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

V4.4 - AX-1-0 Resolution (I hope!)
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5576		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  CyberShadow [ Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:18 am ]
Post subject:  V4.4 - AX-1-0 Resolution (I hope!)
OK. I have put this off as much as I could!  :D

The Tiger Shark AX-1-0

I have given this a lot of thought. Firstly, a bit of background. I have basically split the Air Caste forces into two groups. These broadly relate to the aircraft and SHT in other lists.

Aircraft Equivalents

Barracuda - Relates to fighter/interceptor in other lists.

Tiger Shark - Relates to bomber/ground support broadly in other lists.

SHT Equivalents

Manta - Relates to the heavier titans in other forces, but has the advantage of having transport and being more in line with ground troop support.

Moray - Generally a medium titan role on the battlefield.

AX-1-0 - A SHT equivalent. I think of this similar to a flying ShadowSword. It does not equate directly to light/scout titans.

As I say, these are broad clasifications, and should not be taken too literally.

Details

I have looked at the AX-1-0 stats, and compared them to the FW 40K version. In the end, I find that there is little that has room for change. The weapon load is dictated by the 40K version, and to change the stats for these would impact on other vehicles in the list, and potentially change the role of the aircraft. The only real change that I have made is to swap in the seekers.

So, the new stats are:

Points: 225
Force List: Available individually (max formation size of one), any number of formations within 1/3 of total force limit permitted.

Type: War engine, bomber
Speed: Bomber
Armour: 5+
Close Combat: n/a
Firefight: n/a

2x Light Railcannon - 45cm - MW4+ - Titan Killer (1), FxF
Twin-Linked Burst Cannons - 15cm - AP4+
Heavy Interceptor Missiles - 30cm - AT5+ - FxF
Aircraft Seeker Missiles - 45cm - AT6+ - Guided missiles

FxF - Fixed forward fire arc
Notes: DC2, Critical effect as version 4.3.3

Notes

The points cost has taken a hike. I am aware that it has gone up a lot, but I think that this is a reasonableprice for it.

I have decided to keep the formation size as it is in version 4.3.3. This is only partially due to stubborness!  :cool:  I do feel that pairing these up puts a lot of restrictions on them, while also at the same time making them tougher. Individually, they need to be committed with a little care, and with ground troops supporting and clearing the flight path in. I am open to changing the formation structure of these, but after a little more testing and feedback on use.

I have taken off the AA stats, since there is no use in them.

Fluff - OK, I know that there will be a few voices stating that this is not true to the background fluff, but I disagree. The sum total of background fluff consists of a single piece of colour text, from Forge World. I feel that this stat goes with the spirit of the text, and making the craft stronger would make it very expensive as a consequence, and not only price it out of many players budgets, but also encroach on the Moray.

OK... deep breath... I am open to comments on this, but please be aware that I dont want to change too much at this point. I am happy to take comments and feedback, but please be constructive.

Thanks.
Author:  Tactica [ Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:33 am ]
Post subject:  V4.4 - AX-1-0 Resolution (I hope!)
CS,

Thanks for taking a stab at getting this done. I can only thank you for that.

I think keeping the 2x 4+ main gun instead of a 2x 3+ was responsible if the points were not going to change. I might even be OK with it if the points were only going to go up 25 points. But when we used to have it at 3+ and the change was made to 4+ and it didn't get a lot of playtest following... to keep it at this and make a significant points hike... well, more later.

I think the seeker adoption over the MW 6+ was a good one and much more in flavor with the real ship. Good move. I never understood the tracer on this craft anyway and thought we were paying for something we shouldn't even have - so bravo!

I think the removal of the AA on the Heavy Interceptor missles and the Twin-linked burst cannon were both good ideas since they were basically unusable and meaningless points sinc on a vessel that couldn't make use of them. You'll need to change the names from something different than the weapons with the same name in the list though. This change will definitely allow enemy aircraft with 15cm AA weapons run right up on our tail. :/

As you kept the 2x 4+ lightrailcannon instead of the 2x 3+ lightrailcannon... as you reduced the Tracer to a Seeker...  and as you eliminated the AA on the entire plane... an uptick of 50 points to 225 does seem hefty at first glance.

I would have expected you to go back to the 'rightful' 2x 3+ if the points were going up this much. To keep the 2x4+ AND raise it 50 points along with the other changes... well...

When I look at the following, (more to follow)

ELDAR VAMPIRE RAIDER
Price: 200 points
Type: Aircraft/WE
Speed: Bomber
Armour: 5+
CC: 6+
FF: 4+
Weapon
2x Vampire Pulse Laser, R:45cm, Fp:AT4+, Pulse, FFA
Scatter Laser, R:30cm, Fp:AP5+/AT5+/AA5+, FFA
Notes: DC2. Planetfall. Reinforced Armor. May transport eight of the following units .......

...I wonder how our v4.4 AX-1-0 is really going to measure up for 25 points more by comparison. Considering the amount of damage the Eldar Vampire can deal is one thing, but forget that it can get 6 hits (3 on average) from its main gun for a second... it can deliver a great assault formation, it can fight or deliver FF4+ supporting fire to disembarking troops, it can sustain fire once landed, it can planetfall, and it has Reinforced Armor for durability - heck, it can land and claim an objective!

"Whoo-hoo! I want to trade our 225 for their 200! - heck, I'll even pay 225 for theirs over ours!" :p

Seriously, even if you say the 2x Eldar Pulse Laser tech is roughly equal to our 2x lightrailcannon tech at MW4+ TK(1)... (which i don't think it is) we don't transport, we don't planetfall, and we don't have RA, and we don't support troops in FF, and we don't claim objectives with the AX-1-0... is 225 really the right price for what is essentially 2x 4+MW TK(1).

Our 1 main weapon hit a turn on average must *really* be worth a lot more than I think it is by comparison.

I understand handling this gently and being conservative - but wow - this definitely feels a bit on the side of overcompensating from a 175 point plane with 2x 3+ MW TK(1) + support weapons.

All that said CS - I'm happy to playtest whatever you see fit. I wouldn't feel right if I didn't express my strong feeling that this adjustment is a bit over the top though.

Hopefully this is the critisism & compare/contrast you were looking for.

Cheers on getting something for us to look at. Looking very forward to v4.4,
Author:  Dobbsy [ Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:53 am ]
Post subject:  V4.4 - AX-1-0 Resolution (I hope!)
On first glance CS, your changes are mainly good, but I agree with Tac' on the points issue - I would have preferred it to go to 200 max and test before the 50 point jump. Anyway, I'm gonna try and get some playtests with it for a better view.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:48 am ]
Post subject:  V4.4 - AX-1-0 Resolution (I hope!)
The comparison with a vampire is a bit strange :) Why? Well the main gun is a lot worse. Unless I misunderstand probability you get an average of 1 3/4 hits with it (1 from 2 dice, 1/2 from one dice etc). Against an ra taget that is 7/16 of a hit. Compared to the TS's 1 instant kill. Thats what you pay for.

Points wise then can you kill enough to make you points back over the course of a game? That fundementally for me is the calculation that informs my choice of aircraft. In a 4 turn game I would expect 3 turns of flying. The old TS was no worries here - the new one is a bit trickier. From a purely powergaming point of view I wouldn't take it now as I reckon I can kill 200 points with it over the course of a game (on average, whereas against an army like marines with expensive RA vehicles and infantry I would take as many as possible!).

Unsurprisingly I'm dissapointed, my main problems remain.
1. Unlike a shadowsword you are best shooting RA single hit targets not multiple dc targets - you simply kill more stuff quicker.
2. You still strike from outside the majority of flaks range. This does mean interceptors are better here, which is a metagame change and favours some armies more than others.
3. If the fluff is its a warengine hunter it doesn't match. In any analysis it is a tank hunter that can if it wants do okay against WE/Titans.

I stick to the point that it would have been better to give it a shadowsword like gun, drop its armour so it is no longer the toughest bomber in the game (out of interest in forgeworld stats is it tiugher than a marauder? I though it was 2 'structure points' to 3 for a marauder - In Epic terms that would be a single 5+ DC to a marauders 4+ DC, though of course the marauder sucks and should be 2DC 5+ :) ) and stick it in a two plane squadon to bring its survivability and formation cost back up (keeping activations reasonable).

I'll try and get Neil in Chittagon interested in a game to try it, otherwise General_Ng and Ginger may be seduced into giving it a go.
Just to see if it is still blatently abusable it could try a four plane army against, say, the winning army of last years club challenge (was 26-30 players I think, the winner was an Imperial Guard army).

I have looked at the AX-1-0 stats, and compared them to the FW 40K version. In the end, I find that there is little that has room for change.


Just to point out here that as I noted above the plane has been made much tougher in reguards to other aircraft conversions, as why if (as air is a bit wierd in EpicA) they get so changed, why does the TS get a direct/boosted conversion?


Oh, and something I'm in favour of powering up :)
The Burst cannons getting the AA attack. I thought it was a signiture thing for tau to have the 360 drones covering their aircraft and am sad to see them go.

It also further emphasises that interceptors should fight it, not ground flak, something I still feel is at odds with the ethos and feel of Epic. Not to mention Imperial Thunderbolts and Ork Fighter Bombers suck at intercepts :)

Another edit - If you say in the fluff its a tank hunter the weapons make more sense than 'a shadowsword equivalent'.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:02 am ]
Post subject:  V4.4 - AX-1-0 Resolution (I hope!)
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 01 Mar. 2006 (05:48))

Unsurprisingly I'm dissapointed, my main problems remain


What a shock!  :laugh:

I stick to the point that it would have been better to give it a shadowsword like gun, drop its armour so it is no longer the toughest bomber in the game

Let's not go down this road again please TRC. CS has it set for now. Test it and see.

I'll try and get Neil in Chittagon interested in a game to try it

Excellent! That's the spirit.

Just to see if it is still blatently abusable it could try a four plane army

I'm guessing it won't be what you think it is. But I'm eager to find out.
Author:  asaura [ Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:12 am ]
Post subject:  V4.4 - AX-1-0 Resolution (I hope!)
I think 3+ TK(d3) would better for WE hunter as well. In the current incarnation (2x 4+ TK(1)), the Tigershark is better at killing Terminators, tanks and special characters.
Author:  dysartes [ Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:26 am ]
Post subject:  V4.4 - AX-1-0 Resolution (I hope!)
TRC - stats for an AX-10 in IA3

Type: WE, Aircraft
Speed: Bomber
Armour: 5+
CC/FF: N/A

Weapons - Range - Firepower - Notes
Railguns* - 90cm - MW3+ - TK(D3), FxF
Burst Cannon - 15cm - AP4/AA5+ -
Missile Pods - 45cm - AP4+/AT5+ -

Notes: DC2, Crit: Crash & Burn (paraphrased :))

* - Should probably read "Light Railcannon"

They appear to be costed as 300pts for 2, unless I've missed something.

The Marauder, in comparison (and I'm not writing the full stats out for this beggar, as I suspect you know them better than me :)) has 2DC, 6+ save in the FW stats, plus lots-of-guns.

I will also point out that, looking at the 40k FW stats for each, I can't see a justification for the difference in armour, and as TRC points out, it should probably be the other way around due to the structure point issue (3 for Marauder, 2 for Tiger Shark).

This has been a public information announcement.
Author:  clausewitz [ Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:48 am ]
Post subject:  V4.4 - AX-1-0 Resolution (I hope!)
Wow, the old battle-lines have reformed pretty quickly on this thorny issue. :p

I think before we all start rehashing the old arguements we should agree to wait on some testing first.  Since the stats haven't gone through any massive changes, its not surprising that people have the same (or similar) opinions to the previous incarnation of the AX-1-0.  I think its safe to say that we know what those opinions are.  And since they include somewhat diametrically opposed viewpoints CyberShadow had no chance of pleasing everyone.

I think the main points on concern are:

1.  Is it still abusable in a "5 Aces" type way, i.e. if you max out on AX-1-0s (4 in a 2.7k game) does it produce a list that can do similar things to the "5 Aces"?

2.  Is it still a worthwhile investment to take just one or two, or is it now too expensive for its return?

IMO, the first problem (if it exists) could be solved by changing the formation size, and I am glad that CyberShadow will keep that option in mind.

Again, IMO, I think that the second issue will be resolved as players learn the usefulness of flying TK weapons.  The Tau don't have a load of these weapons, so having the ability to use the ones they have anywhere on the table should be very helpful.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:01 pm ]
Post subject:  V4.4 - AX-1-0 Resolution (I hope!)
Quote (Dobbsy @ 01 Mar. 2006 (06:02))
What a shock!  :laugh:

I had thought you would be surprised :) As for not going down the same road little yet has changed my opinion - sure this design may fix it (it terms of its points efficiency and therefore abuse - well apart from against marines :) ), but I still feel it is unsatisfactory for the stated background and changes the Epic metagame in a direction it is ill suited for.

Well, this is the list that won last years CC - I believe in the process beating an Ork list with 20 fighter bombers and winning 4 out of 5 games (my siegemasters beat them)
Old thread
500pts Supreme Commander
050pts Hydra
650pts Leman Russ Company
200pts Leman Russ Detachment
050pts Hydra
250pts Warhound Titan
250pts Warhound Titan
200pts Shadowsword
200pts Shadowsword
500pts 2 Baneblades, 1 Shadowsword
150pts Rough Riders

It seems I have a chance to play Neil on Saturday as he may be coming to Dhaka for a bbq at a friend of his from the british councils place.

My list would simply be a varient on the old one (as I lack imagination), namely
900 4 TS
100 1 Orca
700 4 Pathfinders
375 1 Hammerhead Ion formation
400 1 Hammerhead Ion formation with Networked Drones
350 1 Crisis formation, with Supreme Commander
175 1 Gue?vesa Auxiliary Company
Author:  Ginger [ Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:37 pm ]
Post subject:  V4.4 - AX-1-0 Resolution (I hope!)
Still here guys, - and with similar views to TRC (unsurprisingly) :)

Essentially, these are still 'all round' units that can only be countered with lots of airpower, which moves E:A as a whole inexorably towards the "arms race" issues discussed previously. Further, even with the significant points hike, I suspect that opposing air formations will still cost more, so find it hard to "win back" their points - but let's see how things go :laugh:

Unfortunately I won't be able to try this out much before April so I will just have to watch the thread and await developments. ?:angry: ?:D

Cheers

Ginger
Author:  Honda [ Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:55 pm ]
Post subject:  V4.4 - AX-1-0 Resolution (I hope!)
Well, it seems like neither camp is totally pleased. I think that's a good sign. ? :/

My personal opinion is that although I would have preferred to see 200 points vs the 225 that CS picked, I understand the approach of setting a bar a little high, then lowering it.

That's always a much easier exercise than the other way around. So, I am in support of the change. I will use it as is in my testing and you (CS) deserve some applause for making a tough decision that had no obvious win-win position.

Play on!
Author:  CyberShadow [ Wed Mar 01, 2006 3:33 pm ]
Post subject:  V4.4 - AX-1-0 Resolution (I hope!)
Many thanks for your replies guys. I appreciate the constructive feedback. And, yes, I have managed to please no-one... I must be doing something right!  :D

Anyway, I am noting the various points going on here. I am reluctant to make any changes at this point, in fear of swinging too far in any one direction. My general view on the entire Tau list is that nothing is sacred. The Air Caste in general is something that I am sure we will re-visit in the no-so-distant future. Right now, I am looking for the right kind of ball-park for the list to be sent to the Vault.

Thanks again.
Author:  Tactica [ Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:19 pm ]
Post subject:  V4.4 - AX-1-0 Resolution (I hope!)
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 28 Feb. 2006 (23:48))

The comparison with a vampire is a bit strange :)

Noted, but the possibility to get hot dice and get 4-6 hits is there. This is a minor difference between the planes. See above in my post for more details.



From a purely powergaming point of view I [color=blue]wouldn't take it now ...
[/quote]
I'll second that.


drop its armour so it is no longer the toughest bomber in the game
If its the 'toughest' bomber in the game, how do you rate the Eldar Vampire WE speed: Bomber at 5+ armor with Reinforced Armor.

The TS AX-1-0 has 5+ armor, but it does not have RA.


I'll try and get Neil in Chittagon interested in a game to try it, otherwise General_Ng and Ginger may be seduced into giving it a go.

'at a boy!

Just to see if it is still blatently abusable it could try a four plane army against, say, the winning army of last years club challenge (was 26-30 players I think, the winner was an Imperial Guard army).
Every new army will introduce new variables. Knowing that Tau and Eldar are out there - folks are going to have to be concious of these new air heavy armies. Winners of old may have to consider tactics for these newer threats. If Honda gets his way - Elysians and valkyrie and vulture + navy heavy armies will also be to the forefront. Air is coming. It will be interesting to see how an old list stacks up though. Lord knows these games and their tactics are not static with the introduction of each new army. :)



Cheers,
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/