Step 1 -> Look at aircraft and try to get them to be balanced
Step 2 -> Look at Moray and Manta

I am not "wedded" to the single chassis with variant weapons, it was merely a suggestion that seems to have a lot of possibilities, not least in simplifying the list a little.

To my mind, you need to have separate datafax where there are are going to be major differences in the unit stats or where you wish to restrict or control the use of the unit in the list for some reason. Here, IMHO the stats of the different a/c were sufficiently similar to accomodate the possibility of variant weapons, a bit like the WWII Stuka dive-bomber which also had a "tank-busting" variant armed with under-wing 37mm cannon. In appearance the datafax would look similar to the Eldar titans which have optional weapons (so there are a number of precedents), and I do not think they need to be that confusing.

A more serious issue might be deciding whether a player can field different variants in the same formation, which should be debated if this idea is adopted.

However, Shmitty's concern over balancing is at the heart of the debate here, and has been at the heart of many of the problems with the Tau list. Because of the past issues, I freely admit that I have approached the whole design question back-to-front by considering the desired balanced effect (hits etc) and fitting the stats to that perspective within the 'fluff' rather than starting with the 'fluff' and producing relevant stats. However, I thought we had got to a reasonable representation of the 'fluff', so perhaps someone could highlight the discrepancies.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I am not "wedded" to the single chassis with variant weapons, it was merely a suggestion that seems to have a lot of possibilities, not least in simplifying the list a little.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Your Back-to-front approach has been really useful and a nice counterpoint to the way I have been going about it.

As far as the discrepancies go, the issue is taking away a weapon system built in to the AX-1-0 and adding more weapons to the basic TS so that they can be presented as one unit with 2 weapons.  I really felt, that with your and others help, we had reached a point of things being both balanced and fully representational of the fluff.  I am not convinced that the benefits gained in combining the units is worth the cost of deviating from the fluff that we have.

I do feel that the basic TS role could be better defined though.  What did you think of designating it more as an AP platform by changing the GM loadout?

Reread your earlier thoughts, and I think I see the particular problem here (and indeed one of the general Tau problems). What I think you are suggesting is reviewing the 'normal' Tigershark weapons loadouts to make them more generalist (and perhaps more AP orientated).

I think we are coming round to the specialist variant having something like:-

TigerShark AX-1-0  
Burst Cannons
Twin-Linked Railcannon  - Titan Killer OR sub munitions
Seeker Missiles  

What I think I am hearing is that you want to provide an AP orientated OR AT orientated variant of the 'normal' Tigershark, so something like:-

TigerShark        
Burst Cannons
Twin-Linked Ion Cannon
Twin-Linked Missile Pod
Seeker Missiles  OR  Smart Missile system

So what we are coming to is providing the stats for three variants: AP, AT or the AX-1-0 TK variants. Obviously we can resolve the actual stats later, but I would suggest they should work out something like this:-

TigerShark AX-1-0  

• TK variant
  AP hits ~2 (but MW)
  AT hits ~3 (but MW)
  TK hits ~5

TigerShark    

• AP variant
  AP hits ~4
  AT hits ~2
  
• AT variant
  AP hits ~2
  AT hits ~4
  

Note, I would be very cautions about presenting too many options because in doing so, you will blur the distinction between the two main A/c variants. Indeed, I would suggest that you could actually achieve a similar result by permitting formations to comprise different variants and weapon configurations.

--------------------------
The other issue I think you (and Hena) are expressing is that you see relative costing of the 'normal' Tigershark being less than the AX-1-0 variant. I am presuming that this is because of the relative rarity of the AX-1-0 in the 'fluff'.

Ok, here, I would suggest letting the player make his choices, freely if possible. The improved Railgun TK stats were suggested both to make it more specialist and also to allow a reduction in the 'normal' stats. Yes the player could choose three such formations (for 900 points) and indeed they may well be able to kill a big titan / BTS (assuming they do not fall victim to enemy AA); but then they will have an insignificant impact on the rest of the enemy, cannot take objectives, and the player cannot have any other air formations (like Moray etc).

It is my contention (and intention) that the cost restrictions imposed will self-regulate the use of the Tigershark in any format; which is one of the reasons for suggesting a target cost of 275-300 points (and which incidently approximates to other bombers etc). The logical conclusion to this line of thought is then to give both variants the same cost.

So, while I understand your concerns about letting both A/c have the same cost, I would contend that if we make the AX-1-0 very specialist and the Tigershark very generalist (via optional weapon loadouts etc) this will actually guide the player to self-limit the use of the AX-1-0 thus matching that aspect of the 'fluff'.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

That's not exactly what I was suggesting.  My thought is to have the AX-1-0 the AT and TK unit, while the basic model is the AP specialist.  Thus defining the roles of the two units and making them distinct from each other.  Sorry for the confusion.  I am hoping ot keep things simpler and adding a variant was not how I wanted to do that.

I think we are coming round to the specialist variant having something like:-

TigerShark AX-1-0  
Burst Cannons
Twin-Linked Railcannon  - Titan Killer OR sub munitions
Seeker Missiles  

The generic TigerShark should be the Tank and Infantry hunter with Twin Ion Cannon, Burst Cannons, Twin Missile Pod and Seeker Missiles.
The TigerShark AX-1-0 should be the WE hunter Twin Heavy Railgun, Twin Missile Pod and Burst Cannons.

Thats their distinct roles.

The Twin Ion Cannons and Seeker Missile will give the TigerShark the AP/AT power.
The Twin Heavy Railgun willgive the TiugerShark AX-1-0 the Anti WE power.

Burst Cannons are only there for AA.
Twin Missile Pods are only ther to give both a bit more oomph against their prefered targets.

But...how about this?
You have to purchase 2 TigerSharks and one TigherShark AX-1-0 as ONE formation.
Or perhabs 2 TigerSharks per formation which can be upgraded with an additional TigerShark AX-1-0?

This would limit the number of TigerShark AX-1-0 in the army.

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

Ok, lets just get the basic semantics here. We are agreeing on three variants, for AP, AT and TK, but which A/c name is associated with which role?

From what you just wrote I think you are suggesting
'Normal' Tigershark = AP
AX-1-0 variant = AT or TK

Is that right?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

To me it's
'Normal' Tigershark = AP and AT
AX-1-0 variant = TK

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

Pretty much.  Given that all WE are also AT it makes sense to cover those two roles with one unit.  TK weapons are very useful against more than just WEs.  They are quite good at taking out tanks with RA as well.  So, the AX-1-0 will actually be quite good against tanks formations armed as it is.  Given that 1 TK hit is as good as 4 AT hits against a 4+ RA unit.

We have 2 models, 2 roles, 2 variants.

Regarding the relative scarcity of other TK weapons, I see your point. In which case we may need to rely on some other means of constraining them. Note one intention of making them extremely TK specialists is to make them less usefull against general targets as most armies take between 10% and 25% of their points in Titans, so they are less likely to make their points back.

You are correct that I am proposing the use of the points 'sweet spot' for costing the A/c and adjusting the stats accordingly because this has been proven to be generally balanced in other lists. It forces the trade-off between the various options, which in turn provides a restriction.

However, if you are correct about the relative desirability of the things, I suggest you will always find them in armylists irrespective of the cost (a bit like Warhounds), which suggests we need to adjust the stats to make them less desirable in some form rather than adjusting the points per se.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Wel lbut the AX-1-0 can only destroy  ONE tank. Ok he can it pretty good but the gereric TigerShark can potentially destroy more.

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

Hmm, point taken on the WE but I am not so sure about AT. If you consider giving the A/c each MW 3+, TK (D3+1) this results in ~1.3 Leman Russ tanks, though it does indeed become very nasty against SHT (~4 hits), and this will have a high probability of killing two out of three SHT in a company.

The degree to which we make it an AT 'generalist' actually depends upon the number of other weapons onboard, which is one of the reasons I liked the Seeker missiles, because they need another formation to ML the target - which is a lot harder to achieve   It is equally why I would suggest excluding the missile pods, because that allows the AX-1-0 to become more generalist, making it much more desirable and more of a "no-brainer".

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

That is what I thought originally; so which A/c has the 'generalist' AT capability??

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt