Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 177 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

Tigershark

 Post subject: Tigershark
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

_________________
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tigershark
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
[quote="The_Real_Chris,12 Jan. 2006 (12:28)"][/quote]
O and Tactica what is the TS in IA3, a WE hunter - do its weapons reflect that?


TRC,

In IA3 - *From memory* it has:
90 inch twin-linked railcannons, Strength 10, TK(D3)
(one shot, 3+ to hit, reroll misses)
(It has the option to fire the ordiance template shot as well)

It also has
networked markerlight on board
(means it can fire its own missles at 2+ to hit - table top range!)
6 or so seeker missles that can all be fired in one turn

I think it also has burst cannons
I can't remember if it has any Missle Pods or not

With the Seekers, it has the ability to self lauch enough shots to knock down the two armor 12 shields of a warhound titan and blow the titan up in a single turn.

These are the 40K stats in IA3... best I can recall them, as far as what the list looks like in E:A - well, that has soo many flaws and is simply a copy of our Tau v4.0 list that what it had in there was basically irrelivent IMHO. As all Forgeworld Epic attempts were efforts to mimic what was in 40K best they could in Epic, I think the IA3 40K precident is what you were asking for anyway though...

PS - the lack of powergaming mindset agsint YOU worries me -  :p  :p

Seriously, Michael sounds like a good opponent to try this out on for a game or two. Look forward to how things work out. Tell him to get ahold of Chroma for some tips if needed!




_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tigershark
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Oh its not micheal next week, I think I have two different eldar players lined up (micheal detests eldar) he off playing ancients again. Gotta hustle, be late for siege game (I love my holiday).

_________________
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tigershark
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Tactica, its true that a heavily skewed list can win against an unprepared opponent by catching them off-guard.  There are a number of examples of this (like those you mentioned).

However, I think there is a bit of a difference when the unbalancing factor is aircraft.  The reasoning being that firstly you cant use good maneuvre to counter the tactic (as the aircraft go anywhere and hit anything), secondly AA is far less common than AP or AT in all armies (therefore its an easier area to exploit) many or even most weapons have both AP and AT values, thirdly aircraft are completely immune to engagments (both CC and FF).

That is why this issue is particularly thorny, as aircraft cant be shot by most weapons, cant be avoided and cant be engaged.  The limiting factor has always been lesser survivability and firepower, so it was often a gamble that you would "get your points back".  But the AX-0-1 seems to do that rather too easily, with great firepower (TK weapons) and good flier survivability (DC2), and the good range helps both.

The other point regarding the meta-game environment is that we should consider whether we really want to push the importance of flak upwards?  I tend to favour avoiding the escalation of the "air war", and IMO if this means we need to diverge from the IA3 background of the AX-0-1 then we should do that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tigershark
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
Quote (clausewitz @ 12 Jan. 2006 (13:13))
Tactica, its true that a heavily skewed list can win against an unprepared opponent by catching them off-guard. ?There are a number of examples of this (like those you mentioned).

However, I think there is a bit of a difference when the unbalancing factor is aircraft. ?The reasoning being that firstly you cant use good maneuvre to counter the tactic (as the aircraft go anywhere and hit anything), secondly AA is far less common than AP or AT in all armies (therefore its an easier area to exploit) many or even most weapons have both AP and AT values, thirdly aircraft are completely immune to engagments (both CC and FF).

That is why this issue is particularly thorny, as aircraft cant be shot by most weapons, cant be avoided and cant be engaged. ?The limiting factor has always been lesser survivability and firepower, so it was often a gamble that you would "get your points back". ?But the AX-0-1 seems to do that rather too easily, with great firepower (TK weapons) and good flier survivability (DC2), and the good range helps both.

The other point regarding the meta-game environment is that we should consider whether we really want to push the importance of flak upwards? ?I tend to favour avoiding the escalation of the "air war", and IMO if this means we need to diverge from the IA3 background of the AX-0-1 then we should do that.

Cw,

I do see what you are saying about aircraft skewed lists having a different impact to the uprepared opponent.

Rather thats a good thing or not, I'll need to consider further. The same goes for the relative flak increases.

All fair points I cannot dispute but will take under advisement. Your message does hit home and is received.

I need further input on what Orcs, Eldar and Chaos can do from air support escalation perspective.

It strikes me that I've encountered some very air heavy Eldar and Orc lists but I don't own either list. I've played both lists (models owned by peers) on numerous occasions. I've never pushed the envelope with either list though.

The only air heavy chaos lists I've encountered and played myself were pre-v3.7... I'm not sure how massive helltalons with switfdeath support (if needed) would fair. I know the obliterator ground cover can get significant.

I need to add this kind of stuff to the 'things to do' list so I can develop a firm opinion on
1) what other lists can do with heavy air power
2) what my opinions are on more flak being a base requirement in tournaments

Definitely items I'll be thinking about.

Cheers,

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tigershark
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 12 Jan. 2006 (13:01))
Oh its not micheal next week, I think I have two different eldar players lined up (micheal detests eldar) he off playing ancients again. Gotta hustle, be late for siege game (I love my holiday).

@ TRC,

Very well, keep us posted - whoever your Eldar adversaries are,

Cheers,

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tigershark
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:33 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Here's a quick comparison.  Many people think the Vampire Hunter is too powerful.  It has a role similar to the TS.  Obviously, this has the normal cross-army comparison potential for issues, but aircraft tend to hold up better than ground units because their operation is usually more similar.
=====

Pts - 250 v 175
Defensive - DC2, 5+RA v DC2, 5+
Defensive flak - all around @ 45cm v fixed
Volume of fire - Avg 2 MW hits + .67 other v 1 TK hit + .5 other (better with MLs and potential MW)
Range of fire - 30cm for primary v 45cm for primary
Initiative 1+ v 2+
Both have restrictions on the formation size - Hunters come in (big, 500 point) blocks and TS come singly.

So, figuring factors for using the square root rule...

Defensively that puts the Hunter at ~1.3x as tough on straight saves.  I'd say the flak shot is worth about a 1.1x factor.  I estimate the extra range on the primary weapon at 1.3x for the TS because of the ability to avoid ground flak shots.

Volume of fire, the Hunter somewhere in the 1.7x range sounds about right, depending on MLs.

Initiative is worth another 1.15x

175 * SQRT(1.3*1.1*1.7*1.15/1.3) = ~260

So that's a bit more costly proportional to the  Hunters, but not much.  Obviously, this is quite a rough estimate and I'm sure some people would take issue with some of the thumb-in-the-air estimates I used (probably mostly the range factor for defense if I had to guess).

=====

Another comparison would be 3 TS v 2 Hunters

500 pts v 525

Hits to kill:  9 v 9
4 MW hits +1.5 normal v 3 TK hits +.5 MW (unmarked, 1MW if marked) +1 normal
Range 30cm v 45cm
Intiative 1+ v 2+
1 activation v 3
Flak is still definitely better for the Hunters.

Looking at that comparison, one factor for considering defense would be whether I expect to face ground flak or interceptors.  Ground flak makes the TS better.  Interceptors makes the Hunters better.  The other factor would be total flak environment.  In a heavy flak environment the Hunters would be better.  In moderate or less, I'd take the TS.

Similarly, I think the balance of offense depends on potential targets.  Against hard targets, the TS is slightly better.  Against medium or light targets, the Hunters are slightly better.

So, again, to me it looks like the TS is slightly more expensive for roughly similar abilities, but still pretty close - within ~5% or so.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tigershark
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 12 Jan. 2006 (18:28))
O and Tactica what is the TS in IA3, a WE hunter - do its weapons reflect that?

The AX10 has the railguns from a Manta.

(from memory, posting from work, so I don't have my IA3 handy):
Twinlinked 108" S10AP1 Ordnance1/Titan Killer
TL Missile Launcher, 36" S7AP4 Assault4
2 Drone-controlled burst cannons

Can be upgraded with 6x (or is it 8x?) Seeker Missiles and 2x networked markerlights (it can mark its own targets).

That works out to one railgun shot @ TKd3, plus missile launcher and Burst Cannon (and one Seeker shot, optionally).  I'll take a look at IA3 tonight and get back with real #s tomorrow.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tigershark
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:12 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Canada
Well, if it would be preferable to go 0-1 per such-and-such a unit, perhaps make TS formations (either kind) 0-1 per Barracuda squadron?

Stands to reason that the TSs (especially the AX-1-0s) would not leave home without sufficient CAP support...

Also, it forces a player keen to use their Air Caste allocation on TSs to sacrifice other options, such as that second Moray, for example...


Gary

_________________


Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers

v7.3 pdf

Human armed forces for the greater good.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tigershark
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
Ooooooooh[/homer simpson voice]

That's a wicked balancing idea!  I like it!

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tigershark
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:20 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:49 pm
Posts: 6
Just a note about the army I picked gents, I don't power game.  I just pick an army I find fun (in this case, tanks.  I like tanks.  Always have.).  I don't tend to build armies to designed to fight specific armies, it's not really something I do.  Normally, I do build a more balanced army with more activations but I really do like tanks and the price I pay for that is the small number of activations and the fact that I just have my eggs in one basket.    

Hope that clarifies what I was thinking when I designed that army to fight Chris.  That said, I've been playing one game of Epic a week for almost an entire year.  So, I might not have been up to par since I'm taking a break, and have been for the past month or so, working on Warmaster Ancients armies (historicals being my first love, sorry.  :P).  

I'm just glad I didn't take my army with two Leman Russ companies.  The thing is, I don't really like air at all (I think Epic is a ground game and not an air war).  I don't use it unless I 'have' to.  I do have some in my Siegemaster army but mostly for amusement value rather than any anticipation they'll do good for me.






Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tigershark
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
Quote (Nerroth @ 12 Jan. 2006 (16:12))
Well, if it would be preferable to go 0-1 per such-and-such a unit, perhaps make TS formations (either kind) 0-1 per Barracuda squadron?

Stands to reason that the TSs (especially the AX-1-0s) would not leave home without sufficient CAP support...

Also, it forces a player keen to use their Air Caste allocation on TSs to sacrifice other options, such as that second Moray, for example...


Gary

Nerroth,

If it comes to that, I would prefer limits by X amount of AX-1-0 formations per X amount of barracudas or something.

However, I prefer not to make that leap unless necessary for reasons previously sited. Limiting tends to mask the situation and not balance the formation in question.

I'm in favor of balance. In some cases however, the limiting X per Y does have the desired effect to stiffel abuse of a unit that seems to work in lessor numbers in a list. This may end up being such a case.

Definitely a call for CS should we get to that point.

Cheers,

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tigershark
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
Quote (GeneralNg @ 12 Jan. 2006 (17:20))
Just a note about the army I picked gents, I don't power game. ?I just pick an army I find fun (in this case, tanks. ?I like tanks. ?Always have.). ?I don't tend to build armies to designed to fight specific armies, it's not really something I do. ?Normally, I do build a more balanced army with more activations but I really do like tanks and the price I pay for that is the small number of activations and the fact that I just have my eggs in one basket. ? ?

Hope that clarifies what I was thinking when I designed that army to fight Chris. ?That said, I've been playing one game of Epic a week for almost an entire year. ?So, I might not have been up to par since I'm taking a break, and have been for the past month or so, working on Warmaster Ancients armies (historicals being my first love, sorry. ?:P). ?

I'm just glad I didn't take my army with two Leman Russ companies. ?The thing is, I don't really like air at all (I think Epic is a ground game and not an air war). ?I don't use it unless I 'have' to. ?I do have some in my Siegemaster army but mostly for amusement value rather than any anticipation they'll do good for me.

Thanks for the perspective GeneralNG. Very helpful in playtest analysis Sir.

BTW: you sound like a great opponent.

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tigershark
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 12 Jan. 2006 (18:28))
O and Tactica what is the TS in IA3, a WE hunter - do its weapons reflect that?

From IA3:  

40k stats:
EITHER
twinlinked Ion Cannon (60" S7 AP3 Heavy3)
twinlinked Missile Pods (36" S7 AP4 Heavy4)
2x Burst Cannon (18" S5 AP5 Assault3)
14 Gun Drone transport capacity

OR
twinlinked Railcannon (108" S10 AP1 Ordnance1 Titan Killer)
twinlinked Missile Pods (36" S7 AP4 Heavy4)
2x Burst Cannon (18" S5 AP5 Assault3)
upgrade:  6x Seeker Missiles + Networked Markerlight

1-3 AX10s per separate Force Org Chart, @ ~750 points each.


E:A stats:
EITHER
Ion Cannons 45cm AP3+/AT3+/AA5+ Fixed Forward
Missile Pods 45cm AP4+AT5+
Burst Cannons 15cm AP4+/AA4+

OR
Railguns 90cm MW3+ TK(d3) Fixed Forward
Missile Pods 45cm AP4+AT5+
Burst Cannons 15cm AP4+/AA4+

Formation of 2 for 300 points.


Ignoring the FW points, since they can't set points values to save their lives, FW made the beast a dedicated WE hunter.  Our version does a little more damage to non-WE formations.  

I honestly prefer the FW version (albeit with a 45cm main gun).  I don't need to have Seeker Missiles on the AX10, but I'd be OK with them and a Markerlight.  

It's a little less devastating to a Russ company, and scarier to SHTs and Light Titans.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tigershark
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
Quote (Lion in the Stars @ 13 Jan. 2006 (11:03))

Ignoring the FW points, since they can't set points values to save their lives, FW made the beast a dedicated WE hunter.  Our version does a little more damage to non-WE formations.  

I honestly prefer the FW version (albeit with a 45cm main gun).  I don't need to have Seeker Missiles on the AX10, but I'd be OK with them and a Markerlight.  

It's a little less devastating to a Russ company, and scarier to SHTs and Light Titans.


I agree with the summation, less harmful to russ, more to SHT and light titans with

1x 45cm FP3+ TK(D3) / unit
than
2x 45cm 4+ TK(1) / unit

Note: I believe FW just used what we were using at the time of the 4.0 list - I could be mistaken. That's why it has 90cm and 200 points for two came about.

However, if we get to the point where we do take one shot away from the AX-1-0, and leave it at 45cm, add TK(D3), add twin-linked... then we should consider the 2 units to a formation again as well as matching the seekers armorment.

All that said, I, don't think we should go there unless we have too. We are getting back to starting all over again with the formation.

Cheers,

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 177 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


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

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net