So are we settling on the following kind of stats:-

Tigershark
Description
Basic stats

Anti-Personal role
Burst Cannon
Twin Linked Ion cannon
Twin linked Missile Pod
AP Sub-Munitions (or whatever you want to call them)

Anti-Tank role
Burst Cannon
Twin Linked Ion cannon
Twin linked Missile Pod
Seeker Missiles

AX-1-0 (titan killer role)
Burst Cannon
Railgun TK (D3+1)
Seeker Missiles

Notes etc

----------------------------
It seems that everyone likes Formations of two (and BL, I would suggest not allowing people to purchase an extra one, as again it is providing too much flexibility).

So, what points costs are appropriate for the different variants and is it possible to set the same points cost for all variants or not?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

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 -

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I am not sure we are actually.

Tigershark
Description
Basic stats

Anti-Personal role
Burst Cannon
Twin Linked Ion cannon
Twin linked Missile Pod
AP Sub-Munitions (or whatever you want to call them)

Hmm.... I just took a quick look at the lists in the 2008 Epic Handbook.  6 out of 10 aircraft (non-Tau) have at least one weapon with a range of 45cm.  Those that don't are all fighters, much like the Barracuda, whose weapons are limited to 30cm range.  ALL Bombers in the official lists have a 45cm range weapon.  In this case, I do think the Tau are staying consistent with other lists.

The basic Tigershark is probably less effective than the Marauder for the same cost.  (assuming the new updates)  But if it looks like it was too strong the GM could easily be dropped to just one shot.

The AX-1-0 is more expensive per plane than any other non-WE Bomber.  And it should be, it is a flying TK unit, which is a unique and powerful ability.

Ok, to sumarise the position we seem to be at:-

I think (hope) we agree that the A/c should generally fall in line with other bombers in terms of general stats and cost. Formations of two fit the bill as well.

Shmitty is now looking for only two variants, where the AT variant has good TK capabilities. Hena still prefers a DC2 singlton variant, and wants to keep ranges reduced (quite right too ) though I think we all agree that Bombers ought to have some limited capability at 45cm. Finally both express some concern over the up-gunned TK railgun and want to keep weapon stats consistent across the Tau models.

For my part, I would generally agree with the sentiments expressed above though with some reservations as we appear to be regressing a little.

-------------------------------
Ok, can we revisit the rough design process here.
1) Gain consensus on the number and type of units per formation.
2a) Agree the role(s) and general stats of each formation
2b) Derive a cost for the formation(s)
2c) Fit the 'fluff' as far as possible
3) Refine any further restrictions and the datafax(s)

In parallel with this, it may just be worth a quick review of weapons stats, though again I must point out that of necessity the stats of airborne weaponry will probably vary from their ground equivalents.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Hena, while I understand the desire for a DC2 singleton, this obviously has an effect on the number of weapons carried to achieve the same results. Therefore we do need to resolve this first. Could you explain further why you see the Tigershark as a War Engine rather than a pair of bombers?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

If I've got my sums right...  

As a single WE plane formation at 225pts (Hena's suggestion), it is possible to have 4 TK air attacks (for 3000pt games) on 4 different formations.

As a non WE group of 2 planes (just about everyone else's preferred option it seems) at 350pts per formation, it is possible to have 4 TK air attacks BUT only on 2 enemy formations per turn.

It is very obvious which option reduces TK firepower overall, and that is why I support NON WE groups of 2 AX-1-0.

I also don't like the possibility that with a little bad luck, one of the Tau's most effective TK weapons can be destroyed without firing a shot (War Engine hit by a critical). In groups of 2 there is a back-up to keep the formation effective.

As to weapons - The AX-1-0 Railcannons should definately be 45cm range.

_________________
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.

Onyx has got the point here, it is to do with the sums involved in the weapon stats and survivability. So if possible, could we stick with the pair of bombers rather than a singlton WE.

The next thing we really need to clear up is the number of roles. Lets not get hung up on how they are presented at the moment, but just consider them as separate exercises for now (presentation comes in the next stage).

Personally I would be quite happy with two for the Tigershark; the normal 'generalist' role and the 'specialist' Titan killing role. However, this raises the question of just how 'generalist' or 'specialist' these roles actually are, hence the diversion into an AP and an AT role. Looking at the real world for a moment, modern aircraft have a bewildering number of weapons that can be carried, but the airframe and tactical requirements normally restrict the combinations that can be carried.

IMHO this principle of weapons choice to fit particular tactical roles is entirely in line with the Tau ethos (and indeed is one of the traits that distinguish the Tau from other races). I also think that it has been the cause of much debate because of the effect it has on the 'fluff'. For example, in one chapter formation 'X' uses its ion cannon to  great effect, while in another episode the same or similar formation saves the day with its guided missiles. The formation has used both weapons so we naturally assume that both weapons are mounted simultaneously on the chassis without considering the possibility that the formation has left the battle to re-arm with a different weapons configuration.

IMHO presenting the player with a choice of which weapons he want to use (or in effect, allowing him to choose which role he wants the formation to fulfill) is something we should try to adopt, not just with the Tigershark, but with other Vehicles as well. It adds colour to the game, and should present some tough tactical choices to the player when selecting formations. Equally, it means we can simplify the weapons statistics a bit, allowing the choice of weapons to define the intended role. Doing this should also allow us to radically simplify several parts of the list as a whole.

Again, just for now, could we ignore the actual weapons configurations in the debate about intended roles

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

So Tigershark is a general ground attack craft. Second unit is Tigerhark AX-1-0 which is TK carrying platform with some extra AT capability. Simple and easy.

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

Ok, I am going to provide a little guidance on the discussion because I think we've got two basic positions and we are now at the point where we are starting to "circle the airfield" more than we need to. It's time to land.

So what I would like us to focus on are:

1. 2 non-WE formations for both the standard TS and the AX-1-0. This approach will prevent a "Four Aces" list from popping up, but still give the Tau two formations that have a nasty punch.

2. Let's not upgun the AX and keep it's Rail weapons consistent with what we have general consensus on for the Moray and Manta

3. Two roles, one AP focused for the standard model of TS, one TK for the AX

4. Let's be consistent about the weapon loadouts per fluff. If the AX has networked marker lights and seekers, then let's find a way to fit them in reasonably. It will help in discussions with non-Tau players if we don't have to say, "Well, everything is pretty much the same as 40K in the list except for these. We decided to add stuff because...".

No need to go there.

5. Did we decide to abandon the transport capability (i.e. drones) on the standard model? In fluff, dropping drones is mentioned multiple times as the lead on to an attack.

6. I think the point about weapon systems with a range >45cm has merit to a limited degree. So if the trend appears to be one system with 45cm range (e.g. seekers), then let's focus to get the other systems within the other constraints. I do see that where the AX has the Rail weapon and seekers, that we are going to have an issue with that. What do you think is the best way to manage the issue?

Anything else I am leaving out?

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment