Board index » NetEA Development » NetEA Tau

• Board index
• Search
• Register

Top

HecklerMD

Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:19 am

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

General points on aircraft ranges. (I'm sure ginger could say more on this.) Its a different platform for the weapon. You are either very high up and so shooting at a longer range, or very low down, in which case you have a very short period to aquire [...]Compare something like an MG, on land you have an effective range of up to a mile with some models and calibers, mount 4-8 on a fighter and it is closing to 1-200 yards to fire in an aerial combat. Apparently these design considerations were not taken into account with the Thunderhawk's Battlecannon, 75cm both on the ground and in the air.  Or the Twin Lascannon on the Marauder.  Or the Multilaser on the Thundebolt.  Or the Shiruken Cannon, Bright Lances, Scatter Lasers and Pulse Lasers on all the Eldar aircraft...  I take it I make my point? Apparently, in all the published lists, weapon ranges in the air and on the ground remain the same for weapons (except heavy bolters).  I doubt that was by mistake. Perhaps you have another explination why you think a Railgun should lose 60% of its range vs. ground targets when mounted in aircraft, but an Ion Cannon only 25%?  Something better than "Anything goes in %gamesystem%", please. Also one must take into the account the mindset: "Well, if I gotta fly within 30cm of that Warband to hit it, and I'm gonna get shot at anyway, I might as well barge in and snipe the Nobz!"  45cm provides an option over this (universally agreed?) cheezy tactic.

I have to ask So it should be able to be immune to flak to ensure people aren't tempted to abuse it?

I clearly stated that it only provided an option, for example:  We cut the RGs down to 30 cm, now I engage a warband w/ flakwagons with a TS (Absence of more viable targets, yadda yadda).  I'm gonna get shot at anyway, so why stay on the fringes and shoot grots when I can dive in, get shot at THE SAME AMOUNT, and kill a higher value target.  Taking a higher risk, get a better reward.  Now, if we stay at 45cm, I might find it worthwhile to nip at the edges of a formation and avoid some flak;  Lower risk, lower reward.

Now, I have to ask:  Is being required to fly directly into clouds of the crudest, most short-range flak "balance"?

Moving on...
bearing in mind that the marauder is apparently tough enough the hunt starships.

I think your mistaking it with the IN's Starhawk Bomber, which is a different kind of animal.  TBolts and Marauders are atmospheric craft, if I'm not mistaken.

BFG Rulebook says "Starhawks [...] carry a heavy payload of plasma bombs and armor-piercing missiles..."

Kinda picking-nits, I know, but...

And then...
I would have thought my above suggestion - a weapon that allows it to kill a WE in one go, armour and hits that allow it to be fielded in a pair and retain a very high survivability, a weapon that exposes it to danger making it easier to counter and finally a cheaper cost making it more viable as the specialist weapon it now is - fits the core intent if not the core 40k stats quite well.

Erm, a fully shielded Warhound killed in one salvo (as clearly shown in the only A-X-10 sighting we've had) would take 5 AT shots, all unsaved (if applicable).  Both the 4.3.3 version and both of your proposed versions are only capable of generating 4 "AT" hits.  Your versions is more specialized towards killing WEs over AVs, but they are not any "better", and lets not pretend any different.

Another Taros campaign fluff note:  Baneblades and other non-titan WE's were present, active, and engaged on Taros, but the A-X-01 only came out when the Titans made their one and only appearence.

The A-X-10 is a Titan hunter, not a WE hunter (the main difference being shields).  We should align it so.  That means the ability to strip a Warhounds shields and take all its DC, w/o any crits, in one turn (even if we have to roll all sixes ).

Lastly, since you never adressed this:
...however it is only slightly more vulnerable to CAP...
Disagree.  Much more vulnerable.  The possability of a T-Bolt squad going HTH, braving the single 15cm 6+ AA shot back from the TS, and downing 1 TS with 4x AA4+ (Intercept giving +1 to hit) is quite high, and quite acceptable.  Even doing 1 point of damage, next turn the TS activates on 4+ (2 +1 for BM for coming under fire, +1 for BM for taking damage) , not very reliable, and with this "package deal" proposal including a 0-1 limit, that means all your A-X-10s stay out of the action for a turn.  Come under flak fire while inbound (unlikley) or outbound (quite likley), thats 1 more BM, activation on 5+.  Leave a table edge other than your own, a fair probability, 1 more BM, and now its 6+.

So, 4 4+ AA shots from 1 Cap squad of Tbolts, say half hit, thats the odds.  2 Hits, 5+ save means that 1/3 are saved, that the odds.  So 1 Cap Squad of TBolts places 2 Bms on our 1 TS squadron, now its in danger of not activating next trun, say 50% chance of failure, thats the odds.  IF it suffers no more attacks, no more damage, and no more BMs.  Plus, it can crit, though unlikley.  Dont gotta kill it to keep it out of a good chunk of the game, anyone using a Manta can attest to the truth in that.[/quote]
...But later on you said this:
Is this a netequit thing? I was under the impression that you don't comment on an answer you have no reason to doubt
Can I assume the same applies here?  

I do think some of the people here who like the Tau very much are suffering from a certain blindness similar to what I had with the siegemasters.

I know you are not accusing everyone who "dare" disagree with you of "blindness," but I think that warrants an apoligy.  You should HOPE that your fellow play-testers are as dedicated as you are, if not more.  Debate, testing, and compromise will get us to our goal.  Mass agreement with any viewpoint (Mine, yours, whoevers) without testing will not.