Page 1 of 3

[ 38 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Morays
Nerroth	Post subject: Morays Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:40 am
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm Posts: 573 Location: Canada	Hi! I was wondering how much use people here have had from either variant of the Moray assault ship, and which variant they mostly ran with. I tried the railcannon variant a while back trying out a T'au force, but recently with the Gue'senshi I have flown two squadroned IC Morays and in my mind the amount of hurt those ion phalanx attacks can dish out each turn is far more useful than the slow-loading Railcannon (except maybe against a force with lots of war engines), the flexibility offered by the pair is a serious asset against infantry or AV formations - plus that amount of hits on SF from a pair of IC Morays is enough to leave plenty of smoking holes in SHTs... (I generally use them as a mobile fire support to whichever group of allied formations need them - they helped keep my opponent's Eldar formations on their toes and punished any Scorpion foolish enough to pop out of cover - a trick the Vultures shared in abundance!) Thoughts? Gary _________________ Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers v7.3 pdf Human armed forces for the greater good.
Top

baronpiero	Post subject: Morays Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 7:18 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm Posts: 186	Yes, there was a dicussion about this before, and it seems people agreed that Railcannon moray suffers from over-specialization.
Top

Tactica	Post subject: Morays Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:51 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	BaronP has it. Even considering that the tau really suffer from a lack of long range MWs one can rely upon. The Moray's railcannon has two problems hindering its use. Itss 1) slow firing and 2) single main gun instead of 2 seperate guns that can fire each turn. IMHO - To be worth the points, the heavy main gun option needs to go to something like: 2x Railcannon 90cm MW3+ TK(D3). _________________ Rob
Top

clausewitz	Post subject: Morays Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:43 am
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	Tactica, I think the problem there is that you would create a Suoer-Shadowsword*.  This was why the slow-firing version was tried, to offer a WE deterent (RC) or rapid fire regular fire (IC).  The 2x TK(D3) attack is possibly too much the best of both worlds. * Super-Shadowsword: a tank like a shadowsword (DC3 WE, with TK long range weapon) but with extras: deflector shield, Support Craft (no CC, more LOS), extra weapons, faster move.
Top

Tactica	Post subject: Morays Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:13 am
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Clausewitz, Your point is valid and a concern of mine prior to posting the suggestion. Now I may be wrong, but allow me a moment to plead my case... Shadowsword co = 3 shots & 9 hits. Shadowswords can hide behind terrain and get out of LOS Shadowswords have RA 4+ (Shadowswords have Thick RA too I think) It would take 9 blast markers to break this formation. It takes 3 blasts to do half blast marker hits to each vehicle. Shadowswords can contest and hold objectives. This 3 unit Shadowsword Co costs 500 points. 2 Moray at 4 shots for 600 & 6 hits Moray cannot hide behind terrain and get out of LOS Moray have 5+ RA and shield which is typically 6+ Moray does not have Thick RA but It would take 6 blast markers to break this formation. It takes 2 blasts to do half hits to each vehicle. Morays cannot contest and hold objectives This 2 unit Moray formation costs 600 points. Off the top of my head, I don't know what the shadowswords FF value is, but I suspect its much better than the morays. In addition, the Morays have other weapon systems that the shadowswords do not - but most of these items are somewhat pidly on both sides for the point here. As Morays always being seen has proved a pretty hazardous prospect, their reduction in armor, the loss of three hits in the formation - oh - and the Additional 100 points, I think my proposal is quite a bit closer to balanaced than you may have initially given it credit for. Please consider the above. I'll be interested in your response. _________________ Rob
Top

Dobbsy	Post subject: Morays Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:32 am
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am Posts: 4499 Location: Melbourne, Australia	Good points there Tactica. One thing on the cost you could take into account though is that they can planetfall right into enemy lines and wreak havoc if they take the 6x Ion cannon shots (you'd obviously have to retain initiative) Maybe the cost of the Moray is designed to reflect the choice of weapons you can have and it's other abilities. It is, afterall, the Tau version of a "light Titan" Just thinking out loud here
Top

Tactica	Post subject: Morays Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:35 am
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Dobbsy, Agreed, but in order to take advantage of that ability, the tau player must throw even more points into the pot. You have to spend a further 150 points to get a ship... now you are comparing 750 of units vs. 500. I should hope that 750 points is more devistating than 500. As long as you start talking more pints - keep in mind that the Shadowswords have the option to reinforce themselves with 3 more upgrades if one so desires. The Morays don't have that option either. _________________ Rob
Top

clausewitz	Post subject: Morays Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:19 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	Tactica, as is often the case these things are often a matter of perspective. Your comparision of the defensive strength of the IG SHT coy. versus the Tau Moray pair does indeed show the Shadowswords to be more resilient.  But are the Tau Morays meant to be that resilient? A SHT coy. is one of the most resilient formations in the game, that kind of heavy armour is a theme of the IG, while the Tau dont really go for that usually. For the record there are a few things that can be added to the analysis. Armour: SS 4+RA (no TRA), Moray 5+RA and Deflector Shield.  The SS is probably slightly better versus AT fire, but the Moray is better versus MW & TK (due to deflector).  Since a WE formation is a target of choice for MW/TK this benefit should not be over-looked. Speed: SS 15cms, Moray 20cms and Support Craft to ignore terrain. Secondary Weapons: SS 2x Heavy Bolters AP5+ 30cm, Moray Twin-linked Burst Cannons 15cm AP4+/AA6+, Interceptor Missiles 30cm AA5+, Tracer Missiles 75cm MW6+ Guided Missiles.  Two AA weapons are worth a fair deal, flak units are always more expensive than their ground equivalents.  With also a 75cm MW missile the Moray has more than just an irrelevent difference in secondary weapons. Firefight: SS 5+, Moray 6+ but can force FF to deny CC to opponents.  Not a strength of either unit, both will almost always choose to shoot instead of assaulting.  The defensive ability of the Moray to avoid CC specialists (eg terminators) probably makes this just about equal. Notes: SS just the RA, Moray has Support Craft, Planetfall, Reinforced Armour, Fearless.  While Support Craft can be a mixed blessing, Jaldons recent battle report showed its value (IG arty being neutralised in the first activation) and if the experimental pop-up rules are made official then Support Craft will retain that ability when skimmers will not.  Planetfall while requires a space ship it is still a very useful ability.  Last but not least FEARLESS, a highly valued ability. In my mind the Moray already has enough advantages to justify 50 points extra (ok, SHT's are cheaper in a coy.).  If you were to give the Morays main weapons twice the firepower of the Shadowsword this would increase the difference between the units. Oh and the IG strategy rating is lower than Tau, the Moray has a choice of main weapons and the Moray doesn't use up a contingent/support slot. Finally, the comparison itself is against possibly the best rated tank in E:A.
Top

Tactica

Post subject: Morays Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:36 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241

Clausewitz, (Sorry had that as Dobbsy before! - doh!) I agree, perspectives are at play. I also think one can deduce a relative cost comparison across lists - as long as you do not lose sight of the overall armies capabilities in addition. In the end, a math equation can sort out a 'rough' comparison of these formations IMHO. If you disagree, I respect that. Your comparision of the defensive strength of the IG SHT coy. versus the Tau Moray pair does indeed show the Shadowswords to be more resilient. ?But are the Tau Morays meant to be that resilient? To answer your question - let's see, they are gigantic hovering support craft capable of shadowing a city, but still, two moray shouldn't be tougher than a Shadwosword co. I think that's accurately reflected in the stats. I was not trying to contest this point either. I was simply siting advantages that the shadowsword has. So we agree on this point. The Morays have less units, less hits, less chance to upgrade, or ultimately less resilient to quote your last post. So - on this basis alone - what points cost 'less' should the Moray be for that loss of resilance by comparison? No need to answer - its simply a thought provoking rhetorical question. I concede that we have to factor in all variables as well - but with resilency alone - they are significantly over costed in the comparitive analysis - even if they 2 morays cost 500 points... A SHT coy. is one of the most resilient formations in the game, that kind of heavy armour is a theme of the IG, while the Tau dont really go for that usually.

No contest from me here. However, that is not the point of my statement. We agree the Tau shouldn't have the same resilence, but Tau must have bonus' to offset this loss of resilency by comparison. And that's just to have the *same* point cost as the SHT co formation. In our case, we are looking at 100 points MORE for a formation that cannot upgrade. However, their are still other factors to consider...


For the record there are a few things that can be added to the analysis.

Armour: SS 4+RA (no TRA), Moray 5+RA and Deflector Shield. ?The SS is probably slightly better versus AT fire, but the Moray is better versus MW & TK (due to deflector). ?Since a WE formation is a target of choice for MW/TK this benefit should not be over-looked.

First, this is speculation. Their are less TK in the game than AT shots. I don't know about you, but my morays usually are broken before they are are shot down. They are also usually subject to blast markers and AT fire. Knowledgable players 'tyipcally' avoid firing macro weapons and titan killers at them at all to avoid the benefits of my shield. Another common way to dispatch of the morays is to assault them. They move pretty slow. Teleporters and ground assaulters have broken or wiped out my morays on more than one occasion. In fact, I was so discouraged by the ease of circumventing the morays defenses, that I had to result to using a space craft against savvy players. Its the only way to ensure that I'll get to fire my morays before they are broken or destroyed. (typically broken)

Although the shield ability is there, its often a 6+ vs. any being any other value. Even the Eldar lance weapon gets by it even though its basically a macro weapon for all purposes. A 6 hit moray formation is far more suseptable to breaking compared to a 9 hit formation - and this 6 hit formation costs more.

Although I concede that the shield is a factor, it hardly makes up for the fact that the formation is smaller than the SHT Co, less resilient, and costs more, and at present has a main MW gun which is inferrior in a 3 - 4 turn game.


Speed: SS 15cms, Moray 20cms and Support Craft to ignore terrain.


This is value. I agree. However, with that positive, what is the price paid? The SC also receive a huge negative! They can now be targeted by anything in range of them. Anything. Blast markers that can direct fire at them which barrage out can ultimately now catch other models that cannot even be seen - because the Morays are being targetted. The Morays cannot hide behind or in cover like the SS can. If you document all the variables around a 5cm increase in movement and ignore terrain vs. the always being seen, never gettting cover, never gettting out of LOF, I think you'll actually see that the SS are better in this category than the SC. The SC bonus gives itself the bonus to fire at any target... good... it also gives that same bonus to the ENTIRE enemy ARMY when firing back at itself!! That's a huge negative. Our group has done the math on this on more than one occasion.


Secondary Weapons:
SS
2x Heavy Bolters AP5+ 30cm,

Moray
Twin-linked Burst Cannons 15cm AP4+/AA6+,
Interceptor Missiles 30cm AA5+
Tracer Missiles 75cm MW6+ Guided Missiles. ?


====> I've yet to every use the TL burst cannons on my morays. Honest - the system is irrelivent. I've never had the opportunity to use the AA on these. I've never fired their AP shots at any enemy. Perhaps their will come a day, but I kid you not - I've played a vast great number of Tau games. The way the moray is played, they just don't come into play.

====> The Interceptor missles at 30cm and AA only have been helpful at times. A single AA 5+ shot is not bad. On the other hand, the SS Co can have a hydra for 50 points if I'm not mistaken. That will take their formation to 2x AA5+ and another 30cm AP5+ heavy bolter. They will still be 50 points cheaper!

====> The Tracer Missle at 6+ MW Guided and 75cm range has the most promise of all the secondary weapons. I'll agree that this is the first real bonus we've discussed to the Moray formation. However, without (more points) of marker lights factored into the equation, this is simply a 6+ weapon system. Hardly something you can count on. I concede this is handy at times, but its no where close to the offset in points we are talking about yet.

Firefight: SS 5+, Moray 6+ but can force FF to deny CC to opponents. ?Not a strength of either unit, both will almost always choose to shoot instead of assaulting. ?The defensive ability of the Moray to avoid CC specialists (eg terminators) probably makes this just about equal.


Hmm... perhaps. Don't forget that the SS have 3 hits each and can have a 100 points of upgrades to be 'even' in points to the morays. They can have a sizable combat advantage over the morays as a result when it comes to more models and outnumbering. Shadowswords may also have that free commissar to help out. I would have to do the math on this one. It may be just about equal, but things are teetering in the favor of the SS here again at a quick glance.


Notes:
SS just the RA, Moray has Support Craft,

======> These have all been covered above.


(moray cont'd) Planetfall, Fearless. ?

Planetfall while requires a space ship it is still a very useful ability.


Oh man, preaching to the converted my friend. Did you see my "new favorite tacticts" post some time ago? The problem with this is now it requires another 150 points vested in order to use the planet fall ability. So yes - its an useful ability, but again we are charged to use that benefit. This charge goes well above and beyond the cost of the morays and the SHT co to make benefit. When looking at the sheer point for point cost and benefit, for 600 points, the planetfall ability does nothing for you. The SHT while at 500 points is still cheaper. Having the ability to use a space ship if that is also purchased does have value, but one must pour more points into the equation to make use of it. That in itself, does not justify loss of resilience issue and it definitely doesn't address the descrepancy in points. It doesn't even come close!

Last but not least FEARLESS, a highly valued ability.
This I agree with. The Morays (like the tracer) have a bonus here. This is a much more valued bonus than the tracer - LOL. Fearless has saved my broken morays from giving up the break their spirit on more than one occassion! There are plenty of superheavies and AV's out there that have Fearless. So the ability is common enough, but again, we've not closed the gap of points descrepancy, resilience, and lack of upgrades, that the morays suffer from.


In my mind the Moray already has enough advantages to justify 50 points extra (ok, SHT's are cheaper in a coy.).

And I respect your opinion. If after you read the above, you still feel the same way, I will continue to respect your opinion. Please note that I do have a differing view from my analysis. When talk of 'adding TK to formations' without increasing costs are kicked around, I think the first reaction is *sometimes* knee jerk and not really even considered seriously. That is obviously not your stance. It does appear that you are considering the variables and wieghing out the differences. As you said, there are different perspectives to consider. I'm simply hoping I'm sharing my perspectives and maybe mentioning something you had not considered already.

3x SHT SS in SHT Co = 500 points for 9 wounds and 3 main guns. Counts as a Company affording you more contingents.

2x Moray = 600 points for 6 wounds and only 2 main guns. Loss of resilency, comes out of a prized Aircraft points allotment bracket where you only get to spend 33% of your points.

That's a net increase in 100 points for less main weapons, less reslilience, more suseptability to fire, equal or less effective in combat, and no chance to upgrade the formation in ablative wounds while having the option to spend more points to make it planet fall. To me, the clearly shows the SHT Co is the clear winner in this points game and the TK main weapon of the moray does not even come close to stacking up against it.


If you were to give the Morays main weapons twice the firepower of the Shadowsword this would increase the difference between the units.

Again, I cannot help but fear this is a knee jerk reaction. The formation size and points must be considered. The Moray formation maxes out at 2 units while the SHT Co has 3 base units and can increase from there. At its base, it's more resilient and costs 100 points less.

In exchange for all the negatives by comparison - along with the 100 point increase, my proposed Moray TK main gun system would 1) eliminate slow firing and 2) go to 2x main gun (Volcano cannon equivilent). NOW, in the proposed mode, the fragility and points increase effectively account for the desparity inbetween these formations from a mathematical perspective.

Oh and the IG strategy rating is lower than Tau,

Tau receive a plus 1 to go first in a turn - OK don't know how that's a significant factor here. I know many players that feel going second is a bonus. If IG hide the shadowswords in terrain, they are hull down - if the morays go first, they will have -1 to hit - even if they move in range. On the inverse, if Shadowswords go first, even with a move to get in range - shadowswords will get no negative! Not really sure what the point is on this one.


the Moray has a choice of main weapons and the Moray

And the SHT co can go with Baneblade or Shadowsword, or mixed. Not sure how that's any different than the Moray having a choise of weapons. Both are the same tank body with different weapon's outfits.

Moreover, the Moray's main weapon - the one the Tau desperately need (TK and MW) stinks - thus the proposal.


(moray) doesn't use up a contingent/support slot.

NO - I agree - heh, but neither does your SHT Co! You actually get to take that as one of your primary company choices. You then get to take contingents after that. The Moray's do use up a VERY prized aircraft/Titan category of reserved points! Tau live and die by their aircraft in some games! As the Moray comes out of these 33% points - that's quite significant - I agree!!


Finally, the comparison itself is against possibly the best rated tank in E:A.
Oh boy, now I would challenge that for sure. Have you seen the chaos list? How about the leman russ? LOL - that's for another list and discussion though though isn't it.

BTW: the Moray is our version of the warhound and reaver titan formation. I dare say it should end up on par even the best tank formation lest they have a chance to be functional on the battlefield of E:A.

I've greatly enjoyed this conversation. I hope you've come to understand my perspective. I can say I do understand your perspective. I thank you for sharing your insite.

I do think this conversation has helped solidify my feelings on the matter though. I definitely feel my proposed alternative main weapon system option is worth a try and mathematically justified.

Perhaps you are of the same mind regarding a strengthened resolve of your perspective. I respect that too.

Good discussion Dobbsy