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

Hammerhead Fluff
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Hammerhead Fluff
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
What about leave the range as-is (So still a short 30cm), but give a FF macro attack like you suggest?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Lion in the Stars
 Post subject: Hammerhead Fluff
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:24 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
So, 30cm MW4+ with one FF5+ and one FF5+(MW).  Plus the 30cm AP5+ Ignore Cover from the SMS.

Again, short range without the Hit&Run ability to escape an Engagement or the CC/FF ability to survive it doesn't sound very Tau-like to me.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Hammerhead Fluff
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:37 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Well, not every tank in the Tau army has a million mile range. :D

Consider it more as an infantry support vehicle than a MBT, its main purpose in supporting Firewarrior close Engagements.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
tneva82
 Post subject: Hammerhead Fluff
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:05 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Posts: 606

(Honda @ Sep. 01 2006,18:08)
QUOTE
Perhaps you'd like to explain yourself a little more. What I stated was a fact, or near fact as I didn't include the cost of the other upgrades that are fairly common.

Simple: You don't have to use something silly(or inheritently wrong) system as base cost+invidual weapon cost to get the points. That will only lead to unbalanced armies.

So you want to have hammerhead with missile pods? Lower the price until it's equally good choise with hammerhead. If that means halving the price then so be it.

Base cost for weaponless tank+cost of weapons system is never going to produce balanced armies.

_________________
www.tneva.net
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Hammerhead Fluff
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:24 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Base cost for weaponless tank+cost of weapons system is never going to produce balanced armies.


On a macro-scale where you're dealing with single tanks (in 40k for example) then yes, it will produce balanced results.

In Epic, it's far easier to change the cost of the entire formation.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
tneva82
 Post subject: Hammerhead Fluff
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:32 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Posts: 606

(Evil and Chaos @ Sep. 02 2006,11:24)
QUOTE
Base cost for weaponless tank+cost of weapons system is never going to produce balanced armies.


On a macro-scale where you're dealing with single tanks (in 40k for example) then yes, it will produce balanced results.

In Epic, it's far easier to change the cost of the entire formation.

No it won't. You have provided perfect examples of why it won't :D For a starters base cost will often then run too high that weaker weapons won't be good idea.

And 40k isn't exactly good example concidering how unbalanced it is...

Anyway GW is moving away from such simplistic point designing as base cost+weapon cost so seems even they got something right.

_________________
www.tneva.net
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Hammerhead Fluff
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
For a starters base cost will often then run too high that weaker weapons won't be good idea.


So you make the base cost low and the weapons costs highly variable... as happens in all game systems everywhere.


Anyway GW is moving away from such simplistic point designing as base cost+weapon cost so seems even they got something right.

Not at all.

Every game system GW writes is based on this system, to a greater (WFB/40k) or lesser (Epic) extent, it's a constant presence throughout all their games.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
tneva82
 Post subject: Hammerhead Fluff
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Posts: 606

(Evil and Chaos @ Sep. 02 2006,11:44)
QUOTE
So you make the base cost low and the weapons costs highly variable... as happens in all game systems everywhere.

In which case either some weak weapons will cost ridiculously high or system is still not giving proper costs.

Whats wrong with doing it EASY way and judging value of FULL value? That way you can actually have(horror of horror!)  BALANCED armies!

_________________
www.tneva.net
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Hammerhead Fluff
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(tneva82 @ Sep. 02 2006,12:48)
QUOTE

(Evil and Chaos @ Sep. 02 2006,11:44)
QUOTE
So you make the base cost low and the weapons costs highly variable... as happens in all game systems everywhere.

In which case either some weak weapons will cost ridiculously high or system is still not giving proper costs.

I said you set the base cost low... so that the cheap weapon options are either included in the base cost or cost very little.

It's easy to achieve balance with such a system.

Whats wrong with doing it EASY way and judging value of FULL value? That way you can actually have(horror of horror!)  BALANCED armies!


You can achieve the same result (Same cost) through either system.

One system gives you one tank formation type with several different upgrade costs, while another system gives you five different tank formation types each with a different total cost.

Same result, different roads. There's no right and wrong choice, it's just down to aesthetics.

The caveat is that you maintain fixed formation sizes/additions etc. of course.


For something as simple as one-gun Epic tanks I don't think it matters which system is chosen, just that some of the alternate weapon systems should be given a chance at having points costs!




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Lion in the Stars
 Post subject: Hammerhead Fluff
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:54 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455

(Evil and Chaos @ Sep. 02 2006,08:37)
QUOTE
Well, not every tank in the Tau army has a million mile range. :D

Consider it more as an infantry support vehicle than a MBT, its main purpose in supporting Firewarrior close Engagements.

Tanks don't need a long range, but I'm not sacrificing the ability to affect a target outside 30 or 45cm just to get a MW4+.  (Yeah, yeah, Seeker missiles, but everything in the Tau army carries them.)

If I want to support FW, I'll back them up with Crisis suits.  

Tanks (like Hammerheads) are best directed against other Tanks.  A FusionHead is closest to being a LRuss Demolisher, which I don't think the Tau list needs.  I may be mistaken, but I don't think we want to ape the IG list that much (Swordfish/Vanquisher is bad enough, especially when we were talking about putting Leader on the Swordfish)

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
CyberShadow
 Post subject: Hammerhead Fluff
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:51 am 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9348
Location: Singapore
Hi all...

Main List - I am afraid that I have no intention of making these guys appear in the main list. We should be very careful of this type of aspect throwing too much detail and variation into the mix. Having potentially six variants of the same basic hull type is too much. Even Predators have two types (as pointed out by Neal elsewhere).

Points - That said, I am certainly not adverse to putting 'suggested points values' to these things, even if they remain in the collectors section. Getting these values balanced would require as much testing and discussion as any other unit.

Background - I have always thought of these Hammerhead variants as simply specialist versions. Fusion blaster equiped Hammerheads for built up industrial areas, Burst Cannons for heavy anti-infantry hitting power, etc.

_________________
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Hammerhead Fluff
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:55 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Main List - Land Speeders have three varients... 'ya sure you don't want to play keep-up with the Jonses? :)

I actually think that MW armed Hammerheads might lead to more mobile, aggressive tactics.


Points - Cool. The lack of suggested points values in most of the 'collectors' lists is a big downer IMHO. Everything should be pointed, even if it's not tournament-legal.


Background - I was just concerned that the background section of the collector's section is 180 degrees from the cannon (Saying they're old varients when in fact they're the newest).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Xisor
 Post subject: Hammerhead Fluff
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
Fluff point:

They're being field tested.

Given everything it *is* plausible that the test results show they were swiftly relegated and only ever implemented as lower-cost and low-power-intensive items, never really making it fully into mainstream service or dispersal across the Empire.

Any well supported Tau force(the likes of which took part in the 3PE, considering there'd be entire Shan'als and fleets devoted to a system being taken) would have absolutely no use of these.

They'd make a good option for an Epic list based around extremely long operation tours away from base...or something...

Xisor

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Honda
 Post subject: Hammerhead Fluff
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:58 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

I actually think that MW armed Hammerheads might lead to more mobile, aggressive tactics.


@E&C

I'd be interested in hearing what your definition of "more aggressive" tactics are.

Because if it meant, getting up closer to the enemy for harder hitting shots, I would counter that that is a sure way to get your units dead quicker.

Keep in mind, we have very poor FF & CC values. Moving your key units to a point where the opponent can immediately engage you is a sure recipe for disaster. Don't believe me, try a few test runs against formations (pick anyone's) with just a +5 FF. Try the lowly IG infantry regiment. It will kick your turbines in the dirt nearly everytime...and they don't have any saves. Heaven help you if you run up against a SM tactical formation.

No...distance is good...range is good...

Brought to you by "Been there, done that".

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Hammerhead Fluff
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:06 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Maybe I've watched 'Zulu' too much... my idea of war involves gunfire at 30 paces and not a step beyond. :D

It's a pity though, I would have thought there would be a way of making at least some of the varient turrets balanced for use & variety.

ie: Sometimes throwing a short-range, skimming, Macro-Weapon formation up the table on a risk/reward basis as a close-attack unit can pay back good results... I know my Marine Land Speeder crews agree with me!

Of all the varient turrets, it seems to me that the Fusion cannon would be easiest to find a specific role for.




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 3
  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 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