There's no good reason for the skyray to be better at shooting at close range

That's a pretty bad misquote Dobbsy.

High tech guided missiles should be equally effective at short and long range. Being high-tech is a good argument against E&C's suggestion.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I don't understand your position.

Currently these are the issues with Tau in general.
- Individual SkyRay upgrades are too expensive. *
- SkyRay formations are too cheap/powerful.
- Barracuda's are too weak. **
- TigerSharks (specifically AX10) are too weak. **

There's also the issue of having a rule, and having it have an exception. If the exception can be removed, especially when helping other issues, I see that as a good thing.

* The only concern I have (but not just me).
** Concerns you have.

The current rules proposal fixes all of these problems with only a single change of stats (Hunter Missiles AA6+), and a single change to a cost (Individual Skyray = 75pts).

I'm not sure I understand 'exception D' in your list. It arbitrarily excludes SkyRay formations.

Here's the list I used yesterday, though. Barring several stupid errors (yeah, let's park my indefensibles within 15cm of the WraithGate on a turn I can't win anyway), it could have easily won.

Mech FW + Pathfinders + Bonded
Crisis + 1 + Shas'O
Crisis
Pathfinders
Recon 3/3
Recon 3/3
Recon 3/3
SkyRay
SkyRay
HammerHeads (3R,1I) + 2 (2I) + SkyRay
HammerHeads (4F) + 2 (2F)

Assuming Exception D isn't important for SkyRay formations, I'd drop the one on the HammerHeads, and add an additional Crisis Suit to each formation. Dropping a HammerHead squad for an AX10 still retains the 11 Formation (Exception A), 7 Formations have ML (Exc C).

Personally, I have no issue with 4 unit formations. They break a little easier, but I'd rather three Crisis Formations at 4 than two at 6-7. Moreso with HammerHeads, but you've got the 3:1 Support ratio to consider. But that's an issue for another thread.

Morgan Vening

These are the two lists I am playing:

3000 pts

Mechanized FW Cadre 6 x FW, 3 x Devilfish
Skyray 1 x Skyray
HH upgrade 2 x HH
Recon Group 2 x Tetra, 4 x Piranha
Recon Group 2 x Tetra, 4 x Piranha
Recon Group 2 x Tetra, 4 x Piranha
Recon Group 2 x Tetra, 4 x Piranha
Pathfinder Team 4 x Pathfinders, 2 x Devilfish
Crisis Cadre 4 x Crisis Suits
Crisis Upgrade 4 x Crisis Suits
SC upgrade 1 x Supreme Commander
Skysweep Support Group 3 x Skyray
Armored Group 4 x Hammerheads
HH upgrade 2 x HH
Armored Group 4 x Hammerheads
HH upgrade 2 x HH
Tigershark Squadron 2 x Missile Strike Tigersharks

The above has 11 activations

This list is more of an all rounder, though it is only at 2700 pts. I would most likely add another TS-MB squadron to get more seekers:

Mechanized FW Cadre 6 x FW, 3 x Devilfish 225
FW upgrade 4 x FW, 2 Devilfish 150
Skyray 1 x Skyray 100
HH upgrade 2 x HH 125
Recon Group 2 x Tetra, 4 x Piranha 150
Recon Group 2 x Tetra, 4 x Piranha 150
Recon Group 2 x Tetra, 4 x Piranha 150
Crisis Cadre 4 x Crisis Suits 250
Crisis Upgrade 2 x Crisis Suits 100
SC upgrade 1 x Supreme Commander 100
Skysweep Support Group 3 x Skyray 250
Armored Group 4 x Hammerheads 250
HH upgrade 2 x HH 125

Tigershark Squadron 2 x Missile Strike Tigersharks 225
AX-1-0 Squadron 2 x AX-1-0 350

It would field 10 activations and give me some anti-SHT/Titan, though a little lighter in Recon than I would normally like. But it hits hard.

In each list, I am fielding 4 Skyrays. One formation and one upgrade.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

The AA missile attack is not an exception to the rules of GMs. AA attacks are totally seperate and don't fall under the GM rule so there is no exception.

- I really don't consider Skyrays to be too expensive.
- Skyray formations may be cheap but formations of 3 are the least effective in the game (paying for 3 units which are broken from 1 casualty sucks). I could live without this formation and I think that would be a better solution than nerfing Skyrays in general.
- I think the Barracuda squadron should be the focus of this discussion, not the Skyray.
- I believe Tigersharks need to have a built in weakness or they will dominate (thats the problem with having your primary TK weapons on planes - there's not much that can hit them compared to a ground based TK weapon system).

Even after all this discussion, I still maintain that the Skyray upgrade is fine as is and does not need a nerf (the skyray formation is a different kettle of fish).

Here's the list I used today:

Mech Firewarriors + Pathfinders + Skyray + Bonded Team (BTS)
Battlesuit Cadre + Supreme Commander
Battlesuit Cadre
Stealth Support Group
Broadside Support Group
Hammerhead Support Group (rail) + Skyray
Hammerhead Support Group (ion) + Skyray
Recon Skimmer Group (3/3)
Recon Skimmer Group (3/3)
Tigershark AX-1-0

10 activations, 3000pts.

I lost to the Marines in 3 turns (2:0 BTS & They Shall Not Pass)
Of course, my game plan wasn't helped by totally forgeting to use my Stealth Suits  
Key notes from the game:
- Everyone hates Broadsides! They have been the first thing the enemy wants to kill in all 4 of my recent games with the new army list.
- 2 Thunderbolts (CAP) flew into 3 Skyrays to attack the AX-1-0's. Only 1 TBolt was shot down and the remaining plane killed one AX-1-0 (there goes the plan to kill the enemies Reaver    ).
- Firewarriors + Pathfinders are death to infantry formations at close range (just ask the Marine Supreme Commander).
- 4 Rail Heads + Skyray could only kill 2 markerlit Predators (from about 10cm away) with an Advance order and a crossfire...  
- Don't keep your reserves (Stealthsuits) on the same tray as your casualties... D'oh!
- My opponent (Chris) liked playing against the Tau. He said they were an interesting opponent, quite different to anything else and ML's were extremely useful. He saw no reason to change Skyrays and had a similiar fear that any changes would just complicate things for no real gain.

Just my point of view, for what it's worth...
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.

An other proposal: Why not make the AA-Missiles Guided? In fluff and Wh40k rules they are (because they are the same as Seeker Missiles. More specific: They ARE Seeker Missiles.).

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

I'm not utterly convinced the skyray needs nerfing either, and if the problem is the skyray formation then perhaps a bump to 275 points?

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

In an ideal world they are the flak formation would come down in price, but don't forget they pack 2 gm's as well - that flak formation is hitting with 6 90cm AT shots in support of your forward markerlights in addition to the flak. Would 200 at these stats be too cheap for the other abilities?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Well the Recon formation can throw the same ammount of GMs forwards for only 150pts.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Not the exception I was referring to. AA fire (of any kind) are an exception to the MarkerLight Rule. That was the one this proposal sought to remove.

-I think the single Skyray at 100pts is too expensive, but too cheap at 75. A minor nerf, and it's all fixed.
-Three unit formations are a problem, if they need to be direct fire, or if they have a weakness to air attacks. I have absolutely no issue with SkyRay formations being 3 strong max.
-The removal exception stated above does boost the Barracudas a small amount on the defensive, and a little on the offensive, under VERY tight circumstances.
- The Tiger Sharks get a VERY minor boost defensively, as they can't be used offensively in AA. Unless they're kept in close, there is no change whatsoever.

It's possible that it will be too time consuming, but it seems to fix every issue with Tau Air without having to redo everything. Personally, I think Zombocom's onto something.

Morgan Vening

Yes it was    It should have been the entire quote for starters. It came at the end of a very long drawn out day after running the tourney and I was bit frazzled by then. i think I completely misunderstood the comment from the begining anyway. Note to self: never type when tired.

carry on.

It would seem that there are two contrasting ways of using the Skyray, either as a formation of three or as an upgrade. The problem is that as an upgrade it is reasonable to assume 2x AA5+ shots as this is not overpowering, while as a formation of three 6x AA shots is OTT, even if it is AA6+.

So at the risk of lots of abuse, do you actually need the Skyray formation?? It seems that the Tau list is built around flexibility which is expressed through the use of upgrades, and as such the Skyray is the equivalent of the Marine Hunter, Orc flak wagon IG Hydra etc. Alternatively if the Skyray formation has to be retained, let the unit have only 1x AA shot but cost the upgrade accordingly.

Finally on the stats, if you want to adopt the ML approach, why not revise the AA stats accordingly and remove the exception to the ML rule (as Morgan Vening suggests):-

Hunter  30cm  AA5+
AND      60cm  AA6+ Guided missile

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Is it though?

I intend to test the formation a bunch of times, rather than just deciding one way or the other without playtest experience.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I disagree. If you believe a nerf to 2x AA6+ is a minor tweak you are wrong IMO.
It will only be a matter of time before it shows to be an inferior AA platform and there will be another call for it to return to what it is now. I would rather pay +25 points for something that works now, than go through months of "testing" and "theorising" to nerf it just to save those 25 points.

Remember that the old version of the vehicle had it 2x AA5+ before E&C added the cost upgrade for MLs. I don't ever recall people complaining about it then. Just realise you are paying for the ML cost now and it's effect on the formations it can be used in.

Can I ask what makes you draw the conclusion that it is too expensive? I seem to be misunderstanding a lot of what you are saying in this argument of late. I've missed an important part of your thrust here.

Again, I would ask, please do not nerf this vehicle.  I use it often enough to know that it's expensive for a reason - it's reliable as it stands. I pay the cost for them for that exact reason and the cost stops me from going over board on them. I see that as a balance. The issue of the reduction in cost for three of them - while I don't particularly like the 3 tank formation myself - seems to me at least, that when you put three of them in a formation, that two markelights become redundant as you only require 1 and hence a 50 point reduction in cost (e.g 25 points per ML cost increase per Sky ray, from the previous list version).


And I back up this statement.

Honda, may I ask politely why you are so rigid on the 3 tank formation staying, when no one seems to want it? It seems that this debate would save us all a hell of a lot of time if the formation were to go away.


Ginger's statement is a very good one, Honda - could you perhaps rethink your stance on the three tank formation?

OK, firstly, I believe it IS a minor tweak, if Tau are played the way it seems they are intended. With overlapping fields of MarkerLights, it's not 2xAA6+. It's 2xAA6+ when Tau aren't using the synergism that they're supposed to use.

Expensive has two meanings here. One is direct price, and one is implied price. The first is it's impact for it's cost. Example might be Warlord Titan vs Reaver Titan. The latter, implied price, is the other things that have to be considered.

You ask from where I draw that conclusion. Lets say I play in a fairly heavy Aircraft metagame. I feel ~500pts is a reasonable portion to assign for Anti-Air. I've got three choices, five units can have SkyRay upgrades (limited to Fire Warriors and HammerHeads), two formations of SkyRays, or three formations of Barracudas.

The first gets a fair amount of dispersion and redundancy, but given the range band isn't likely to be more effective, the second adds some fragility, but at the advantage of a sixth SkyRay and more importantly, two extra activations, and the third gives three activations, but comes at the cost of Ally percentages and fragility to opposing AA/intercepts.

It may come to pass that SkyRay formations are passed in. Until then, I don't see myself taking individual SkyRays. And even if the formations are used, I'd still not use them, instead relying on the Barracuda because the extra activation is more important, I think.

I dunno, maybe it was ambitious to try and fix all of the issues people have with Tau with one stat change, and an exception removal, but did you take into account the global effect it would have? You personally have stated numerous times about a weakness with AX10's and Barracudas. This rule change would boost them (under limited circumstances), as well as weaken the SkyRay formation without killing it.

Sometimes there has to be a compromise. It's a moot point as far as I'm concerned, because as I stated in the other thread, I'm just over it. I've only gone this far because people apparently misunderstood the original idea, and I don't like being misinterpreted. I have no issue with people disagreeing with what I say, just not for what they 'think' I said.

For what it's worth, I have never stated it'd work, it was an attempt to break the stalemate that seems endemic to Tau development. I'll leave it for people more interested than I am.

Morgan Vening

Sure, although I wouldn't have chosen the "r" word.  

So, let me count the ways...

1. We ended up on this road because of the original discussion on the Barracuda, not because of a failure with the Skyray formation. That this has turned into a fairly lengthy and good discussion has been interesting, but I think we've skipped over the real issue to address something that wasn't a problem to start out with. So I really think the discussion should go back to the original issue. However since we are here...

2. Not that this reason trumps everything, but I like the formation. I use it in my army. I use it's seeker capabilities to support my plan (as it does in Apocalypse). So, I do not personally see an issue with the formation itself. As stated earlier, it is effective, though I'm waiting to see evidence that it is too effective, it is expensive, and it is very fragile. It also is not required. I do think that the Skyray upgrade should probably be removed to ensure its fragility.

3. Until we see more lists and playtests, two formations seems to be the largest number of Skyrays that players are willing to put out for. I suppose someone could take all foot FW cadres and then spam Skyray formations, but I don't see what that would really accomplish and find it unlikely that someone is going to show up at a tourney with that list and sweep everyone else.

4. So far, the only real contention point seems to be that people don't "like" it. I will accept that as their opinion, but that doesn't mean that the formation is wrong, unbalanced, or over-powering. In fact, so far, the evidence seems to point to the contrary. Just because a decision is unpopular, doesn't mean it is wrong.

So from where I stand right now, I don't see a reason to change the entry other than to drop the Skyray upgrade for the formation for the reasons listed in #2.

I realize that is most likely not what a lot of you want to hear, but I don't see the evidence right now that forces us to change. I will say that if playtest evidence does come up that indicates a balance issue, then this issue will certainly be re-visited.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment