Tactical Command :: View topic

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

Skyray http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5498	Page 1 of 5

Author:	CyberShadow [ Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Skyray
Version 4.3.2 has raised more stylistic issues about the Skyray vehicle, which I felt deserved its own thread. The most recent stats are a result of discussion about making this unit a little more dedicated, perhaps a little cheaper, and less of an 'all rounder'. If the current restriction on markerlights not affecting aircraft remains, there is the possibility to increase the AA punch of this vehicle to compensate. As far as I see it, there are a nuber of issues: Flak capability The current design is slightly under-powered, but at 50 points I feel that this is appropriate. Any upgrade would probably need point increase. I would like 2xAA5+ but I feel that this may be over-the-top for the unit (although is this any more powerful than an Eldar Firestorm?). With Tau aircraft, even with a less powerful AA unit the Tau probably have less to worry about from the sky than other races. Seekers These were removed from the stats as they seem a little superfluous and dont seem to provide the punch that this vehicle would need. However, they are a staple of the Devilfish chassis and are present on other variants. Views? Markerlights V Aircraft Can I get views on this? I must admit that I didnt expect the strong response which this has recieved. I am not sure how this ability would be justified, but would consider making the AA a more standard unit by up-ing the AA ability of certain units individually and balancing them this way. Thanks.

Author:	Honda [ Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Skyray
Ok, I'll bite first Flak capability[I] The current design is slightly under-powered, but at 50 points I feel that this is appropriate. Any upgrade would probably need point increase. I would like 2xAA5+ but I feel that this may be over-the-top for the unit (although is this any more powerful than an Eldar Firestorm?). With Tau aircraft, even with a less powerful AA unit the Tau probably have less to worry about from the sky than other races.

First off, I think this is flying against the current portrayal of what the Skyray is supposed to bring to the table.

Yes, its initial incarnation was as a dedicated AA vehicle, but the most current versions in IA3 and as heavily rumored in the new codex show this vehicle performing a fire support role with an upgrade to AA. We should not remove the seekers.

Markerlights V Aircraft[U]
Can I get views on this? I must admit that I didnt expect the strong response which this has recieved. I am not sure how this ability would be justified, but would consider making the AA a more standard unit by up-ing the AA ability of certain units individually and balancing them this way.

Please do not remove this capability. This is uniquely Tau and allows us to provide a safe umbrella of AA that is supported by several vehicles.

One of the cornerstones of the Tau is their ability to leverage units for multiple purposes. This gives us options and keeps us flexible on the battlefield.

The Tau come across as a very pragmatic race in the fluff. This "could" be interpreted as getting the best use of their units, i.e. leveraging capabilities vs. complete specialization. We have already taken steps in this direction by allowing us to mix and match assets to provide fit for purpose formations, please do not start cutting back on capabilities when there doesn't appear to be a game balance issue.

My two yen...

Author:	Soulless1 [ Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Skyray
Yeah I'm definately in favour of keeping the markerlight function against aircraft. In fact, I'd be in favour of getting rid of dumbfire mode (yeah, I'm one of those fluff purists) but I'm not really that bothered about it. The relationship between markerlights and AA is an interesting feature of Tau armies and I think it makes games that much more interesting for both players.

Author:	CyberShadow [ Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Skyray
OK, thanks. Restriction of markerlights against aircraft will go in version 4.3.2b.

Author:	Steele [ Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Skyray
CS, If I get you right,you are concerned with ML as a targetting device for high altitude flyer? Well, todays technology uses Radar and has a Range of about 15km. I don?t know how this compares to Jervis Scale?o?meter , but it?s definitely over the 30cm Mark for 1km. as most air-to-ground-weapons have ranges from 15cm to 45cm ,the flyer also has to come to lower altitudes if he wants to use all Weapons, or not? But this would instill a rule change for different altitude attacks, and of course all other flak tanks should be rewamped as well. So long we say that an aircraft to ground attack is made at an altitude for every Flakweapon reachable I can?t see why Markerlights shouldn?t be a viable way to target aircraft. Cheers! Steele

Author:	Lion in the Stars [ Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Skyray
In IA3, the (40k) Skyray is the only Hammerhead chassis that does not have the option to add additional Seeker Missiles. ?Every other vehicle, except the Tetra, is capable of carrying at least 2 Seeker Missiles. Personally, considering the (lack of) armor on most flyers (THawks and Vampires excepted, and even they are fairly vulnerable to the 'Seeker Missiles' a Skyray carries in 40k), I think that 2x AT6+/AA5+ (increasing to 2xAA4+ for marked targets, right?) is more representative of how dangerous a Skyray is to aircraft. ?Also, the fluff in IA3 portrays Skyrays as being highly prized confirmed kills by the IN, more valued than any other. 2xAA6+ just doesn't cut it for that description. [edit- RL comparison deleted, my apologies for bringing it up] Also, could we just table this discussion until we see what GW is going to do to the Skyray when the Tau Empire codex comes out in March? Any discussion here could be in the completely opposite direction from where GW takes the Skyray. (Besides, I'm not that impressed with the FW rules for it in 40k ATM).

Author:	nealhunt [ Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Skyray
I tend to agree with Honda. With its inclusion in the new Codex pending, one can only assume a more direct fire support role is envisioned for the Skyray. In that case, a bit more firepower and a 75 point cost would seem to be appropriate. Of course, all that is dependent on what actually comes out.

Author:	Dobbsy [ Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Skyray
re:Marker lights vs aircraft Could we remove the ML use and incorporate it directly into the To-Hit stat? We could put the ML usage into the fluff. "The skyray uses MLs to target it's weapons on aircraft for increased accuracy ... blah blah blah"

Author:	Tactica [ Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:29 am ]
Post subject:	Skyray
I guess I'm just thinking KISS... but... what was wrong with it the way it was working in 4.2.8? Do we really want to go back to the drawing board with the amount of AA and the potential for GM AA? We are going to have to look at everything with GM AA and factor how its going to play in the absence of ML for Aircraft. But if we are not going to change markers and AA (and I hope we're not) then why do we need to reaccess the skyray? We know its basic behavior and have a guiding vision from IA3... guess I'm confused on the drive of change at this stage. I thought the added AA shot was essentially enough. Hmm...

Author:

Tactica [ Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:35 am ]

Post subject:

Skyray

Quote (CyberShadow @ 12 Dec. 2005 (11:52))

Seekers
These were removed from the stats as they seem a little superfluous and dont seem to provide the punch that this vehicle would need. However, they are a staple of the Devilfish chassis and are present on other variants. Views?

Markerlights V Aircraft
Can I get views on this? I must admit that I didnt expect the strong response which this has recieved. I am not sure how this ability would be justified, but would consider making the AA a more standard unit by up-ing the AA ability of certain units individually and balancing them this way.

Thanks.

This is how it fires its own seekers at AA... so, this is kind of getting to the point to where its not really a skyray at all.

The network markers allow it to track two different targets and fire two different seekers at the enemy aircraft. As its on an AA mount, it hits them better than the typical AA unit. This is due to the drone assisted network marker lights.

Seakers are what punch into the armor of planes. Seekers in E:A are as strong as a battlecannon if there's a mark and sustained fire.... interestingly enough, they require the sustain fire to be that strong against armor.

The battlecannon is a base 4+ and seekers are a base 6+, 5+ with mark, and 4+ with sustain. The abstract in the seeker not being potent enough comes in conversion from 40K to epic.

In 40K, they are both S8... the battlecannon gets to use the ordinance chart... the seeker can hit the enemy on 2+ if marked... so a bit of a wash in which should be stronger against any targets

But I digress.

2 shot Seekers, markers, and SMS are what make a skyray what it is.

I think taking this away is a mistake, and definitely venturing away from what is Tau about the skyray, however, its just my view.

Cheers,

Author:	Lion in the Stars [ Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Skyray
Markerlights v Aircraft. For another thought, in 40k, any weapon not on an AA mount hits on a 6. A FW formation (8 stands) with a notional 8 Markerlights has a very good (almost 100%) chance of sucessfully marking an aircraft. It would probably take all 8 markers, but they could.

Author:	Tactica [ Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:03 am ]
Post subject:	Skyray
Lion, and in that same thought process, AA Skyray's don't mark aircraft on 6's like FW's... they mark them on 4's to hit. They also get two chances to do so!

Author:	RedDevil [ Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:33 am ]
Post subject:	Skyray
I also think dumbfire should be removed. The Skyray should keep its markerlight. The total AA ability of the list should be in balance with other lists, despite how the fluff indicates induvidual units perform. If the Skyray gets tougher, then the 'cuda and ion might have to be looked at. Going one unit at a time may not work well.

Author:	Tactica [ Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:57 am ]
Post subject:	Skyray
relivent to v4.2.8 - none need changed. Start teetering one unit here and another unit there, and yes, you have a valid consideration RD.

Author:	baronpiero [ Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Skyray
Actually having any markerlight able to track aircrafts does not seem realistic to me: - Real world realisticness: just a gut feel, but I don't like the idea much. I would imagine that when you are an infantryman, aircrafts strike you at lightning speed. I doubt you can lock onto the aircraft long enought for a GM to reach it. - WH40K realisticness: this one is secondary, but is woth considering, I think. In WH40K, basic markerlights hit aircrafts on 6 as would any non-AA weapon. The only one meant for AA use is the skyray's markerlight (hits using BS). Additionaly, I see AA guided munitions as an embarrassment in any attempt to further devellop the ground use of the markerlight. So, if there is any plan to do so, I would recommend dropping AA GM at least temporarily. About the wording, I think it would be a lot simpler to: - drop the exception in the markerlights&GM special rule - modify the skyray's loadout, by splitting the hunter missiles loadout in two weapons (for example) Replace... 2x Hunter Missiles 75cm AT6+/AA6+ Guided Missiles With... 2x Seeker Missiles 75cm AT6+ Guided Missiles 2x Hunter Missiles 75cm AA6+ - (not a guided missile) you may then tweak the firepower and cost from there.

Page 1 of 5	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/