once flak is eliminated, and once interceptors, if taken, have been eliminated or expended, a mostly airborne army has free reign over the battlefield, and are immune to retribution.

Once flak and interceptor assets are eliminated, the ability to harm the largest, most mobile portion of a mostly airborne army is completely and totally eliminated.  This is the synergistic effect:  Air units are most able to eliminate to only things that can harm them, and more air units magnify this.

Of note, other archetypes of unit/armies, such as Titans, large RA armies, or horde armies, are able to capitalize,  to a lesser degree, on parts of the synergistic effect:  Eliminate TK, MW, and more potent AP (respectively) weapons in the enemies arsenal, and the ability to be harmed by the enemy is drastically reduced.  The difference is in the totality:  An all Titan army, for instance, after eliminating all of an opponents TK and MW weapons, is still vulnerable to more mundane AT weapons.  Once an armies AA units have been destroyed, nothing can harm air units.  Eliminating the only weapons that threaten air assets means total removal of the ability to harm said air assets.

This is a universal effect:  all armies can take advantage of it to varying degrees .  It is not exclusive to the Tau or the A-X-10.  

Activation Advantage:
The fact that most armies air formations tend to run in the 100-300 range means that making a large portion of an army airborne can also provide a built-in activation advantage, while avoiding many of the pitfalls that taking numerous inexpensive ground units face; this can skew the results of lists like "5 Aces" even further.  We should not ignore the fact that, once again, this is a factor that all armies can take advantage of to varying degrees.  This is another advantage mostly exclusive to air units, but, again, not exclusive to the Tau or the A-X-10

My argument is that while, indeed, 5 units of 1 are too powerful, much of that power stems from the synergistic effect, and the activation advantage, and that in smaller numbers the A-X-10 is powerful but not unbalanced.

Issue:  Even in smaller numbers, the A-X-10 cannot be countered!
Please reference this thread :
http://www.epic40k.co.uk/epicomm....;t=6032
This is a batrep in which an unreasonably large amount of anti-air defenses apparently are able to prevent and equally unreasonably large amount of aircraft from claiming victory.  It is a possible, though admittedly not absolute, extrapolation that a reasonable amount of air defenses might have the same effect against a reasonable amount of aircraft.

If the A-X-10 were to be limited, either by points or by army, then the likelihood of an opponent, with reasonable anti-air defenses, of being able to counter them with a reasonable chance of success is increased, without having to craft ones list to counter this specific threat.  

Indeed, since the (IMO) best counter to a single flight of A-X-10s, a CAP squadron, combined with flak, is also (again IMO) the best counter to a fully laden SM Thunderhawk on a air assault, most lists are likely to already have these precautions bought and paid for, given the ubiquity of the SMs and the Thunderhawk assault.  It can be argued that most flak would play less of a, or no role, against an A-X-10 due to the range of the A-X-10?s weapons, while the Thunderhawk must enter almost all flaks range to deliver its cargo.  It can also be argued that 2 2DC, 5+ armor aircraft without RA are much more vulnerable to CAP of all types than 1 2DC , 4+ armor with RA, so these circumstances may approach evening out.

The new rules, if implemented, granting a +1 to hit for intercepting aircraft also go a long ways towards making CAP the preferred method of tackling A-X-10s.

Players who fail to take rudimentary precautions against reasonable enemy air assets may be shocked and awed equally by the Tau A-X-10 as they would be by the IN Marauder or even small flocks of Ork Fighta-Bommas, and would have no one to blame but themselves.

Lastly, this is situational; Space Marines, Eldar, and the Tau, in the case of ?Tau on Tau violence,? all possess flak that out range the A-X-10.

The serious ability to destroy the A-X-10 does exist.  It is not invulnerable.  It can be countered.

Issue:  Even in smaller numbers, the A-X-10 will still get X number of shots/will still average X number of hits/kills!
Please reference the previous issue.  In smaller numbers the A-X-10 is more likely to be successfully countered, either by destruction or by failed activation due to blast markers; both of which will reduce the number of shots, hits, and kills.

Issue: The A-X-10 can easily earn its points back / twice its points back/ect..
Again, please reference the previous issues; this ability is hampered when the A-X-10 is taken in smaller numbers.

This also assumes that a units ability to kill more or less than its own points value is the most important or even a reliable method of judging a unit.  An air unit?s inability to hold or contest objectives should not be overlooked.

Some units value can be found in how much damage they do, some units value can be found in how much enemy fire and attention they can absorb; Titans come to mind here.

Issue: A-X-10s need never venture outside the Tau flak envelope to make attacks; (therefore, CAP cannot touch them)

Again, situational.  
1: A Tau player relying on the excellent Barracudas to protect him from air attacks might not have much of a flak envelope, or any at all; not everyone takes armies with 12+ Ion Cannon Hammerheads.  Tau flak can be suppressed just as any other armies flak can.  Lastly, when you only have 1 A-X-10 unit, you will want to get the most out of it, and that might mean leaving the flak envelope to get at that most valuable/vulnerable target.  There are many reasons why the Tau flak envelope is not an absolute.
2: One cannot assume that staying in the flak envelope guarantees safety.  Some CAP units may venture into it hoping to get lucky, and they just might.  Some armies CAP units are tough enough to make it (Eldar) or can be found in numbers able to absorb some hits and still be successful (Orks)
3: Some enemy flak is able to outrange the A-X-10; it may not be safe even under its own flak umbrella.  This has been noted already above, but applies here as well.

Also, its worth stating that although a A-X-10 can stay outside a units flak range when shooting at it, the A-X-10 is still required to move 30 cm straight ahead before turning in the disengagement move, as seen HERE, in addition to having to navigate off the board;  Many opportunities for shots and blast markers to pile on will exist.

Issue: Its just too powerful!

I disagree.  The dice Gods may giveth and they may taketh away, but in the end, the TK weapons on the A-X-10 each have a 50% chance of hitting a target, less if the target is in cover.  We have all experienced days when we always roll sixes, and those when we roll ones, and nobody can say with certainty how any unit or weapon will perform on any given day, but 50% of 4 TK shots max, is 2 each turn.  IF they activate each turn, IF they survive into the next turn.

Like those TK shots, those ?IF?s can add up too.

Issue: Everyone is going to take A-X-10s, therefore they must be unbalanced!
OR:
Why would you NOT take these?

Everyone?

Many armies feature many units that are mainstay units;  I don?t need to tell you all what they are, its not a big secret.  Popularity or reliability should not be mistaken for imbalance.

At the same time, many players take these same armies, and take none of these ?mainstay? units;  Player styles will dictate army composition as much, if not more so, than unit abilities.

Conclusion:

The ?5 Aces? taught us many things.  Back in December.  Welcome to February.  Now it is just holding us back.  Pointing at it and saying ?See!  See!? is not teaching us anything new.  The stats of the unit have already been altered; other ideas deserve a chance.



Author:  CyberShadow [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:32 pm ]
Post subject:  It is time to let "5 Aces" go...
I just logged in here with the specific purpose of posting something similar in sentiment, if not in conclusion. This discussion is going on too long and is becoming a 'Crisis discussion' ( ?:blues: ).

I have kept up with the issues raised, and I think that it is time to make some decisions and move this discussion on. Some of my thoughts on this...

The AX-1-0 is overpowered

This seems to be the general opinion of people. However, I am still not entirely convinced that it is as bad as is being reported. In addition, the focus of the issue has changed. Initially, the problem was that a formation of two of these things could race in, and deliver a killing blow with easy and almost guaranteed. Therefore, the stats and formation were changed specifically to address these issues (namely toning down the main armament and making the craft only available individually).

However, now there is issue that there is a cumulative effect of taking many of these aircraft. In addition, the amount of 'real' feedback in the form of battle reports and experience is slower in coming.

The Five Aces

Much has been said on this matter. However, I believe that - while the discussion is valuable - it is acting as a bit of a smoke screen for the real issue. My opinion here is that there is no point addressing the issue of over-loading these aircraft if they are fundamentally flawed. Or, to put it another way, if there does exist a balance issue with large numbers of these, does this point to the fact that a single craft is unbalanced, or that a single craft is OK and they are ONLY unbalanced in large numbers.

AX-1-0 Role on the battlefield

The designed role of this aircraft is also causing a few issues, as I see it. The AX-1-0 is, in my mind, absolutely the most aggressive aircraft in the game. The aircraft of other races are defined to hit ground, soft targets, strike other vulnerable aircraft or avoid conflict for the most part to deliver their cargo. The AX-1-0 is the only aircraft specifically designed to go up against ground based hard targets and do so on an 'equal' footing. It is supposed to be frightening and be able to get the job done, but it is also not supposed to be a sure thing and invulnerable, or even a guarantee of an easy ride. This delicate balance is what is causing the problems.

There are only a handful of other aircraft which can offer a partial comparrison to the AX-1-0: the Thunderhawk and the Vampire (specifically, the Hunter, but I am not sure about drawing parallels with a craft which is also still in a state of flux).

Resolution

There are initially two questions which I would like short, concise responses to:

Is there an issue with the AX-1-0 as it stands in the latest version of the Tau force list (version 4.3.3)?

Is there an issue with the craft when fielded in smaller numbers - one of two in a force list?

I would like to put aside the issue of the Five Aces for a while until these points are answered. If there is a balance issue with the aircraft when fielded in 'normal' numbers, then it points to a problem with its stats fundamentally. If there is only a problem when fielded in larger numbers then a limit on the number of formations which may be brought to a game seems sensible.

I should also note that I feel that I consider 'balance' and 'points cost' to be two seperate entities, which are both important. For me, balance is when your opponent stares at the units as it is placed on the table, and feels dispair, stating that there is nothing that he has that can deal with it and then the entire game becomes a question of hitting that unit. Points cost balance is when the unit is able to make back its own points value very easily, even if it is vulnerable.

Main Armament

As far as I can see, the real issue with the AX-1-0 is its main armament. The advantage which it has over the Thunderhawk and Vampire is that its main weapon is MW/TK, and that it has two of them.

Both of the other aircraft weigh in at about the same points cost, and both have a hard hitting main gun. However, of the three the AX-1-0 does not have a transport capacity. In addition, the Thunderhawn has a much longer reach with its Battlecannon, which is still AT4+. Neither of these craft are further limited in numbers, beyond the standard one third (and the Thunderhawk is not even limited in this way... has anyone tried a game using an army of only Thunderhawks? Does this suffer the same issues as the Five Aces?).

So, the real question is 'is it unreasonable to upgrade the main armament from AT4+ to 2xMW4+(TK) at the loss of the transport capacity (and yes, I am aware that this exchange is not entirely justified as it changes the role of the craft)?'

Please also note that both of the other compared aircraft are only available in their respective lists as individual units in a formation of one.

Thanks.


FURTHER THOUGHTS: I am not saying that tha AX-1-0 is fine as it is. I do feel that it could be altered to make it more competitive, but I also do not feel that it is extremely out of balance when compared to other, heavy aircraft. One option that I am considering, if it is still felt that these craft are unbalanced when used in 'reasonable numbers', is reducing the main weapon to 2xMW4+ and removing the TK aspect to it... Something to think on.
Author:  clausewitz [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:33 pm ]
Post subject:  It is time to let "5 Aces" go...
Is there an issue with the AX-1-0 as it stands in the latest version of the Tau force list (version 4.3.3)?


So the poll is Are the current stats for the Tigershark AX-1-0 balanced?

So thats with the Railcannons as 2x 45cm 4+ TK(1).
Cost 175 points for a formation of 1 AX-1-0.

Question: Tigershark AX-0-1 Poll :: Total Votes:11
Poll choices ?- Votes - Statistics
Yes, I believe that the current stats are balanced. 3 ?[27.27%]
No, I do not believe that the current stats are balanced. 8 ?[72.73%]

Does that not answer that question?
Author:  HecklerMD [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:15 pm ]
Post subject:  It is time to let "5 Aces" go...
Is there an issue with the AX-1-0 as it stands in the latest version of the Tau force list (version 4.3.3)?

The answer should become more redily apparrent when more batreps using them singly or in twos come in.  

For me, stats wise, no.  The number that can be taken is an issue, however.  Which brings us too...

Is there an issue with the craft when fielded in smaller numbers - one of two in a force list?
I've posted a batrep HERE, and a 4.3.2 Tiger Shark AAR HERE....  I play at least monthly and I have more reasonable 3.5K points games lined up here soon, I intend to give you more batreps with 4.3.3 (or 4.3.4 :;): ) using 1 or 2 of the aircraft.

From these experiences, ive found the A-X-10 effective but not overwhelming.  More playtesting may or may not reinforce that impression, but I feel in smaller numbers its balanced.

Remainder removed due to being OT.



Author:  clausewitz [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:48 pm ]
Post subject:  It is time to let "5 Aces" go...
are not the same question,  no

Well if the issue is not balance then what is it?

Honestly it seems like the exact same question to me.

CyberShadows question asked for concise responses as to "Is there an issue with the AX-1-0...".  In what way is that different from the poll?
Author:  Honda [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:30 pm ]
Post subject:  It is time to let "5 Aces" go...

There are initially two questions which I would like short, concise responses to:

Is there an issue with the AX-1-0 as it stands in the latest version of the Tau force list (version 4.3.3)?


An emphatic no.


Is there an issue with the craft when fielded in smaller numbers - one of two in a force list?


Again, no.

@HecklerMD

Thank you for the effort that you put into the analysis, I think you summarized the issues quite succinctly.



Author:  HecklerMD [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:09 am ]
Post subject:  It is time to let "5 Aces" go...
Removed due to being OT
Author:  clausewitz [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:53 am ]
Post subject:  It is time to let "5 Aces" go...
CS is asking for opinions about the A-X-01 stats AND its implementation in the list, which includes cost and various applicable limitations; ?Your poll only is asking about the stats: ?To hit, armor, ect. ?People whe have issues with the A-X-01 but not with its stats are not represented, in your poll, in this question.

The poll specifically mentions points cost and limitations.

In that way it is different, and therefore not the same.
I have to disagree. ?Both are asking about stats, cost and availability.
The poll is also, perhaps, overly concise
In an effort to be clear I may have used less words than I could have.
Besides, people will come here and post their opinions; they dont need the poll to do it for them.

It seemed a worthwhile effort, there has been no shortage of opinions expressed on this issue. ?I thought that it would help CyberShadow to make his decisions to have a summary of the "general opinion". ?At least the 12 or so people that voted appear to have thought it worthwhile.

Some of them may have even changed their minds since they voted.
Indeed, and that works both ways doesn't it? :)
Author:  HecklerMD [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:08 am ]
Post subject:  It is time to let "5 Aces" go...
CW

Perhaps, before you make this thread about your poll, which also has its own thread, you could...not?

CS asked that people post their thoughts on the TS, not to post other peoples thoughts on it.

CS can find the poll if he feels it has value;  Its not really hidden, isint it?

Me and Honda seemed able to figure that out, I'm sure others can do the same.
Author:  clausewitz [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:28 am ]
Post subject:  It is time to let "5 Aces" go...
Heckler, I just made one small comment pointing to the poll.  Since then I've merely been defending that comment.  I am happy to drop the matter.  And if CyberShadow would prefer to remove these comments from the thread I have no objection.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:34 am ]
Post subject:  It is time to let "5 Aces" go...
Before giving my reasoned concise response can anyone answer me this - whats the reason for the waepon stats on the two tigersharks not matching the model? Done a search, can't find anything. Looking at the models the transport one has got its missile pods in the wings, burst cannon and 2 guns at the front, and the railcannon one has got its 2 railcannons, burst cannon, missile pods and underbody missiles. The railcannon one seems to match up sort of.  I take it the wing missiles are the tracer missiles and the underbody ones the Interceptor missiles, or vice versa. But where does the transport varient get its two lots of missiles?
Author:  Tactica [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:48 am ]
Post subject:  It is time to let "5 Aces" go...
Hey all,

We got in two games this weekend. We played them for fun.

I posted in the Norn Queen thread over at the Tyranids forum on epicomms.

(I had 1 hero, 1 flight of barracudas, 1 AX10, 1 orca, and 1 moray in both games.)

Tau won the first game (3500 points) vs. the v6.2 bug list, but a 2-0 narrow margin on turn 3 land grab manouvre. I obtained Blitz and take and hold on the turn 3 due to landing an orca and doing a sprint with hammerheads to claim in game one. (AX10 blew up in this game)

When we played the second game (3,000 points), v6.2 with suggested mod's in the norn queen thread to the bug list - the bugs were tougher! Tau also had initiative issues vs. the bugs in this game. Tau went 0-1 to the bugs after 4 turns! :( (AX10 survived this game)

I had 1 AX-1-0 in both games. My opponent had 1 SHT flier war engine, and several SHT bugs in both games. He also had 10 zoanthroapes keeping my planes at bay very well.

My opponent (andy), same guy I faced the 5 aces against, does not fear my planes - or bomber at all.

I thought i'd comment here as CS said he was interested in some batrep feedback.

Our group - weekend after weekend, just doesn't see any problems when playing single AX-10 formations if 1-2 is played per 3K points.

PS - Poll: The question is too black and white for my tastes. I've not voted and do not want to see the AX-1-0 stats or points changed. I would approve and test with a limit by points being played though.

Cheers,
Author:  Tactica [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:53 am ]
Post subject:  It is time to let "5 Aces" go...
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 05 Feb. 2006 (20:34))
Before giving my reasoned concise response can anyone answer me this - whats the reason for the waepon stats on the two tigersharks not matching the model? Done a search, can't find anything. Looking at the models the transport one has got its missile pods in the wings, burst cannon and 2 guns at the front, and the railcannon one has got its 2 railcannons, burst cannon, missile pods and underbody missiles. The railcannon one seems to match up sort of. ?I take it the wing missiles are the tracer missiles and the underbody ones the Interceptor missiles, or vice versa. But where does the transport varient get its two lots of missiles?

TRC,

neither plane matches its actual load out as it would be too strong for E:A.

Both planes are artificially stat'd out and dumbed down to fit withing the constraints of E:A.

Example: they are actually fighter bombers - not bombers.

Regards to 'where's the missles' - its a missle bay, whos to say what's in there?

Cheers,
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:58 am ]
Post subject:  It is time to let "5 Aces" go...
Bread products for distribution to starving Imperials.
Author:  Honda [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:34 pm ]
Post subject:  It is time to let "5 Aces" go...

Bread products for distribution to starving Imperials.


I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this, but it made me laugh out loud anyway.

:D
Page 1 of 7 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/