Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 5
  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Tigershark AX-0-1
Steele
 Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 7:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
I think TRC tested this list against opponents with no to decent chance of pulling a win. The Marines had no chance with 2 Hunters alone and the IG don?t had the resilience to withstand the punishment , IIRC. So given the wrong (right) opponents his points prove very well to be true.

Coming back to the very roots of the AX-1-0 - a Bomber designed to Hunt Warengines should be our most concern. I agree TRC point of view regarding WE Hunting -> single shot with multiple damage , although on the range I cannot agree with him fully , but lacking a better suggestion I shut up on this one. I fear this new thread could go easily the 18 pages of the last one if we continue to revolve like we are doing now.
Suggestion : Let us playtest his proposal a while AND the actual one (4.3.3). Let?s then come to a conclusion.
Approval? Suggestions?

Cheers!
Steele

_________________
Quid pro Quo
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
clausewitz
 Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 7:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Honda, I think you have misinterpreted TRC.
TRC says it should never win.  Not that it does never win.  He means that an army with so many points in aircraft should not be able to win.  The problem is the 5 Aces does win, and this should not happen.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Steele
 Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 7:57 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
Quote (clausewitz @ 01 Feb. 2006 (19:46))
Honda, I think you have misinterpreted TRC.
TRC says it should never win. ?Not that it does never win. ?He means that an army with so many points in aircraft should not be able to win. ?The problem is the 5 Aces does win, and this should not happen.

Yep, came to the same conclusion.

Steele

_________________
Quid pro Quo
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:03 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
[quote="Honda,01 Feb. 2006 (17:54)"][/quote]
So, I may be a little dense, but if by taking five planes you lose more times than you win, then why is that an issue?


Other way round, you should lose more than win - that is what should be happening :)

Do we also restrict someone from taking too many AT weapons against a horde/all infantry army? This is just an opinion, but if somebody wants to take a bunch of "all powerful, galaxy crusher" units and always loses the game, who cares?

I'm being a little cheeky here, but that isn't "unbalanced". An unbalanced unit causes people to win an inordinate amount of time through the use of the weapon.


Nope - they will have problems. However take a lot of MW/TK weapons and you are great against everyone.

Why do marines get shafted by eldar (well, more than by other armies)? They have a lot of MW. This negates the marine save.

If I get 10 4+ TK shots with my army thats good against anyone. It's best against RA/elite infantry of course, second best against war engines and running a close third is sniping important units out of formations.

I'm quite happy to play verse Orks and am trying to get that set up. Reckon I'm onto a winner however :)

I think TRC tested this list against opponents with no to decent chance of pulling a win. The Marines had no chance with 2 Hunters alone and the IG don?t had the resilience to withstand the punishment , IIRC. So given the wrong (right) opponents his points prove very well to be true.

Two different types of Guard, 1 marine and 3 different lots of Eldar so far (including one with 30% flak).

_________________
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  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
If I get 10 4+ TK shots with my army thats good against anyone.

Mixed formations seem to insulate from it pretty well. Horde armies also seem to contend.

Armies based upon fighters may give that many bombers a run for their money.

However, unusual circumstances in all cases - I'll concede that.

So that _many_ weapons is a relative problem, but one that can be addressed easily enough without lopping off limbs.

It's best against RA/elite infantry of course, second best against war engines and running a close third is sniping important units out of formations.


Ehh... well, that's all relative.

Easiest way to fix it all is don't change points or stats, simply limit 2 per 3000 points being played.

Abuse is over, air-heads are happy.

Clean and quick fix proposal that's yet to be proven otherwise.

Cheers,

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:53 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Well got to play Orks tonight, I had the Orks, Gavin the Tau, I took 8 fighter bombers and 24 flakwagons. I think I may have even had 1-200 or so more points than the Tau. Whoops :)
End result 3-1 to Tau. I'll try and get the batreps for this and the 2 eldar games plus pictures up soon. Gavin I think will hopefully do some of the eldar suff, as his write ups are better.

I started maxing out to emphasize a point. So limit them to 2 per 3000 points. To me that is a compulsory two that will always make its points back against any army out there. Why? I get to instant kill expensive tanks and commanders (sniping if nessecery), I'm the toughest dedicated bomber in the game (well, until the saim Haine lot get there one) and I have the longest ranged main strike. Oh, and am quite cheap :)

Then we come to a situation where 1-2 years down the line and the presence of these on every tau tourney army people are starting to say, hmm, might be a bit overpowered.

Just as they may be remarking on the 2 CSM BP3 MW ignore cover warengines every chaos army of note will field :)

_________________
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  
 
HecklerMD
 Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:48 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201
IMO, a limit @ 3K wont go far enough;  I rarely play below 3.5K, havent for 6 months or so.  Same goes for my whole group.  Dont get me wrong, this is better than raising the price and lowering the effectivness and then patting ourselves on the back because nobody uses them.  But its not good enough.

And lets ignore the fact that this would be the only Unit in all of E:A (Unless there is one in an exp list I havent seen) that is limited by points.  Stuff like thats fine in BFG, but this aint BFG, so that makes it another Special Rule.  Which is OK, I guess, Jervis LOVES those special rules.  L-O-V-E-S 'em!

Oh, wait, NO THE HELL HE DOESNT.

Then we come to a situation where 1-2 years down the line and the presence of these on every tau tourney army people are starting to say, hmm, might be a bit overpowered.

Yeah, just like those Space Marine Tacticals!  Everyone takes one or two, thats gotta mean they are unbalanced!

Or maybe we take them because they dont SUCK.  Like, for example, people stop taking Marauders because they suck.  Lets not make the TS suck, kthanx. :angry:

AX10s get more powerful the more you have, its a synergistic effect, much like Ork warbands and many other units who may not earn thier points back in small numbers, but increase in function as their numbers go up.  The difference here, and no offense TRC, as that the effect can be blown all out of porportion when coupled with, ahem, cheezy tactics like air-sniping.  Which is not a indicator of a fault with the AX10, but an indicator of fault with the E:A rules in general.

Which means, to me, that all the "5 Aces" results are deceptive and highly questionable, when used to indicate a problem with a given unit.  They are, however, quite useful to show flaws in the way Epic:A handles air-to-ground.

In smaller numbers, when they are not able to exploit the flaws in the rules, 5 times a turn, they are just good. (Read my batreps if you dont believe me.)  Which is OK, you know.  Its OK to have a powerfull air unit, its OK to have a good air unit.  Nowhere does it say you cant.  But since there ARE flaws in how the rules handle A2G, we need to limit how many times a unit can exploit those flaws;  and what we dont need to do is nerf the unit.

Now, 0-1 formation of 1 or 2 makes sense by any reading of the fluff, it wont require a new special rule (which means it wont get kicked back by JJ) it prevents exploits like the 5 Aces list engourages, and still allows the unit to be useful.  Its clearly the way we should go.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:55 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Some great points, Heckler. Especially...
The difference here, and no offense TRC, as that the effect can be blown all out of porportion when coupled with, ahem, cheezy tactics like air-sniping. ?Which is not a indicator of a fault with the AX10, but an indicator of fault with the E:A rules in general


Yes very true.

Now, 0-1 formation of 1 or 2 makes sense by any reading of the fluff, it wont require a new special rule (which means it wont get kicked back by JJ) it prevents exploits like the 5 Aces list engourages, and still allows the unit to be useful. ?Its clearly the way we should go.


An excellent argument which is well thought out and true to boot.





Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
[quote="HecklerMD,03 Feb. 2006 (04:48)"][/quote]
Yeah, just like those Space Marine Tacticals!  Everyone takes one or two, thats gotta mean they are unbalanced!

Or maybe we take them because they dont SUCK.  Like, for example, people stop taking Marauders because they suck.  Lets not make the TS suck, kthanx. :angry:


Umm, no you take tacticals as they are a line unit good for a variety of tasks. You take TS to just blow stuff up. In that reguard they are compared to the other blow the stuff up formations. Here we find they can blow more stuff up at less risk to themselves than the other options. What does more damage, a manta or the quivalent points of tigersharks? What does more damage?

Why is a rare unit such a mainstay for that matter?

AX10s get more powerful the more you have, its a synergistic effect, much like Ork warbands and many other units who may not earn thier points back in small numbers, but increase in function as their numbers go up.  The difference here, and no offense TRC, as that the effect can be blown all out of porportion when coupled with, ahem, cheezy tactics like air-sniping.  Which is not a indicator of a fault with the AX10, but an indicator of fault with the E:A rules in general.


Sort of. On one hand no. Individually they are good and it is a straight progression. If one unit does, say, twice uts points in damage over the game, having 1000 points of your army do this is more noticable.
On the other hand you are correct due to how the air to ground rules work. Get rid of the flak or outrange it and you are untouchable. Throwing in 2 hits and good armour is just the icing on the cake. Once you have a total free reign the units are even more effective and having a lot of these tough flyers makes that easy to obtain.

'Air Sniping' is also a bit of a red herring. It didn't come up until people posed the question what do you do against armies that lack good formations. Indeed the planes main strength is its stand off 45cm attack. No sniping possible there.
If you really are concerned about it will the plane come with a proviso that you can't field it until the air rules are fixed?

_________________
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  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

Now, 0-1 formation of 1 or 2 makes sense by any reading of the fluff, it wont require a new special rule (which means it wont get kicked back by JJ) it prevents exploits like the 5 Aces list engourages, and still allows the unit to be useful.  Its clearly the way we should go.

Heckler,

I'm on board - I just want to see them scale.

5 in a 3000 point army is problematic.
2 in a 3,000 point army is reasonable.

2 in a 5,000 point army will harldy be noticed.
4 in a 5,000 point game will easily be managable.

My only point of X units per Y points means the formation still scales in the list.

Regards to not going down the Maurader path or nerfing the unit -

Cheers,

_________________
Rob
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
HecklerMD
 Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:56 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 03 Feb. 2006 (04:25))
Umm, no you take tacticals as they are a line unit good for a variety of tasks. You take TS to just blow stuff up. In that reguard they are compared to the other blow the stuff up formations. Here we find they can blow more stuff up at less risk to themselves than the other options. What does more damage, a manta or the quivalent points of tigersharks? What does more damage?

You were inferring that units that are taken regularly, or even universally, are taken because they are overpowered, or that at least people might think so.  I was just showing that thats not 100% true, or even 20% true, oh and BTW I know why people really take SM Tacticals, thanks for that anyway.

Oh, and if you can see what we'll all be playing in 2 years, perhaps you would care to turn your future-seeing gaze towards the upcommig Superbowl? :p

Why is a rare unit such a mainstay for that matter?

A:  Because its unlimited :p
B:  You are assuming, again, that it is, in fact, a "mainstay".  Honda's got a Batrep in these here very boards where he uses none, and I myself am considering dropping 1 from my 3500 point list due too poor showing.

Sort of. On one hand no. Individually they are good and it is a straight progression. If one unit does, say, twice uts points in damage over the game, having 1000 points of your army do this is more noticable.

Indeed, its had the whole board a-twitter.
On the other hand you are correct due to how the air to ground rules work. Get rid of the flak or outrange it and you are untouchable. Throwing in 2 hits and good armour is just the icing on the cake. Once you have a total free reign the units are even more effective and having a lot of these tough flyers makes that easy to obtain.
All things acheviable by other aircraft in other lists, though, admittedly, with more diffaculty.
'Air Sniping' is also a bit of a red herring. It didn't come up until people posed the question what do you do against armies that lack good formations. Indeed the planes main strength is its stand off 45cm attack. No sniping possible there.
So, it is or it is not a tactic useable against, erm, horde armies I'm guessing?
'Cause if its not, then, viola!, the TS seems to have a weakness.

And, if not, then its, once again something that can be duplicated by other aircraft in other lists with varying degrees of diffaculty, whe seems to indicate, again, a flaw in the rules and not a flaw in the TS, IMO.

If you really are concerned about it will the plane come with a proviso that you can't field it until the air rules are fixed?
Sure, I'll get right on that. :/

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:07 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Quote (HecklerMD @ 04 Feb. 2006 (03:56))

So, it is or it is not a tactic useable against, erm, horde armies I'm guessing?
'Cause if its not, then, viola!, the TS seems to have a weakness.


Yes, as I'm sure you know horde armies are packed with lots of mediocure units, and yes you snipe against them (they also, with the exception of the Eldar? horde, have poor flak making this easier).

And, if not, then its, once again something that can be duplicated by other aircraft in other lists with varying degrees of diffaculty, whe seems to indicate, again, a flaw in the rules and not a flaw in the TS, IMO.


I have to ask what other unit comes close to this planes sniping ability? First off no one else can do TK attacks, second no one else with the exception of the bomber/transports (who cost a fair bit in comparison due to their transport ability) is as hard to shoot down (in case these is a lot of flak).

Orks? Imperium? Paper thin armour, AP and AT attacks only.
Marines? Excellent armour, poor guns.
Eldar? Well, these chaps come the closest as you can use the nightwings with lance to shoot at RA tanks.

How were you thinking of exploiting it?

Sure, I'll get right on that. :/

Good man! Chat to Gavin, he's an air affectionardo and full of ideas!

_________________
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  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:16 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
From the eldar tau batrep thread, smewhat off topic so putting here as well.

The whole point of the list isn't to show 'hey this is a killer list' but rather to try and emphasise by the shortest route possible the power of the aircraft. In the ork game it comes out more as they kill the flak and the fighter bombers have to intercept whilst under fire from the hammerheads. Even limiting them isn't going to do much. So I get only two? Well I can still get 5-6 turns of flying out of them. Even if I don't take them the threat of such beasts in the air means there will be more flak around. You have to do something about them. You can't afford to be under fire for 2,3,4 turns from them. Whats that on average? Three turns of 4 4+ TK shots and 2 6/5+ MW shots. 6-7 kills on RA targets, thats of course if your flak is keeping them at arms length, there are other attacks closer in.

_________________
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  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:34 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Quote (HecklerMD @ 04 Feb. 2006 (03:56))

Oh, and if you can see what we'll all be playing in 2 years, perhaps you would care to turn your future-seeing gaze towards the upcommig Superbowl? :p


Sorry, wrong type of football. :)

B:  You are assuming, again, that it is, in fact, a "mainstay".  Honda's got a Batrep in these here very boards where he uses none, and I myself am considering dropping 1 from my 3500 point list due too poor showing.


Well, hate to say it but not everyone can try and powergame things - if anything its detrimental to your enjoyment.
I was meaning fluff compared to army lists though. Fluff wise one in existence. Army list wise a third of all Tau air assets could be them.

_________________
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  
 
HecklerMD
 Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201
I'm gonna put this here, too, just in case...

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.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 5
  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 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