Skyray |
The_Real_Chris
|
Post subject: Skyray Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:36 pm |
|
Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London
|
3-4 skyrays worry a thunderhawk? Considering they are flying bricks supposed to take it on the chin that would worry me somewhat that the flak was getting out of hand. It simply shuts down the sky to enemy aircraft (apart from super heavy flyers) and to be frank thats no fun. I have noted that in larger games lack is so prevailant that only thunderhawks and the like bother turning up. Nevermind air in Epic is a bit screwy - for instance currently just flying onto the table is bad enough (3+ to activate next turn), a Hydra squadron, say, at 150 points has enough firepower to 2/3's of the time kill a 150 point formation of thunderbolts. Other races are the same.
How much would you cost 3-4 skyrays at if they knock a thunderhawk out of the sky more often than not? (No one likes being air assualted, but for the marines thats the one trick they've got.)
_________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
|
|
Top |
|
 |
Lion in the Stars
|
Post subject: Skyray Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:26 am |
|
Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm Posts: 1455
|
Probably 125 each, if they get that powerful.
Remember, these are the things that the Imperial pilots wanted confirmed kills of more than anything else (like _other planes_). One Skyray should be able to sweep TBolt formations out of the sky.
I'd note that the description of the Marine operations in IA3 showed that they'd teleport/HALO drop units in to silence AA defenses before risking Thunderhawks to a couple stationary Hydra turrets.
_________________ "For the Lion and the Emperor!"
|
|
Top |
|
 |
Tactica
|
Post subject: Skyray Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:49 am |
|
Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241
|
[quote="HecklerMD,15 Dec. 2005 (05:28)"][/quote]
Even if they didn't ... inbetween now 21st century... and the 41st 'millenium' - about how many years is that for them to perfect it?
[it being our version of the marked AA and their version in the 41st millenium version]
|
6000. ?The Tau went from stone age to space age in 6000 years. ?Dont be coy.
|
@ Heckler - not discounting the rest of your comments, but regarding what you said above:
hmmm...
21st century (thousand) is year 2000+ AD...
41st Millenium (million) is year 40,000,000+ AD...
That's roughly 39,998,000+ years to perfect the technology from what we use in the trade marked 'real life' by comparison to our ficticious friends in the 41st millenium...
... unless my math is wrong (and that's happened more than once!). ?

_________________
Rob
Top |
|
 |
stormseer
|
Post subject: Skyray Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 2:01 am |
|
Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 9:52 pm Posts: 4598 Location: Suffolk, UK.
|
That is incorrect Tactica, 40k is set in the year AD 40,000, (or therabouts, give or take a thousand years or so, depending on what events we are looking at), not the year 40 million!
Still a rather long time though.... 
_________________ www.darkrealmminiatures.com
|
|
Top |
|
 |
RedDevil
|
Post subject: Skyray Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:43 am |
|
Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:58 pm Posts: 112
|
Er, and the Tau did not come about at year 0. They are the new guys remember?
Just out of curiosity, does anyone use the 'cuda for AA defense? Seams that this guys is pretty strong, and it would make sense that the Aircaste would be intercepting any incoming spaceships, bombers, and assaults more than ground units would be. Not that ground units wouldn't be, but I would personally like the 'cuda to always be better point-for-point at AA than the Skyray.
Thats just me though....
|
|
Top |
|
 |
HecklerMD
|
Post subject: Skyray Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 9:01 am |
|
Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am Posts: 201
|
Quote (Tactica @ 15 Dec. 2005 (16:49)) | Quote (HecklerMD @ 15 Dec. 2005 (05:28)) | |
Even if they didn't ... inbetween now 21st century... and the 41st 'millenium' - about how many years is that for them to perfect it?
[it being our version of the marked AA and their version in the 41st millenium version]
|
6000. The Tau went from stone age to space age in 6000 years. Dont be coy.
|
@ Heckler - not discounting the rest of your comments, but regarding what you said above:
hmmm...
21st century (thousand) is year 2000+ AD...
41st Millenium (million) is year 40,000,000+ AD...
That's roughly 39,998,000+ years to perfect the technology from what we use in the trade marked 'real life' by comparison to our ficticious friends in the 41st millenium...
... unless my math is wrong (and that's happened more than once!).  |
But the Tau are not using our technology, and the subject at hand are the Tau.
In the 40K 'verse, the Tau were stone age and primitive roughly 6K years ago. Flight, as a technology, had not yet been invented yet, so the need to shoot down an aircraft did not exist for them either. As the Tau continue to
not use our technology, whatever time humans have had, even 39 million years (lol), would not apply to them.
Humans and Tau have enough pertinant similarites (5 Senses [Sight, Sound, Smell, Taste, Touch], similar abilities [Unable to fly on own {Except for the Air Caste?}, cannot throw huge rocks or hurl plasma, IE lack of supernatural abilities] that when faced with the same challange they would probablly reach the same conclusion.
That means that both societies, independently of each other, would attempt the same techniques to achieve the same results.
So when the Tau encountered the need to shoot down an aircraft, they would attempt different methods, as we have, and discover what works better, as we have. So the Tau would probablly discover that Optical/Laser tracking is inferior, as we have.
mil?len?ni?um
Pronunciation Key (m-ln-m)
n. pl. mil?len?ni?a (-ln-) or mil?len?ni?ums
1. A span of one thousand years.
2. A thousand-year period of holiness mentioned in Revelation 20, during which Jesus and his faithful followers are to rule on earth.
3. A hoped-for period of joy, serenity, prosperity, and justice.
4. A thousandth anniversary.Your math is way wrong.
40K = 40,000
40K- 2K = 38K
You are off by 39,958,000 years. Give or take, er, 40K
With that post you are really trying to derail this thread, and by answering it I'm helping you. So I'm gonna stop that.
The Skyray, as is (1x AA6+ @75cm) is really weak sauce. The race with arguably the best missile technology has the worst missile AA. Why? the SMs have the best AA missile tech, probablly because they had 39 million years (lol) to develop it, but the Tau should have the best, or at least far better then what they already have, missile AA.
I'm sticking with:
2x Hunter Missiles AA5+ @75 CM
2x Seeker Missiles AT6+ @75 CM Guided Missiles
+ whatever
75 Points to start at.
This effectively means that you could paint entire areas of the sky with marker light beams (like a laser show) and as an aircraft flew through it would hit this light and be illuminated.....- but when the only thing surrounding the target is fresh air it doesn't matter.
Lasers are able to be diffused/refracted/reflected by water molecules, such as those in fog, clouds, rain, ect, and would more than likely cause the seeker head to confuse a cloud for a target. We could only fight on clear, sunny days, I suppose, if we ask our opponents nicely.
This is becoming draining.
Very interesting comment, however, I think the opposite conclusion is equally valid, i.e. that the diversity inherent in the races (e.g. how they think) would automatically introduce new and different solutions.
After all, on this planet alone, how many different examples of government have been created? Just off the top of my head, Monarchy, Theocracy, Oligarchy, Communism, Socialism, Democracy, Cults of Personality (i.e. Dictatorships) and the blends that come from individuals who borrow ideas.
So, although your statement "can" be true, I also think the opposite "can" be true as well.