Tigershark |
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Tigershark  Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:08 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
With a few more Tau games under our collective belt, pretty much everyone I play with agrees the 2xTK3+ on the Tigershark is too much.
In the last game we played, this 350 point formation gutted a 950 point reinforced Russ company. Because of the 45cm range, it could hit the edges of the formation without triggering AA fire from the attached Hydra and then the BMs from the shots usually suppressed the formation enough that the Hydra didn't get any flak shots on the disengagement move.
In fact, we've pretty much all come to the conclusion that we can't even accurately evaluate the Tau's real AT ability as long as Tigersharks are in the equation.
I don't know enough about 40K stats or IA3 to propose any changes, but I really think that the Tigersharks are at least unbalanced and bordering on broken.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:01 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
Hmm... interesting report. We've not encountered that locally. In fact, mine got blown out of the sky this weekend as soon as it was used, though it did drive home the goal first.
The IA3 AX-10 strike craft has the manta's guns on it. However, we've toned that down from E:A. 4+ armor with no reroll usually means that thing gets shot up pretty good in our games.
Are your opponents taking much AA?
I'll admit that most of my opponents go heavy AA against me. Whether I'm playing chaos, IG or Tau - I like planes. The mauraders, although a bit overpriced, can be a real nasty treat with disrupt! You just have to clear the way for them.
In fact, of all the planes in all three armies, the mauraders... well, the helltalons are really good too of course, are probably my favorite. Distrupt is just brutal.
The AX-10 is also valuable. You have to have a meaty target to make it justified though. 4+ armor and no RA doesn't keep it in the air that long in our games.
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:30 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Are we talking about the same craft?
4.3.2 - DC2, 5+ armor.
Put 2 of them in a formation - half the number of flak shots, and if one is damaged, you can lead with the other so that any hits are allocated to the undamaged one first.
45cm TK3+
Allows you to outrange the vast majority of ground flak on the way in. You may take some flak shots, but not until after you get those TK shots off.
As noted in other posts, I've been playing HHIC-heavy armies to provide an AA umbrella to protect them from interception. Last time they were intercepted, the enemy chose to fly down 5 shots from the HHICs, plus risk counter-interception from Baracudas.
So, no, they usually don't get shot down.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:49 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
I thought it was 4+ armor in v4.2.8 WIP, maybe it went to 5+ in v4.3.2... I'll have to check.
Yes, same craft. I typically only use one in a formation though. Perhaps that's why I see it diffeently.
300 points and 2 does allow you to see-saw them a bit and divide the damage.
The 45cm doesn't usually allow me to get around flak. It moves as a bomber, so not the most manouvrable thing. The flak umbrellas that I deal with are usually severe.
Eldar, chaos, orks, IG and Tau are usually what I'm dealing with.
My opponents usually have a lot of flak AA. Fliers usually aren't worth a hill of beans until you can clean up the AA field in our games. I've probably the biggest flier fan in our group. Most are light on fliers but absolutely horrible when it comes to dealing with the AA cover.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
CyberShadow
|
Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:39 pm |
|
| Swarm Tyrant |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9348
Location: Singapore
|
|
You may have a point... would reducing the Light Railcannon range to 30cm solve the issue?
Comments guys? Thanks.
_________________ https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond. https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:40 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Dobbsy
|
Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:50 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Quote (Tactica @ 19 Dec. 2005 (22:40)) | | That would definitely make it more suseptable to the many 45cm AA out there. |
I agree. It's already vulnerable to longer than 45 cm ranges - fireprism, hunter etc. I would say you have to look at across the board ranges vs shoot down ability not just one army type. 2 armies have 45cm + and 2 armies don't, however the the armies that don't get cheap AA. Hydras are 50 points each!
This said however, if NH is worried there's too much TK in the formation and Tac' thinks the shorter range would be a liability then wouldn't it be more prudent to give both sides a chance? Maybe drop the 2x 3+ shots per aircraft to 1x TK3+ on each aircraft thereby halving the FP but still have the range needed. Afterall, as Tac' said it is a bomber - not the most manouverable plane.
I think the points would definitely need looking at though if this is the chosen path for the formation.
Just my 2 cents
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:33 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
Dobbsy,
I'd rather the plane have the 2x shots at 30 rather than single shot at 45!
The plane is rather Suseptable to firepower as it is. NH's problem seems to only be sited because 2 planes are fielded together in his examples, thus, the formation is more durable due to his see-saw manouvering he mentioned.
We'll, I'm not convinced there's even a problem. I've not had them survive, however, I only field AX-10 in a single model typically.
Perhaps the solution is to make the plane limited to only 1 unit per formation and don't change anything with the range or shots.
I've yet to encounter a problem with this unit in this configuration.
Is the plane potent, yep. No question. Its meant to hunt titans though. It has cannons that are better than a shadowsword mounted on it... dumbed down to 45cm and two shots instead of D3 should be adequate. If two in a formation is two strong as the formation won't go down, then I'd much rather take it to 1 per formation rather than change the armorment at this stage.
Just my thoughts.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Steele
|
Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:20 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
|
|
In all games in which I field them ( any combination ) one of them is almost shot down in the first run. I don?t have the feeling that they are too strong.
Steele
_________________
Quid pro Quo
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:55 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
I would be strongly in favor of leaving the weapons abilities as is and costing them or "formationing" them (don't look it up, it ain't a real word) appropriately.
Considering all the effort (i.e. discussion/testing) we went through to get this an effective weapon loadout, I'd really rather we fiddle with the cost vs. cutting body parts off.
So...
Option A - cost it so that a formation of two is now 400, 450? (make suggestion)
Option B - only allow a formation to have 1 bomber. BTW, what do other bomber formations get to do?
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Steele
|
Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:07 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
|
| Quote (Honda @ 20 Dec. 2005 (12:55)) | I would be strongly in favor of leaving the weapons abilities as is and costing them or "formationing" them (don't look it up, it ain't a real word) appropriately.
Considering all the effort (i.e. discussion/testing) we went through to get this an effective weapon loadout, I'd really rather we fiddle with the cost vs. cutting body parts off.
So...
Option A - cost it so that a formation of two is now 400, 450? (make suggestion)
Option B - only allow a formation to have 1 bomber. BTW, what do other bomber formations get to do? |
I think upping the cost is not tolerable, we are then getting with a simple Bomber Formation into Titan Regions, with less survivability but similar Firepower.
As for restricting to 1 Model , who would take it? It?s almost doomed to shot down in it?s first run , and when not , it won?t come back the next turn either. Pretty expensive 200 Point formation. 
_________________
Quid pro Quo
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:27 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
In general, I'm increasingly of the opinion that any aircraft formation more than ~300 points is going to cause balance problems based simply on the nature of the aircraft rules.
Obviously, we are dealing with some significantly different play styles. I'm at a loss as to how an army would adequately defend against them, but you guys are saying that they get shot down regularly.
To be sure, they are shot down, but I've yet to see them not account for more than their point cost. That's usually straight up point-for-point kills. But even when it's not outright kills the fighters shot down when they brave the flak umbrella to go after them or the time that their target(s) spent broken after being clobbered by them easily makes up the difference.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:44 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
I think upping the cost is not tolerable, we are then getting with a simple Bomber Formation into Titan Regions, with less survivability but similar Firepower.
|
Fair enough statement. However, is anyone going to be excited with unit if the range is only 30 cm? That in all likelyhood will also just get it shot down.
If there is a fair amount of resistance to adjusting the points and formation size, then perhaps we do need to go back to the number and type of shots. I think the range is critical to allowing it to deliver it's payload.
This is just another thought, but does the A-X-10 get multiple seeker shots? The 40K version of them carry a cloud of seekers, maybe we can work the RC down a bit and compensate with multiple seeker shots.
I can see other people's points, so I will be flexible on this. I have yet to field them as I haven't been impressed with what they bring to the table and have preferred the Moray with its vulnerabilities, but range and hitting power.
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
| Top |
|
|
|
HecklerMD
|
Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:35 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201
|
I would like a points increase OR lowering the light railcannons to 2x MW4+ (TK1), but keeping the 45cm range.
I've also proposed that the A-X-10 formation be a 0-1 formation, last week I think.
Other armies (Eldar) have 45cm aircraft weps so we are not breaking any limits here, just forcing enemies to use more CAP as well as flak, which they probablly should anyway.
Lets not do anything drastic 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Tigershark Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:31 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
I don't want to do anything drastic here. We put a lot of pain sweat, tears, typing and playtesting into this formation. The AX-10 is 'finally' working.
The points are fine for 1 unit. I think 350 is adequate for 2 frankly and have read batreps where formations of 2 are getting the hammer blow often enough.
On the other hand, if numerous think the formation is a problem, then I'd rather not see it restricted to 0-1 per army. I think making rare units due to power is the wrong answer. It causes the "I must take that unit/formation because its powerful and rare" mentality.
Instead, I'd rather see the AX-10 be a formation of 1 unit with no option for a second unit in the formaiton. You can take as many 1 unit formations of the AX-10 you want that way, and the balance of dealing with the see-saw effect is removed. The burden of dealing with a 4 hit flying formation is removed as well.
Personally, I don't want to see the unit touched otherwise. This thing is supposed to be a network markerlight, advanced targetting TK hunting beast. It effectively portrays that now even though we've limited the range of the guns.
IF WE MUST - I'm OK with making these single unit formations, but changes beyond that are too drastic of a step IMHO.
NH's comments are the first I've heard of anyone having a problem. A of effort was put into getting the AX-10 developed, and a lot of playtest is behind it. Our list also sorely needs the MW support. Baby steps here people.
I trust that NH's comments are fair and just. I don't want to make knee-jerk changes though... cut off limbs and what not.
Lets consider the impact of simply taking the formation down to 1 unit max per AX-10 formation and see if that adequately addresses the toughness of the 2-unit _formation_ to bring down and FP from the 2-unit _formation_. This change would seem to address the reported problem/event.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
