 
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 8 posts ] |
|
Possible solution to the Ion Cannon issue? |
|
Philosophical Aun
|
Post subject: Possible solution to the Ion Cannon issue?  Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:27 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts: 20
|
|
Given the current difficulty in making the Ion Cannon an attractive choice... but not so attractive that it overshadows the Skyray weaponry. As JG has stated, we also need to be careful to diffrenciate it from the Railgun, so that it isn't just a pale copy.
Currently, its the AA that diffrenciates it... and it is the AA that is the source of much of its balance-problems. Granted, I do feel that reducing its AT-ability would make it less powerful, and less of an obvious choice... but I also feel it would make it feel less like the MBT it really is.
Thusly, why not make the Ion Cannon more powerful then the Railgun... but with shorter range?
Perhaps, 30cm AP2+/AT3+
?
The stats are far from being absolute, but I think having the difference being Range rather then AA-ability would allow for diffrenciation, but without the IC overshadowing the Skyray!
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
JimmyGrill
|
Post subject: Possible solution to the Ion Cannon issue? Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:06 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:05 pm
Posts: 61
|
|
Sadly, range is pretty much dictated by 40K, as is approximate effectiveness.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Possible solution to the Ion Cannon issue? Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:45 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
I agree with JG on the range reduction.
I agree that the MBT issue is a concern of mine too. As the list already is AT light IMHO, I don't want to see the Ion-Cannon Hammerhead reduced - but I also admit that I'm guilty of usually taking the Ion-Head over the Rail-Head in my games.
My typical HH formation looks like
1 Rail
1 Swordfish
2 Ion
1 Skyray
Due to pop-up/skimmer I usually get good mileage out of the formation.
The formation fell down hard against Eldar this past weekend due to the opponent's pop-up ability with longer ranges.
Frankly, the better move might be to limit 0-1 Ion-head in the formation vs. reducing AT values or AA values. That will keep people from taking too many of them and it will make the skyray valueable.
Of course you can reduce the AT value by one which was previously discussed which makes the rail a necessary choice as a result. It doesn't address any AA concerns though.
The other solution would be to leave AP/AT values alone and drop AA off the thing all together. That doesn't seperate it from the Rail that much though.
So... change no stats and limit the amount of them in a formation may be the better choice in the end to address the concerns that are out there.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Philosophical Aun
|
Post subject: Possible solution to the Ion Cannon issue? Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:30 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts: 20
|
|
So... change no stats and limit the amount of them in a formation may be the better choice in the end to address the concerns that are out there. |
Well, for me the problem isn't the 100% Ion Cannon formations.... as much as it is the ability to cherry-pick a single Ion Cannon for the AA ability. This lessens the value of the Skyray, and makes choosing a single IC the no-brainer choice.
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Possible solution to the Ion Cannon issue? Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:27 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
Well, if the option's on the table - I'd be much more open to seeing ion cannon HH lose the AA all together and become the inverse of the railhead.
Both are therefore Main Battle Tanks - and each have their area of expertise. So Rail Head would be as is:
Rail-Head: AP4+/AT3+
Ion-Head: AP3+/AT4+ (maybe even make it 2x due to range restriction)
While I'm on the topic, I wish there was an account for our only glanced, disruption pod, and decoy launchers from 40K in the epic version... i.e. "they always count in cover" for targetting... though I'd like the same thing for stealths.
dreaming... 
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Possible solution to the Ion Cannon issue? Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:44 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Those kinds of defenses are usually factored into the armor save.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
markHargrave
|
Post subject: Possible solution to the Ion Cannon issue? Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:26 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:01 pm
Posts: 112
|
|
The problem with switching the stats, which on paper appears a sound idea, is that as a tau player I am not lacking AP, I would therefore probably only field the railgun versions to make my hammerhead squadrons tank hunters
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Possible solution to the Ion Cannon issue? Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:06 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 8 posts ] |
|
