Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Hamerheads
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=17223		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:25 am ]
Post subject:  Hamerheads
Yes the Ion/Rail imbalance is still there. Try as I might I can't beleive, nor convince others that 60cm AP4+/AT5+ is equal to 75cm AP5+/AT4+

2 solutions suggest themselves
1) make the Ion 4/4. Upsides is its a simple change, downside is it affects other units (though gives a boost to the currently maligned Barracuda).
2) Go wysiwyg and give the railcannon burst cannon 15cm AP4+ instead of SMS 30cm 5+ IC
Or of course do both!

The fusion head seems a little undergunned, should it perhaps not be at least 4+
Author:  Dobbsy [ Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:36 am ]
Post subject:  Hamerheads
Ha! I always thought the Ion version was 4/4  :laugh: So of course I agree with making it that. I'm glad I haven't used them recently  :blush:

I use the Fusion version at all times now. I have thought about the fact it should be twin linked fusion cannons but I'm betting E&C designed them to be 5+ MW else they'd be a 2+ MW unit on sustain with a ML on target. That's incredibly nasty and I wouldn't advise we go that way. They're pretty good now in a close situation.
Author:  Onyx [ Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Hamerheads
Certainly NOT in favour of Burst cannons on the Railhead.

I've found the Ionhead useful for dealing with infantry targets from long range. The Railhead should obviously be targetting armoured opponents.

They both have a use. I don't see the problem here.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Hamerheads
Have you used different hulls for your railcannon then?

Incidentally I don't think having a use is good enough. it has to have a use and be worth taking. Vindicators or pre cost change land raiders had a use, but they are/were still sub-par.
Author:  GlynG [ Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Hamerheads
I'd like to see Ion-Cannon Hammerheads with twin Burst Cannons myself, they do seem a bit sub-par at the same cost as a Railgun one at the moment (an Ion Cannon is less effective than a Railgun and absolutely should be but whereas W40k costs the Railgun one more we do the same price here).

It was the way I always used to field them in my W40k Tau too - Ion Cannon plus twin Burst Cannons for maximum infantry killing with light AT potential, then Railgun plus SMS for AT duties and occasional hitting out at hidden stuff.

Marine predators have variant secondary weapons as well as the turret guns so no reason these couldn't.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Hamerheads
4/4 could work.
Author:  Honda [ Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Hamerheads
@TRC: :) >


To borrow from Epics bigger, slower cousin:

1. Railgun - probably the ultimate AT weapon. Has a secondary AP capability which can be useful at times.

2. Ion cannon - Nasty AP killer. If you know you're coming up against a lot of heavy infantry (i.e. Space Marines), the Ion cannon is the weapon of choice.



I am open to talking this through, but I think we need to have a very clear understanding of the overall impact to the rest of the list:

1. Units impacted: Barracuda, IC-HH, Tigershark, Manta
2. Which of these units would then have to have a cost upgrade because of the bump?
3. What does that do to the overall list balance?

And just to save us some mental energy, we are not re-tooling all the secondary weaponry on the HH tanks, nor the Devilfish for that matter.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Hamerheads
Quote: 

I am open to talking this through, but I think we need to have a very clear understanding of the overall impact to the rest of the list:

1. Units impacted: Barracuda, IC-HH, Tigershark, Manta
2. Which of these units would then have to have a cost upgrade because of the bump?
3. What does that do to the overall list balance?

Honda, can I ask if those other units are actually correctly costed in the first place? We assume a lot when we cost units in this game, but balanced cost isn't always so cut and dry a situation. I guess my point is, could those units get the up gunned stat and still be the same cost?

Quote: 

And just to save us some mental energy, we are not re-tooling all the secondary weaponry on the HH tanks, nor the Devilfish for that matter.

:yay:
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:42 am ]
Post subject:  Hamerheads
Also - cost. Would you rather a formation of skyrays or hammerheads?
Author:  Honda [ Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Hamerheads
Quote: 

Honda, can I ask if those other units are actually correctly costed in the first place? We assume a lot when we cost units in this game, but balanced cost isn't always so cut and dry a situation. I guess my point is, could those units get the up gunned stat and still be the same cost?


Dobbsy, it's a fair question. The costs "seem" in the close - right range. I would not say that some of those units couldn't absorb the upgrade, but that is what would need to be discussed, then tested.

In any case, that is what should be discussed, which ones could absorb the increasd effectiveness and which should not.

Quote: 

Would you rather a formation of skyrays or hammerheads?


Seeing the relative effectiveness of both, I don't see leaving HHs home for Skyrays. I wouldn't mind if you'd test an all Recon/Foot FW/Skyray spam list to see it's overall effectiveness. I should have a game coming up next week where I could try that as well. I don't know how effective that style of popcorn list might be, but it sounds very fragile, unless it comes up against a list that's heavy in armor.

Seems like a "Krieg" type of list (big on infantry, strong artillery) would just rip it to shreds, but that's just a speculation.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Hamerheads
I think any army with even a moderate ammount of artillery could nullify those skyray formation spams in fairly short order.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/