Tactical Command | View topic

Page 3 of 12

[ 177 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Tigershark

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: Tigershark

Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:41 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

Well, if you make it twin linked the performance does drop.
5 TS as it stands do (against a marked target) - 875 points
5BM for starters (to say Russ - 900 points at 13 strong plus Hydra)
6 2/3 TK hits
1 2/3 MW hits (5/6 of a kill on a RA target)
1 2/3 AT hits (5/12 kills on a RA target)
Roughly 8 kills on a RA target (more slightly on non RA, about 9)
n a 14 strong LR formation that leaves you with about 3-4 tanks after one pass by the planes.

Making the railcannon twin linked and it changes to
4 1/6 TK kills
1 2/3 MW hits (5/6 of a kill on a RA target)
1 2/3 AT hits (5/12 kills on a RA target)

Its gonna take a bit longer to wipe 'em out, but not much! You still break them in one turn assuming you can roll 2+ 5 times with a SC re-roll.

(All this of course ignores incoming fire, the chance of failed activations - thats what a SC is for - and the metagame impact.)

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Top

Lion in the Stars

Post subject: Tigershark

Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:02 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455

Hmmm... Railcannon probably should be TL, then. That's closer to the damage curve I had in mind for the beast (and I think everyone here knows how much I love my airpower).

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Top

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: Tigershark

Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:54 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

Its still a litle powerful y'know

Consider this - are 2 TS costing 400 points total as good as the eldar bomber option, or better? Not a truely fair comparison as they are fighters as well, but they are the only air unit valued at that much.

Thay are also still doing stacks of damage for there points, okay so maybe they dont have the raw kills to beat a horde army anymore, but an armour force is still screwed. They easily make there points back, if not double. I have no idea how much they got in my games but by the end my opponent was dejected and dispairing as they swooped in untouchably again to auto destroy stuff.

They are also a better choice than the Tau bomber/titan. More firepower and can be in the situation where nothing can touch them. Indeed consider this, who would win a Tau game, one 'average' force with a Manta, and one with these guys and optimised to support them?

Top

Steele

Post subject: Tigershark

Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 7:50 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany

Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 28 Dec. 2005 (02:54))

Its still a litle powerful y'know

Also consider those Players who don?t take them at all in a lot of Games. I prefer the Manta and a decent Flak Umbrella. Only in very High Point Games I take them regularly, but again just to Bolster and because I have the Models. And in those Games I which use them , I will need them....

Cheers!
Steele

_________________
Quid pro Quo

Top

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: Tigershark

Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:21 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

Quote (Steele @ 28 Dec. 2005 (18:50))

Well, to be frank I don't have to. Its like a marine player not taking thunderhawks. Sure you don't have to but your assault units are a lot more effective with air transportation. Just because not everyone is using the best weapon in the list tm doesn't mean they aren't a problem.

You have to remember these aren't 'friendly' lists that mates use for a fun game. They can be, but they are designed to be abe to stand up to a bunch of powergamers at a tournament. When playing to win as simple as that i will take a mostly 'optimised' list. Okay so i have a few foibles for less than optimal tank and air units in my siegemaster army, but otherwise I'm pretty ruthless, as are the other guys I play against.

TIPS FOR USING TIGERSHARKS
I find it hard to believe people regulary lose them to ground fire so heres a few tips.
1) Max out, increasing possible advantage in air superiority when gained and activation superiority.
2) Take a lot of flak pieces to cover them.
3) Activate after enemy flak pieces have activated so they can't cut off your escape route.
4) Attack your target at an angle, not straight on, means you can avoid flak and similar on your escape. Basically be a bit imaginative on your manovers.
5) If you can't avoid flak target it as you are a tough plane and , say, a hydra has about a 1/20 chance of blowing you away. Good odds really as they are pretty much toast if you survive.

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Tigershark

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:54 am

Brood Brother

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

Been trying to read up on the pertinent threads - I see TRC's been busy.

Let me first say that I respect NH and TRC opinions, but let us not forget that these are two _recent_ opinions regarding the AX-10 in the grand scheme of things. I don't want to overreact to some bad press (recent reports) when the unit has performed quite well in many a battle report to date. I don't want to ignore the claims either. I'm always willing to review previous decisions from experience, playtest, and new findings as the list grows. Its the only way to keep the list strong. Again, I don't want to overreact either. So I would hope that we all could agree to cautiously approach changes and discussions / suggestions of change.

Personally, the core of what NH has to say worries me more than what TRC has reported. NH points out that when fielded in pairs, the TK ability becomes more of a threat because you can 'see-saw' the units back and fourth thus choosing your flak damage allocation. To the gamey extent its being exploited, I do agree that there's validity in the claim. I also agree that the formation becomes significantly stronger as two superheavies with TK weapons when formed in pairs.

In regards to claims that the single plane formations are rarely shot down - too many Tau players disagree and know better. 3 hydras seem to do it just about every time. I've played against some very sound players and I know others on this list that have. We simply do not see the overwhelming results that TRC reported with the intended attempt to break the list with the planes. As a concern though - I will have to run my own tests to see if I agree or disagree with TRC's summation/results. I think if played well, an opponent can completely overwhelm the tau's chances of dealing with the ground objectives in the game as there's just not enough there. I think the bombers are quite manageable.

In regards to value, I play both variants of the tiger and see both as having very tactically sound uses. I like them both. I may currently value the AX-10 a bit more than the tiger though - and that's only because i actually have to buy the drones that come with the Tiger ion variant.

So, in effort to take tiny steps and not knee jerk, I'm going to respond to what I know and leave speculation for another discussion.

What I feel that I know for 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 considerations is:
==============================================
1) the 2 formation AX-10 causes abuse potential in movement and thus improves the longevity of the formation more than intended. This ulimately raises the value and makes the formation harder to kill than anticipated.

2) The AX-10 is probably worth 200 points per plane to me.

My calculated and small step approach to addressing:
========================================
A) Reduce the AX-10 to 1 per formation. No option for the 2nd plane in the AX-10 formation. A player can still take as many formations as s/he likes, but no more see sawing to make the TK shots last longer.

B) Up points to 200 for the AX-10. I'm sure we'll still play it but it will limit a max of 4 planes to a 2700 point game.

C) Leave stats alone - there's a lot of playtest behind the units current stats. Many and dare I say most DON'T want to see them changed.

I firmly believe the Tau have a working unit here and tiny steps are all thats needed to correct things as they should be. Considering we are on the cusp of 4.3.3 and considering CS himself likes the way the unit plays, I think the above suggestion is more than enough to take us safely and cautiously into 4.3.3 without knee-jerk reacting and without nerfing a unit that has been proven to be effectively and counterable on more than one, two or even three occasions by more than one, two, or even three members of these boards.

Just my thoughts.

(OK, back to moving... heh, real life... blah)

Cheers,

_________________
Rob

Top

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: Tigershark

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 2:36 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

I have to ask how are 3 hydras ever getting a bead on you? Anyway, have a go with the list I tried, i admit I know zip about ground formations and went for those ones for flak, SC and markerlights (and activations), only really know planes as it were. Perhaps I'll get a chance to blow CS up with them at some point

Top

CyberShadow

Post subject: Tigershark

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 3:34 pm

Swarm Tyrant

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9348
Location: Singapore

Quote (Tactica @ 29 Dec. 2005 (08:54))

My calculated and small step approach to addressing:
========================================
A) Reduce the AX-10 to 1 per formation. No option for the 2nd plane in the AX-10 formation. A player can still take as many formations as s/he likes, but no more see sawing to make the TK shots last longer.

B) Up points to 200 for the AX-10. I'm sure we'll still play it but it will limit a max of 4 planes to a 2700 point game.

C) Leave stats alone - there's a lot of playtest behind the units current stats. Many and dare I say most DON'T want to see them changed.

I agree with this overview and suggestion. I think that this will go a long way to balancing the unit without making sweeping changes. At the very least it will provide a good basis for further review.

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

Honda

Post subject: Tigershark

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:53 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

Agree with Tac and CS.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

HecklerMD

Post subject: Tigershark

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 5:06 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201

Quote (Tactica @ 29 Dec. 2005 (00:54))

I'm sorry, but didnt TRC use 5 formations of 1 TS to show that it can be abused?

875 5 x 1 strong squadrons of Railcannon Tiger Sharks

How does this suggestion prevent this same abuse?

Making the A-X-10 a 0-1 formation prevents this abuse.

A moderatly-costed flying TK unit is not the problem here, but hordes of them are. Your solution just makes them a little more expensive, points wise, but we know that if someone wanted to do this, they could give up that Crisis upgrade, or other 125 points item, to get that last A-X-10.

Making it a 0-1 formation totally prevents that kind of abuse from happening, fits perfectly with the fluff for a prototype and/or special purpose unit, and encourages (in a small fashion, admittedly) the use of the regular TS.

Top

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: Tigershark

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:40 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

Heckler, it is a small downgrade. For the list I was using for instance I would have to drop the skyray and the drones. Not that they did anything mind you

Think I might have to re-jig a bit more if that means 2 units are bts, but thats nothing major (is there anything that costs 25 points?).

Once the next iteration of the list comes out I'll try them again against a random army (ie I won't tell Micheal what army I'm bringing) and see how well they do this time.

Top

Icon-Of-Sin

Post subject: Tigershark

Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 5:23 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:38 am
Posts: 66
Location: Italy.

(is there anything that costs 25 points?)

Swordfish Upgrade.

Kisses,Icon.

_________________
Eldar, Eldar ?ber Alles...

Top

baronpiero

Post subject: Tigershark

Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:22 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm
Posts: 186

I didn't noticed this change. I tend to find the extra Titan-Killer shot on the Whiteshark a bit too good for an identical point cost. But rather than a cost increase, I would prefer to see the following happen (much like TRC's suggestion):

Twin-Linked Light Railcannons MW2+ Titan Killer (1)

I tend to prefer this version because it seems more reasonable to have only one shot per craft. Twin-linked weapons are also commonplace on 40K and E:A aircrafts each time they have multiple occurences of the same weapon.

About cost I would lean towards 1-2 Whitesharks at 175 pts each.

TRChris,

a 4+ save seem a fair trade for 5+ save & DC2. But from memory, the Tigershark needs to have the war engine status to work as a drone carrier.

I don't have a clear opinion on the range issue.

Top

Honda

Post subject: Tigershark

Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:18 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

Making the A-X-10 a 0-1 formation prevents this abuse.

A moderatly-costed flying TK unit is not the problem here, but hordes of them are. ?Your solution just makes them a little more expensive, points wise, but we know that if someone wanted to do this, they could give up that Crisis upgrade, or other 125 points item, to get that last A-X-10. ?

Making it a 0-1 formation totally prevents that kind of abuse from happening, fits perfectly with the fluff for a prototype and/or special purpose unit, and encourages (in a small fashion, admittedly) the use of the regular TS.

"If" we were creating list that was supposed to exactly model Tau forces on Taros, I would agree. However, I don't think that is our intent, or at least my expectation.

After thinking about this a little more (that's a subtle way to say I've flip flopped) ?I think TRC and BP's suggestion has merit and we should consider.

I really don't want to limit the number of AX-1-0's, but at the same time, they shouldn't become an unbalancing unit. If we downgrade them a bit, but still allow them to be fielded in pairs, then we retain a reasonably scary unit, that en mass doesn't throw a tournament list out of whack.

As TRC pointed out, you'd kind of hate to see all the Tau tournament lists show up with 5 x AX-1-0's every time you see one.

Also for what it is worth, for some reason I think the two ship formation for fighter bombers feels right. However, that opinion and three bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

HecklerMD

Post subject: Tigershark

Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 5:33 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201

Quote (Honda @ 30 Dec. 2005 (05:18))

As TRC pointed out, you'd kind of hate to see all the Tau tournament lists show up with 5 x AX-1-0's every time you see one.

And making them more expensive or nerfing the unit wont prevent that, just make it a little harder.

Makie it a 0-1 formation of 2, and you will never see that in a tourney-legal list. A player can take 2 un-nerfed A-X-10s and all the standard TSs they want.

And we dont have to go through all the drama or re-costing and re-balancing a unit that was never seen as broken untill someone took a horde of them. Espically as we have yet to resolve the Skyray issue(s), or the leadership issues, the BM issues.. I could go on.

Everyone says they "dont want to limit the number of A-X-10s", but they do, just in different ways that in the end dont really limit them so much.

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 3 of 12

[ 177 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:

Tigershark

Who is online