 
|
Page 3 of 7 |
[ 96 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
It is time to let "5 Aces" go... |
|||||
| dysartes |
|
||||
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:16 pm Posts: 908 |
|
||||
| Top |   |
||||
 |
|||||
| Tactica |
|
||||
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241 |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| Honda |
|
||||
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas |
I would challenge the assertion that it is a "no brainer". Against some types of armies, it is extremely helpful, especially in high numbers of single ship formations. Bunched up in one formation, it is tough, but can be dealt with. Against a horde or infantry heavy list, the points you invest in the AX-1-0 will work against you as it is near useless against those types of armies. You'd be better off taking a Moray with Ion Phalanx or multiple flights of Barracudas, if you are looking for an aerospace solution. So, the proposal to limit the number of aircraft is an attempt to reach a middle ground between the two sides of the discussion. The "Pro-As-Is" want the stats to stay the same, but agree that there should be some mechanism to limit the "Five Aces" abuse that TRC cleverly pointed out. Other mechanisms include raising the cost of the unit, but there is debate on what the correct price should be. Then there are those who think the stats should be reduced to create a less threatening unit using the existing point level. So there are differing opinions and evidence/theory/opinions to support all the various positions. Option 1: Change stats - Just as many for as against Option 2: Change price - Same as above, but disagreements on what the price should be. Two for 400 pts is generally agreeable (I believe), but doesn't satisfy those who want to change the stats Option 3: Set limits on aircraft availability. On the surface this has the least number of impacts to other aspects of the list and there has yet to be a challenge that two aircraft are too many. The problem with this approach is that it appears to be using a controlling mechanism that doesn't fit conventional wisdom. I don't have a problem with that, some do. All that being said, I think we ought to be focusing on what the big issue is (again my opinion only) which is list imbalance. Whether or not some people think the unit is a no brainer is completely subjective and not quantifiable. So, as you can probably guess from my completely, and unabashedly, skewed analysis, I am in favor of Option 3. At least it gets the list done on this issue and will stop this loop which has looped multiple times in multple threads and will continue to until the end of time. I think others are fed up as well. _________________ Honda "Remember Taros? We do" - 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment |
| semajnollissor |
|
|||||||
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm Posts: 1673 Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA |
Well, in this way the AX-1-0 is no different than any other unit with only a few, high powered shots. Certainly the point cost of an Eldar Scorpion EoV isn't determined by how well it takes on a 'Uge Ork warband. The fact is, the abilities of the AX-1-0 at 175pts do make it worth taking in any given army list, unless you know the specific composition of the opposing list you're going to face. If you think about it, it wouldn't even be enough to know the opposing race, since orks, imperials, and eldar can all field titans (or not field them, as the mood strikes). In the long run, in a tourney situation, the AX-1-0 will more than make up for any opportunity that is lost due to taking it (i.e. it will almost always out perform any similarly price formations). I mean, at 175pts, it's almost useful as an activation to burn, since using it won't generally give away anything of your ground strategy. Finally, I don't see how, at 175 pts, it can ever be considered a waste of points in a 2700 pt list. At the very least you can still target formations that need BM's, or the most expensive "cheap formations." The only reasons I see for not taking an AX-1-0 are: 1) you don't own any, and 2) you don't want to. Both are good reasons, but they do not relate directly to the actual power of the unit. One last thing, I'm pretty sure JJ has said that he is generally against imposing 0-1 limits for anything other than fluff reasons. Otherwise, the limited item typically winds up being a unit that is always taken, which is a good indicator that it isn't balanced in the first place. Also, IMNSHO, raising point costs is more fair than imposing a limit of X units per Y pts in the army, since it has the same effect (when used with the 1/3 pt limit for aerospace) and it scales better (well, smoother, at any rate). |
| Honda |
|
||||
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas |
It's Ok to agree to disagree. What each of us may be voicing is our experience with a different variety of opponents. To date my opponents are: 1) Space Marines 2) Orks 3) Tyranids 4) Saim Hann Eldar Again, I'm not going to address whether or not 5 TS at the current configuration is broken. We all agree that some mechanism for limiting the aircraft should exist. So, now we're talking about the effects of let's say for the sake of argument, two TS in a game at 2700 - 4000 pts. Now, I look at the opponents that I face on a common basis. Eldar: We already know that lots of TS give them a fit, but do two? Assuming that you do not have to blanket the board with AA or take an unnatural amount of fighters? Does taking TWO TS cause a significant shift in the balance of the game? Space Marines: Same potential for damage, less effective AA and fighters. However, it is still possible to counter and bounce two aircraft. Orks: In the configuration our local player takes, I see lots of mobs, big ones, lots of flak, lots of vehicles. At this point, my personal opinion is that the TS is a waste of time. Tyranids: I have not faced the most current list yet (that's coming), but even in the previous incarnations which were heavily skewed towards big creatures vs. hordes, the TS was a waste of time. I took Morays and they were a waste of time. Reasoning: It's not a question of whether or not you cause damage when you hit. I'm not denying that they can hit units. The real issue is whether or not the hits you cause influence the behaviour of the unit in your (the attacker's) favor. And at this point, I have to strongly disagree that two TS are overpowering or unbalancing because in at least two of the contests proposed above (Orks & Tyranids), the TS doesn't do enough damage to enough units to prevent the opponent from doing what it needs to do to win the game...which is the reason we're doing this, win games, not see if we can hit things. Anybody can do that. I also contend that in the other cases, that each army can bring forth counter-measures developed from their own lists that negate the effect of the TS. So I respectfully disagree with your position. We should be focusing on the "forest" (i.e. the Tau list), not any one tree (taking two Tigersharks). The TS in the correct quantity does not imbalance the Tau list, so by inference, assuming a maximum of two, I contend that the TS is not imbalanced. _________________ Honda "Remember Taros? We do" - 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment |
| Honda |
|
||||
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas |
So since the behavior of this unit is completely based on "fluff", in a story where one aircraft showed up for one action in one campaign, how much more of a fluff reason do we need for limiting the numbers of the aircraft? _________________ Honda "Remember Taros? We do" - 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment |
| Steele |
|
||||
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am Posts: 423 Location: Duisburg , Germany |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| Steele |
|
||||||
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am Posts: 423 Location: Duisburg , Germany |
|
||||||
| Top | |
||||||
|
|||||||
| Steele |
|
||||||
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am Posts: 423 Location: Duisburg , Germany |
|
||||||
| Top | |
||||||
|
|||||||
| Print view | Previous topic | Next topic |
|
|
Page 3 of 7 |
[ 96 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
Who is online |
|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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 |