The Marauder costs 300, and although TRC was really pushing for a points drop to 275 I don't think that was included in the 2008 errata. So you only get three of these in a 3000 point army not four, which the current TS costs would permit.


A possible alternative here might be to drop the Seeker missiles in favour of an extra Twin linked Ion cannon. So the weapons would be

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

The biggest challenge to that is that FW declared that the Manta's guns outrange dang near everything, especially when you add the mobility of the thing...

the big railcannons are described as twin-linked, longbarreled railguns, which makes the two guns fire as a single shot, at 150% of base weapon range (108", since rails shoot 72").  The Ion cannons are listed as 3x twinlinked longbarreled ion cannons, so that makes them 90" range (basic Ion Cannon is 60").  A direct port puts them to 105cm for the rails and 90cm for the ions.  If we have to shorten the ranges, I'd prefer to see 90cm Rails and 75cm Ions.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

As it happens, elsewhere I have also suggested that IG artillery ranges be reduced to 75cm and 90cm respectively both to prevent that abuse and to prevent artillery that fails its activation from firing directly at targets in the opposing deployment zone, but that is another argument

I do understand the intention to 'out-range' opponents to match the 'fluff' and make up for the lack of artillery. However, with these sort of weapon ranges, the Moray and Manta (and HH) do not need to leave their deployment zone allowing them to sustain on enemy formations with even greater effect. While that is part of the ethos of the Tau, it promotes the 'gun-line' tactic that many dislike.

The Leman Russ comparison is also interesting. While I agree that it's engage range is 115cm as you say (and costs 65 per tank), being a ground-hugger terrain quite often obscures targets that a skimmer can pop-up and kill. Although comparative in cost (62.5), the big advantage the HH has is the smaller formation size and cost which makes it far more flexible. Furthermore with a Markerlit target, the additional Seeker missiles give the HH a better attack than the Leman Russ. BUT (and you knew it was coming didn't you ) I think you should also consider the main battle tanks of other races that all engage in the 105cm-115cm range.

One of the problems that the Tau weapons hit is the general design ethos in E:A on weapon ranges and movement. Increasing ranges in 15cm increments and the speed in 5cm increments means that you get some problems trying to present 'better' stats in the mid-weapon ranges while keeping the whole thing in balance.

• 30cm weapons put the vehicle into the assault range of infantry
• 45cm weapons are the most flexible system being easily adjusted by the speed of the vehicle. So the 15cm move Warlord is really nasty at 60cm range, while the 30cm Warhound just about gets to chew up targets in the enemy deployment zone.
• 60cm weapons get harder to limit except by restricting the number hung on the vehicle or the number of vehicles in the formation. With even modest movement you get to hit targets in the enemy deployment Zone on a double
• 75cm weapons can engage the enemy deployment zone on a single, so should be the normal limit to LoS weaponry except (perhaps) that of hand-held artillery like the Volcano cannon which is akin to the 'Paris' guns and long-range siege artillery of WWI and WWII. Note this is so massive that the vehicles sporting Volcano cannon only get a 15cm movement.

My suggestions on range reductions are intended to encourage the Tau to make limited moves with their support weapons (10cm-20cm from their deployment zone) where they can hit enemy formations at long range, preferably aided by the lighter ML equipped forces. Indeed, I must admit I am puzzled why there seems to be no AP guided missile, as I would have thought that the usual innacuracies that prevent accurate targetting of infantry would be overcome by the ML assistance. In general I would suggest that within the relevant weapon ranges, giving the Tau a slight speed boost and an extra weapon should be used to give them the edge over their opponents.

My whole concern here is to try to make the Tau use more of the strategies and tactics in their arsenal than the 'no-brainer' sit back and shoot approach that was generally prevalent. I absolutely agree they should be able to hit harder than their equivalents, though I contend that should be at only marginally better ranges. IMHO this is actually controlled by the vehicle movement and formation numbers rather than the weapon ranges per se.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Ok, we're starting to spiral a little bit. Using the foundation I laid in my post, we need to come up with our baseline testing stats.

Things that I would expect:

1. We are not going to re-engineer the Hammerheads, so let's not go down that path

2. Movement distances for Moray and Manta need to be the same. Something that just occured to me to help possibly bump up the movement on the Moray without going OTT (at least to me) is take away the Planetfall. Thoughts?

3. We should keep the seekers as that is being consistent with the list. If there is an imbalance to the high side, then recommend a points increase.

4. I'm Ok with the current costs of the Tigersharks/AX. Remember they are going to have to be the equivalent of artillery in some instances and therefore subject to CAP and Flak. Other races do not have to deal with that unless they choose to.

5. I am Ok with the gun ranges on the Manta/Moray. I don't think at this point that we are going to see these units dominating the battlefield. Playtesting may cause me to change my mind, but they don't seem to be OTT. Tough, yes, but not OTT.

6. I can support a 6+ Barracuda, but then I think it may need to be cheaper.

Thoughts?

I am coming from the perspective of roles and the Barracuda should be an air superiority fighter that can perfrom some interdiction. Let's not make it more that it should be. I know that the fluff potentially warrants something stronger, but let's start on the light side. It is much easier to loosen restrictions than have to tighten them down.

I want to hear from Onyx when he gets online again as well, but let's get to a decision point on these. We are very close and we still have a bit to do on a few other units/formations.

So, approach the exercise from this perspective:

1. Is the current configuration truly imbalancing or just different than how you would have done it?

2. If imbalanced, please do provide a solid counter proposal that can be given a thumbs up or down.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Morning fellas.

Well that was a productive night for the Tau Air Caste!

Ok, my thoughts:

Barracuda - My thinking is shaped by the Tau Codex in front of me. Thunderbolts are slightly faster, Barracudas have more advanced electronics, Tau pilots are physiologically (mate, thats a long word for a Sunday morning) more natural pilots but the best Imperial pilots have an advantage over them.

I like Fighter as the speed for Barracudas.
The 5+ save reflects that in general, Tau pilots are slightly better than human but not as good as Eldar.
The weapons are minimal but accurate (although IA3 has missile pods as standard equipment) and if the formation can eventually be boosted to 3 (my sincere hope is that it will be or I've got a wasted FW mini, never a good thing) then it will be very effective.

Tigershark - I like the present stats but I wonder what The Real Chris will come up with when 4 flights of these things start hitting the battlefield. I would like to see them retain the drone transport thing in some way but it's not a deal-breaker for me.

AX-1-0 - Fine with this. I definately think the Seeker missiles should be able to use other ML's.

Manta - If the Rail Cannons are reduced in range to 90cm, then The LB Ion Cannons should be brought back to 75 (they do not have the range of the Rails).
My reasons for wanting the speeds on Support Craft increased is because of APU. We play all games with 12 terrain features on the battlefield (as per the Tournament scenario) and that provides plenty of cover at long range for opposing armies to hide from Popped Up Skimmers. The extra speed will compensate for this but will usually mean the Support Craft will have to move nearer the enemy (never a good thing). I also believe these ground hugging flyers are simply quicker than 20cm. 25-30cm for me.
I would rather see a Seeker Missile attack than the Missile pod but I really want to keep the Manta at 700pts. Missile Pod will be ok.

Moray - I think Hena's ideas will work well. It is closer to a Warhound equivalent which is going to be a good thing. It's different enough from the AX-1-0 and the Moray to have a reason to exist. The serious critical is more realistic (and I wish the Warhound critical was more serious aswell). Can Morays still be taken in a group of 2?

Well, for what it's worth, there are my thoughts. Hope they help!

Cheers,
Steve.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Heh, sorry about that.  I have let myself get a bit too invested in this discussion I think.

2. Movement distances for Moray and Manta need to be the same. Something that just occured to me to help possibly bump up the movement on the Moray without going OTT (at least to me) is take away the Planetfall. Thoughts?

Ok, I think the plane has landed...hopefully not in the Hudson.  

Barracuda Air Superiority Fighter
Fighter
Save 6+
Ion Cannon 30cm, AP4+/AT5+/AA5+,  Fixed Forward Arc
Burst Cannons 15cm, AA6+
Seeker Missile | 45cm | AT5+ | Guided Missiles, Fixed Forward Arc
2 for 175


TigerShark              
Bomber
Save 4+
Twin-Linked Ion Cannon 45cm, AP3+/AT4+  Fixed Forward Arc
Burst Cannons 15cm, AA6+
Twin-Linked Missile Pod 30cm AP4+/AT5+ Forward Arc
Seeker Missiles  45cm  2x AT5+  Fixed Forward Arc, Guided Missile
2 for 250


TigerShark AX-1-0            2 for 350
Bomber
Save 4+
Twin-Linked Railcannon 45cm, MW3+  Fixed Forward Arc, Titan Killer (D3)
Burst Cannons 15cm, AA6+
Seeker Missiles  45cm  2x AT5+  Fixed Forward Arc, Guided Missile


Moray - 300 pts
20cm Skimmer
Save 5+
2 x Railcannon | 75cm | MW3+ | Macro Weapon, Fixed Forward Arc
Ion cannons | 60cm | 2 x AP4+/AT5+ | Fixed Forward Arc
Burst Cannons 15cm, AA6+
2 x Seeker Missiles | 75cm | AT5+ | Guided, Forward Arc

DC 3, Reinforced Armour, 5+ Tau Deflector, Always Popped Up, Planetfall

Critical:  The Tau Deflector is disabled and is unavailable for the rest of the game, further criticals add 1 point of damage.


Manta - 700 Points
20cm Skimmer
Save 5+
Twin-Linked Railcannon  90cm, MW2+  Fixed Forward Arc, Titan Killer (D3)
3x Twin-Linked, Long-Barreled Ion Cannon 75cm, AP3+/AT4+  Fixed Forward Arc
4x Twin-Linked, Long-Barreled Burst Cannons 30cm, AP5+/AA6+
Twin-Linked Missile Pod 45cm AP4+/AT5+ Fixed Forward Arc

DC 8, Reinforced Armour, 5+ Tau Deflector, Always Popped Up, Transport (unchanged), Planetfall

Critical:  The Tau Deflector is disabled and is unavailable for the rest of the game, further criticals add 1 point of damage.

Comments

1. I opted for a slight shift back to Hena's position on the Barracuda. If it seems like
you aren't getting your points worth, then we will discuss adding an aircraft to the formation to get three in the next testing round. For now, I'd like to try two ship formations.

2. I left the Tigersharks as discussed. I suppose that someone will test the four flights of the standard TS and someone won't like that. Still, I feel like they are sitting ducks with AA6+ and that's a lot of points to burn to kill AP. With the AX at 350, you will only be able to field two flights of two AX aircraft, which just allows you to squeeze some Barracudas for escort. We'll have to see on this one. If it becomes blatantly obvious, we'll fix it.

3. Everyone got Burst cannon at AA6+ for consistency, including the Moray. Adding that to anything that flies just seems like it's being consistent. I did tone down the AP on the Manta Burst cannon to AP5+. AP4 just seemed too strong for what it is supposed to do.

4. I left the speed of the Moray/Mantas at 20 cms. I know, some aren't going to like that. Show me in play testing that it should be faster. I will listen.

So, are we ready to move on?

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Looks good Honda.  A couple of small things:

1.  Is the Crit on the Moray as you intended?  As was pointed out earlier, with so few DC, it is unlikely to come up.  I thought we were going with it being destroyed?

2.  I would like to make one more pitch for the Missile Pods on the 'Cuda over Seekers, fighters should not have 45cm range weapons.

3.  It would be more consistent to keep the AP4+ on the Mantas Burst Cannons as they are twin-linked.  Also, it fit with the right firepower profile when I was balancing those stats against the Reaver.

By adding in the extra missile attack to the Barracuda, it now becomes very powerful in a group of 3.
This is why I think the number of planes in a formation should be worked out before abilities because 3 of the Ion only Barracudas is fine for ground attack but 3 with the extra attack is definately starting to step on the TS toes.

I'm sorry but groups of 3 must be allowed for all of us who have already got them (I don't want to be forced to home-rule the extra fighter but I have to be able to use the minis I have - There's no way I'm the only person in this situation?).

I agree with Hena (missed this before) that the Twin Ion Cannons on the TS should be 30cm (as a Tau player, I love 45cm but as far as balance and continuity go, I think 30cm is preferable).

I also thought the critical on the Moray was auto destruct.

I've just been looking at the TS again. 1 formation of these can put out 8x AT attacks with 4/5+ to hit. That seems very good but if you multiply that by 4 it's the sort of thing that will eat Predators, Vindicators, Rhinos, Whirlwinds, Hunters, Dreadnoughts, Battlewagonz, Gunwagonz, all Kults of Speed, Flakwagonz, Vultures, Valkyries, Chimeras, Basilisks, Manticores, (etc etc etc you get the idea) FOR BREAKFAST.
Space Marine armour (for example) that isn't Land Raider is toast due to the small numbers of vehicles in a formation. I don't even want to think about Guard artillery formations.

Ginger's idea of 255pts per formation is looking better to me all of a sudden...  

Sorry I didn't mention this before (it didn't occur to me).  

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

I am not sure that it does.

IF it is 75 points for the third Barracuda, the formation becomes 250 points, the same as the Tigersharks.  The 'Cudas would have 6 attacks against ground targets and the Tigersharks would still have 8 attacks.  And the Tigersharks attacks would have a better chance to hit.  The 3 'Cudas would still be valuable for AA roles.

(Assuming a 'Cuda w/ a Missile Pod)

3 Barracudas
2.5 AP HIts
or
1.5 AT Hits

2 Tigersharks
2.3 AP and 2 AT Hits
or
3.6 AT Hits

Firing purely at infantry, the 'Cudas might come out a bit better, but w/ only a 6+ save, they are less likely to survive ground based AA than the Tigersharks.  This looks pretty good to me.  And I do think it is fair to allow those that have 3 'Cudas to continue to use them.  The benefits the Tigersharks gain from Twin-Linking and the extra 4 shots from the Seekers more than make up for one extra 'Cuda.  If I need the AA defense I would rather have 2 'Cudas for 175 and if I wanted the Ground attack capability I would go with the Tigersharks.

I agree with Hena (missed this before) that the Twin Ion Cannons on the TS should be 30cm (as a Tau player, I love 45cm but as far as balance and continuity go, I think 30cm is preferable).

It's a good point and this was looked at as well.  That amount of Firepower is similar to what a pair of Marauder would put out if they can catch 3 units in each of their BP templates.  The Marauders have to get closer to their target, but the TSs rely on the target being marked.  They have pretty similar firepower curves.  The theory was that as the 2008 handbook dropped Marauders to 250, that was a good fit for the TS.  But, I think the TS could still be viable at 275.  If there are no other odd priced units in the Tau list 255 is the same as 275 and I would rather see us use that.

My point was that an increase to avoid having 4 formations at once may be desirable. The semantics on 255 or 275 doesn't really matter.

To be honest shmitty, when you and Ginger started going all mathhammer on the stats, my eyes started to glaze over... Sorry if you already covered it in detail mate   .

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Latest Barracuda stats suggested by Honda are spot on IMHO. It gives a fighter formation with 4x AA shots that also gets 2x AP or AT shots with possible extra for ML on a 'standard' 6+ airframe. Given these stats, I could also go for an additional plane for 75 points.

TS stats for both versions are also good, though like the others, I would like the Ion cannon range reduced to 30 cm both for consistency and to provide greater distinction between the variants. You know my thoughts on costs

For the Moray you get a circular debate on movement and weapon ranges. Either you keep the ranges long, the movement short and include planetfall to allow it to cover the ground that way, or you shorten the weapon ranges, increase the speed and consider dropping planetfall. As you know, my preference is for the second approach which IMHO more closely matches the 'scout' titans it is modeled on, though also perhaps along the lines of the WWII 'pocket battleship' theory. Note, much earlier Onyx suggested that a 45cm range version actually worked well with the original version of support craft, hence my suggestion that a 60cm range version would be more akin to 'battlefield' artillery.

The same reasoning applies to the Manta though perhaps less so. This beast has 'heavy' versions of the weapons which therefore ought to have better ranges, and essentially double as the Tau artillery company. I also have a slight problem with how the self planetfall capability operates, because it essentially represents two activations in one, and furthermore it make the position of any transported troops unclear; do they have a separate activation or not. Is it worth discussing this on a separate thread??

But this is looking very good overall  

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt