 
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 8 posts ] |
|
Whiteshark Results |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Whiteshark Results  Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:51 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
JG,
Hey all,
Took some time finding the new boards. I was wondering what the results were of the whiteshark playtesting.
I seen that there was some feeling GM's in general should go go 45cm and tracers should be AT5+. Any other results thus far?
'wave'
Rob
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
JimmyGrill
|
Post subject: Whiteshark Results Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:41 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:05 pm
Posts: 61
|
|
My initial thoughts were that it was less useful than the previous version with 3 AT3+.
Having played it in half a dozen games yet, I still think so. While 2 MW3+(TK) shots in a squadron looks really cool on paper, more often than not they are wasted because the most pressing targets (arty mostly) do not require TK shots.
The 45cm range reduction for GMs on aircraft was more of a general thing, to prevent possible abuses (mainly with Barracudas, not so much with the Bombers).
The extra AT5+ for the Interceptor missiles was added to both bombers because they proved rather undergunned for their cost - the Barracuda fighters were often doing a better job than both the sharks. This change has put them back in business somewhat, especially the Tigershark.
On the whole, with the above changes they seem quite okay ATM.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
asaura
|
Post subject: Whiteshark Results Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:03 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
|
| Quote (JimmyGrill @ 11 2005 July,17:41) | | The 45cm range reduction for GMs on aircraft was more of a general thing, to prevent possible abuses (mainly with Barracudas, not so much with the Bombers). |
I've abused the bombers' long range missiles: land an Orca to pick someone up, shoot to 75 only to place a BM. Reducing the range to 45 cm is good.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Whiteshark Results Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:11 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (JimmyGrill @ 11 2005 July,17:41) | My initial thoughts were that it was less useful than the previous version with 3 AT3+.
Having played it in half a dozen games yet, I still think so. While 2 MW3+(TK) shots in a squadron looks really cool on paper, more often than not they are wasted because the most pressing targets (arty mostly) do not require TK shots.
The 45cm range reduction for GMs on aircraft was more of a general thing, to prevent possible abuses (mainly with Barracudas, not so much with the Bombers).
The extra AT5+ for the Interceptor missiles was added to both bombers because they proved rather undergunned for their cost - the Barracuda fighters were often doing a better job than both the sharks. This change has put them back in business somewhat, especially the Tigershark.
On the whole, with the above changes they seem quite okay ATM. |
I've not been able to get a tau game in lately as we are amidst a campaign and every game I play, I'm personally fielding IG. I've not encountered the tau lately so...
I'm trying to schedule a game this weekend for tau test.
OK, So what's the answer with the Whiteshark then JG?
It needs to be effective at its role even if less versatile IMHO. Is it not very effective at titan/we/tank hunting?
LMK
PS - I think the AT 5+ and GM 45 makes sense for several reasons.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Whiteshark Results Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:42 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
In the recent game, I don't know if it was clear in the write up, but I played a formation of two of the new whitesharks.
I gota say, I really hated the new whitesharks by comparison to the way the old ones worked.
Sure, the new proposed got the macro-weapon titan killer attack, but it was a single attack per plane... blah... two of them just didn't do the trick. The old whiteshark could at least put out the at firepower, this one needs mroe at shots to be effective I think. As it stands, the tigershark may be fielded more often than the whiteshark. I hate to make a knee-jerk reaction, but the old whiteshark was formidable. The new one is too dumbed down for the price of two of them - it still doesn't hunt WE's much less titan's very well at all. 
I will give it another go, but in the Eldar game of all AT... I really expected two white sharks - designed by the tau to take on enemy titans and WEs - to really have an effect... blah... they didn't. One missed each turn. All other shots were either saved or missed. MW missles don't mean much with a 1 and 6 chance to hit.
I found the new design very lack luster compared to expectations or the way the 'current v4.1' is.
My vote is 'no change' if it's not going to get more attacks *AND* better GM's or the TK gets an uptick of (2) instead of (1).
Anyway, still coming off of the  feeling from the tau v eldar beating, so take all coments in that light. Very depressing game result.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Breotan
|
Post subject: Whiteshark Results Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 6:56 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:49 pm
Posts: 34
|
| Quote (Tactica @ 25 2005 July,20:42) | | The new one is too dumbed down for the price of two of them - it still doesn't hunt WE's much less titan's very well at all. ? |
I don't know if the redesigned Whiteshark was intended to hunt Titans. In fact, I believe that people specificially did not want the Whiteshark to be a Titan hunter, so in your next game try not to use them that way. As for SHTs, the Whiteshark should be effective, especially if supported with marker-lit missiles from other units.
_________________
You people are crazy! Crazy fruit-loops from the leftward land of silliness. Even I couldn't make this stuff up.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Whiteshark Results Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 4:01 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
Agreed, one game does not make or break a revision. As you said, just was dissappointed for the investment. I'll continue to give them a chance and play around with them.
Perhaps the GM 6+ upgrade to GM5+ and range reduction (hopefully sooner rather than later - ) will help.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 8 posts ] |
|
