Page 2 of 7

[ 96 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

It is time to let "5 Aces" go...
clausewitz	Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:50 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	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. Are you sure you haven't voted?

Top

Tactica

Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:43 pm

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

Quote (clausewitz @ 06 Feb. 2006 (07:50)) 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. Are you sure you haven't voted? Cw, Well - correction then, I don't 'recall' voting. LOL. Hmm... going to check now... OK - I resend that part of my statement. Appearently I did vote, I've just forgotten about doing so. Even in my last post in that thread, I thought I hadn't voted yet... so, did I vote for balanced? If I was to vote now, and with 8/9 games under my belt with v4.3.3 and using the AX-1-0 every game for testing, I'd say the plane is working perfectly and is balanced - *IF* it can be limited to x per y points being played in E:A. Example 2 max per 3,000 (or 3,500) points being played. Cheers, _________________ Rob

Top

Tactica

Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:52 pm

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

Quote (Honda @ 06 Feb. 2006 (07:34)) 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. @ Honda, I had a similar response to TRC's post. However, I think the post was in this chain... 1. TRC posed a WYSIWYG question. 2. I responded with "...who knows whats in the missle bays". 3. TRC responded, "consumables". cheers, _________________ Rob

Top

CyberShadow	Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 6:20 pm
Swarm Tyrant Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm Posts: 9350 Location: Singapore	Thanks for the comments so far. I find it mildly ironic that this thread started as a 'lets move on from this topic' discussion.   I am aware of the poll, but a reminder is always a good idea for me, thanks. I do take on board the results of this voting. I do feel that the AX-1-0 is marginally too good at this point. I think that 175 points for 2xMW4+(TK) along with the rest on a flier is better value than both the Thunderhawk and the Vampire. I also feel that this relatively small inbalance is magnified with more of the craft taken. This is why I would like to get the aircraft sorted out at an individual level. With its current stats, it may even be a bargain at 200 points, and perhaps 225 would be more reasonable, but this would be a heavy increase in a single go. So, if we agree that the main armament is a little over-powerful for the points/craft (and while I do understand that there are those who do not agree with this, I think that it is better to explore the consequence of this being true), the second stage is to float ideas of how the stats could/should be changed. So... Given that the AX-1-0 is slightly overpowerful currently, would you like to see the stats changed, and if so, what changes are recommended? I can see us making the main armament 2xMW4+, with an acknowledgement that the discussion was started by suggestions of reducing the range. As a note, if the stats are fine, then the only thing left to change are the points. Please hold comments on points values for a short while until we find stats that we are happy with in game. _________________ 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: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 6:45 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas	So... Given that the AX-1-0 is slightly overpowerful currently, would you like to see the stats changed, and if so, what changes are recommended? No change to stats. _________________ Honda "Remember Taros? We do" - 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

Steele	Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:48 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am Posts: 423 Location: Duisburg , Germany	Quote (Honda @ 06 Feb. 2006 (18:45)) So... Given that the AX-1-0 is slightly overpowerful currently, would you like to see the stats changed, and if so, what changes are recommended? No change to stats. Dito , no change of stats. But in favor of limiting it. Cheers! Steele _________________ Quid pro Quo

Top

Tactica	Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:34 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Cs, No stat changes please. In favor of limiting by points being played. _________________ Rob
Top

clausewitz	Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:39 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	I suggested trying 400 points for a formation of 2 AX-1-0s.  Same stats. The cost is then self-limiting, just like the Moray and other air assets.
Top

HecklerMD	Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:13 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am Posts: 201	I think it should go to 15cm (Small Arms), FF6+ Serious:  Same stats/points, limited availability, test test test, then adjust points.  Then adjust stats, then adjust points, dot dot dot
Top

CyberShadow	Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:46 pm
Swarm Tyrant Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm Posts: 9350 Location: Singapore	The problem is, by limiting the numbers of these things, we make it more difficult to playtest it. I think that it is better to playtest it without a limit on the numbers beyond the one third which is standard. If, after this, it is found that there is still a problem then we can consider limiting it. It also seems that the general viewpoint is that the stats should not be changed. I dont have a problem with leaving the stats, as I think that the stats reflect the role. However, I do feel that the points should be increased. Why is it felt that having a compulsory formation fixed at two would help. Sure, I know that it then represents a large chunk of points, but beyond that is there any further reason? I would also suggest setting them at 200 points each, with a view that this could be increased in the future to around 225 after a period. _________________ 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

clausewitz	Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:16 am
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	CyberShadow, The compulsory formation of 2 reduces the effect of cheap air activations. Less BMs can be placed on the enemy and less enemy formations are attacked. Also failing to activate them is more costly, which (IMO) helps offset the resilience to being destroyed outright by flak.  Just picking up BMs from the flak will increase the chance of failing activation for the larger formation. And finally (and I hesitate to mention the "dreaded" list), it is impossible to build the "5 Aces" list with the 400 point, two plane formation.  At 200 points each it is still possible, but at 3k instead of 2.7k.
Top

Nerroth	Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:53 am
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm Posts: 573 Location: Canada	To be honest, the idea of seeing 5 AX-1-0s nipping around without adequate Barracuda support seems a little odd (assuming that one would see 5 nipping around together in the first place!) I'd sooner see it - well, both TS variants, to be honest - requiring the presence of a squadron of Barracudas, the skies over battlefields in the Eastern Fringe are generally too dangerous for strike craft to wander around unsupported... Plus, having to take that Barra squadron makes going for a large air contingent more of an investment of one's Air Caste allowance than, say, plumping for 2 Morays... So, 0-1 TS (regular or AX-1-0) formation per Barracuda squadron sounds fair to me. I should perhaps do the same for Gue'senshi 7.2, if you go with it here... Gary _________________ Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers v7.3 pdf Human armed forces for the greater good.
Top

Ginger	Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 3:02 am
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm Posts: 5483 Location: London, UK	Hi CS Here's my "two pence worth" I think Heckler got many of the current arguments spot on. In essence this all revolves around the way the EA air rules work (or don't, depending on your viewpoint ) especially the fact that once air superiority is gained, there is no counter, unlike the Titan example, as cited by H . Put bluntly, it seems that the AX-1-0 is :- Relatively cheaper than other A/c More resilient than most A/c Has longer range main weapons than most a/c Has more MW / AT shots than most A/c IMHO it is the combination of these factors in the context of the Air rules and the air superiority point that is at issue - and not just for the Tau but other A/c / races as well. I have long voiced the concern that the whole issue unbalances the EA game system by forcing armies to take unnatural formations purely to have some chance of survival rather than from some other strategic reason (with the possible exception of the regenerating 'Nids). (Note here I do disagree with Heckler - IMHO limitations have to be imposed to make up for the rule deficiencies.) For what it is worth, CS, I also agree wholeheartedly that the thing should be 'self regulating' rather than by some artificially imposed restriction. Obviously this won't happen with the stats as they stand at the current points values, as the "5 Aces" demonstrates only too well. Perhaps we should be asking the question "what statistics and numbers of A/c (of any type) would be considered to have a moderately strong effect if totally unopposed". Or put another way, "how many statistical 'hits' is reasonable per turn over the entire game, and how should they be divided up"? Although I accept that there are many variables here, the answer will obviously provide the number of total A/c and the number of formations. This would obviously be modified slightly to satisfy the "fluff" depending upon whether the usual AX-1-0 is suited for one role, and the variant for another. (In fact, here, I think the use of 'variants' could have a very positive effect on EA as a whole. Taking the 21st Century types as a model, each type has a number of variants armed for specific roles - so why not specify your TBolts as "interceptors" and only armed with AA weapons - but I digress ) Finally (after the ramble) to answer your question in two ways :- If you arm it as a true lone 'Titan killer' then modify the stats to be :- "Twin railcannon ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?30cms MW4+ TK(D3)" "Heavy interceptor missiles ? ?30cms AT5+ / AA5+" "Aircraft Tracer missiles ? ? ? ? 45cms MW6+" "Twin linked Burst cannon ? ? ?15cms AP4+ / AA6+" This still gives the following averages per "Ace" :- - Titan ? ? just over 1 hit, 2 BMs and a max of 5 hits, 6 BMs - AT ? ? ? ?1 hit, 2BMs and a max of 3 hits, 4 BMs - AP ? ? ? ?Just over 1 hit, 2 BMs and a max of 3 hits, 4 BMs The "standard" variant should be more general, but less effective on titans, so replace the Railcannon with "2x Linked Ion cannon ? ? ? ? ? 30cms AP4+ / AT5+ / AA5+" Which increases the stats for the "standard" to be - AT ? ? ? ?just over 1 hit, 2BMs and a max of 4 hits, 5 BMs - AP ? ? ? ?1.5 hit, 2 BMs and a max of 4 hits, 5 BMs Even with these modified stats I suspect that the points values would need to increase to limit the a/c, possibly as high as 250 each (giving 4x per 1000 points?and putting the dice stats on a par with other A/c) In pairs the formation cost might actually be cheaper, say 400 points, to reflect the reduced number of BMs inflicted on fewer formations. However, if you keep the stats unchanged, a pair should be priced at a minimum of 550 points, while an "Ace" should be at least 350 points and both could possibly be higher. As I said - my "2P worth" All the best Ginger _________________ "Play up and play the game" Vitai lampada Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top

Honda

Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 3:50 am

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

However, if you keep the stats unchanged, a pair should be priced at a minimum of 550 points, while an "Ace" should be at least 350 points and both could possibly be higher. OK, more opinions: I sincerely doubt that anyone would take the AX-1-0 at those prices, I know I won't. They just aren't worth the cost. Also, I struggle to understand why limiting the list to 1 two ship formation every 3000 points is so painful. It accomplishes the goal of preventing 5A lists and doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater by overcosting the formation and denying the use of other assets. The solution doesn't have to be complex. Limit the number of aircraft. _________________ Honda "Remember Taros? We do" - 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

dysartes

Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:29 am

Brood Brother Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:16 pm Posts: 908

Cross-posted from the "other" A-X-10 thread - I'll post a couple of extra things here in a sec. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Steele 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. This amused me, it really did - the list y'all are trying to design here is a GT list. In case people have forgotten, this means that it's designed to be used in games with a standardised scenario (the GT scenario printed in the E:A rulebook) for games between 2000 and 5000 points and when, generally, you don't know what you are facing when building your army - the last point being especially true in a tournament environment. Now, given the above, TRC's list is as reasonable as anyone's when playing a 2700 point game, and he appears to have been playing games against forces which could have been blind-constructed to take them on. We can see from the fact that TRC's "5 Aces" list appears (to my knowledge) to remain the same from game to game (I'll admit to not having read all the battle reps with it, though) - ths seems to indicate that it is a list he'd be fairly comfortable fielding at a tournament, assuming Tau were allowed to be used. In the artificial environment we're meant to work in in playtesting (no knowledge of either force, beyond an acknowledgement that a certain experimental army might get used, GT scenario, army lists, equal point size, etc) every list can be seen as as valid as each other. Saying that because TRC's opponents fielded lists that weren't optimised to stop him is definately a red herring - we shouldn't be designing for situations where they are tailoring to stop him! So, here's a question for all y'all saying the A-X-10 doesn't have issues, or that those issues can only be limited by points cost or availability tweaks - if you've built a list for a tournament where you know Tau were to be present - in addition to the other published lists - how would that affect your construction? What would you field, in all honesty? How would you say the current threat of the "5 Aces" (or even the "Lone Deuce") would make you tweak your current "standard" tournament force build? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A list causing a change to the list design paradigm is all well and good - I'm presiding over one at the moment which seems to be doing something similar (AMTL). However, I'd question that almost forcing people's list design to focus more on AA and fighters isn't a good thing, and that this might be something Jervis would echo. Has anyone asked Jervis if he is happy with an increasing focus on airpower in a land-based game? _________________ The forgotten Champion - AMTL, baby! Dysartes.com - Resources for the Modern Wargamer - Last updated: December 2004 - Next Update: In Progress Sentinels are just young titans that haven't grown up yet!

Top

Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 2 of 7

[ 96 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

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