Page 1 of 5

[ 62 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Tigershark AX-0-1
clausewitz	Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1 Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:27 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	Since the Tigershark thread has become very long it waws suggested that we start a new thread and summarise the previous one. Summary (as I understand it, feel free to correct me if I have represented it properly).. A number of people are concerned that the AX-1-0 is too powerful/unbalanced. ?This is mainly due to its main armament of 45cm TK weapons (2x 45cm 4+ TK(1) currently). In addition TheRealChris has proposed that at 175 points each it is possible to take so many AX-1-0s that it is possible to nullify your opponents AA units, leaving the Ax-1-0 free reign to decimate formations with its TK guns. There was also some concern that in formations of 2 that the AX-1-0's as a DC2 WE was too resilient to AA. ?Due to the ability to switch round the aircraft and take hits on the undamaged plane. I have started a poll on the current AX-1-0, please vote ?
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1 Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:45 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	I haven't had a chance to try it with the 4+TK, but I suspect based on number-crunching that it will still be a problem.  I think the 1-per-formation restriction is essentially meaningless.  It was focused on because I used 2 in a formation as an example of a way to make a formation tougher, but the flip side is that single aircraft place more BMs and are generally more flexible. _________________ Neal
Top

CyberShadow	Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1 Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:15 pm
Swarm Tyrant Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm Posts: 9349 Location: Singapore	I would like to avoid a lot of discussion going nowhere. To that end, I would like to solicit bat rep experience with these things - good, bad and ugly. Aircraft are particularly difficult as they are often variable - sometimes performing above expectation and sometimes under-achieving. So, if these craft are used, can I get two stages of report - the factual events, and then the feel/opinion of the unit. This includes any possible problems and benefits, compared to other Tau units and the aircraft of other races. When we have a general consensus of what the key issues are, then we can work out the best way to deal with them - targetted and focussed. I dont want this unit to be over-powered. I am acutely aware that it only takes one unit to unbalance the force in general. _________________ https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond. https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.
Top

HecklerMD	Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1 Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:13 am
Brood Brother Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am Posts: 201	Ok, I'll give it a try: Game 1, 4K Orks Vs. Tau 4.3.2 (It was a few weeks ago.) 2 A-X-10s in 1 formation. First off:  I had some bad rolling throughout the game, happens to everyone.  I also really didnt help the TSs (with any other units) achieve thier main goal, destruction of the enemies Gargant, untill turn 3. Ok, turn 1:  TS's ground attack the Gargant (Full Powerfields, 6) and take down 3 Powerfields.  I stood them off to avoid Ork AA, but the 2 AA formations nearby moved up later in the turn and got to shoot at me on exit.  4 shots at 6+, he rolled 3 6's and a 4, I faild to save any of them, I lost a TS.  >My Opponent,< suprised, actually looked up the rules for "Jinking" for me and, since I had rolled 1 "4" for my saves, insisted I put the destroyed TS back on the board with 1 DC left.  Hes a nice dood. Turn 2:  With 3 BMs it was a suprise the TSs activated, but they did.  Only took 2 more shields off the Gargant, though. (1 Left)  Nearby Enemy AA was dead by the end of the turn, and his FBs failed to activate, so they got away scott-free in turn 2. Turn 3:  After my AMHC skittered from right to left and tried to wail on the Gargant... taking down only 1 shield (he mad all his other saves on the first roll, sigh).  In return, he placed that Supagun Template over my whole AMHC (I had them WAY to close together, cramped area of terrain) and killed 7 of 8.  Even he says he rolled exceptionally well there, but still...  Any, the TS's Come in again, score 3 TK hits, 1 MW hit, and 1 AT hit (Gargant was finally marked), 3 of which Crit, good rolling on my side, finally! Game Ended on turn 3. Commentary on the TS performance: As a Titan-Hunting aircraft, which the Fluff in IA:3 strongly implies that the TS A-X-10 is, its not really so good at titan-hunting all by itself, which is not so suprising and is simillar to how another notorious Titan Hunter,the Shadowsword, operates.  I always pair a flight of Vultures with my ShadowSwords, for all those Long Range AT shots are great at dropping shields, and I'm going to pair a Orca full of Broadsides with my TSs for the same reason.  No titans?  I can still find a use for them.  In this game, most of the damage to the Titan came from the Non-TK weapons PLUS the crits, which you cant really count on.   As a RA hunter, see my next summary of the next game, coming..up..NOW! Game 2, 3K Space Marines Vs. Tau 4.3.2 (same day as the last) 1 Tigershark A-X-10 General Summary:  SMs had no Titans or WEs, but he took 2 Groups og Land Raiders and 2 Hunters attached elsewhere.  1st Turn the TS missed both its TK shots and did nothing but place a BM on one of them.  Turns 2 and 3 It killed 1 and 2 Landraiders, respectivley.  By the end of Turn 2 I had eliminated his limited AA with my AMHC and my Broadsides, but they only placed BMs on the TS anyway. Conclusions.  I had high hopes that the TS would take down 2 LRs a turn "as advertised," it seems, elsewhere on these boards, but it was not to be.  Going to the 4+ means its gonna miss more when it counts. Overall:  I've had Marauders perform better than this, for less points. The best part of the unit, that stood out in both the games, was the range of the weapons and how it allowed me to be able to actually USE it at least once before having to fly into a cloud of flak and die before even fireing.  45 cm may allow sniping, which can be abused when you HAVE 5 of these things  , but its better than the 30 cm handicaps that keep my 4, $19 dollar apiece forgeworld Marauders collecting dust in my case. Making this a 0-1 formation of 1-2 would go along way, er, actually all the way, towards eliminating the TK sniper train that is being taken as the proof positive around these parts.  Making the RailCannon Twinlinked TK D3, probablly going back to 3+ to-hit, would make the unit a slightly better Titan Hunter, and a much more mellow RA hunter.  Cutting the range to 30cm would make it worthless to me.  It would also be hard to explain how the Ion Cannon, which is shorter range on ground vehicles, is longer range in the air. I'll be trying the 4.3.3 version this upcomming saturday, I'll report on that too.
Top

CyberShadow	Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1 Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:21 pm
Swarm Tyrant Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm Posts: 9349 Location: Singapore	Thanks for the detailed report on the TS. It seems that this thing performed OK, but was not over-the-top effective. This gives me some hope (although I realise that this was a game with the previous stat-line). _________________ https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond. https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.
Top

Steele	Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1 Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:41 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am Posts: 423 Location: Duisburg , Germany	Quote (CyberShadow @ 24 Jan. 2006 (12:21)) Thanks for the detailed report on the TS. It seems that this thing performed OK, but was not over-the-top effective. This gives me some hope (although I realise that this was a game with the previous stat-line). As I posted in the org. TS thread , the performance increases the more of them you take. So again my conclusion still remains that there should be a limiting factor instead of radical stat changes ,although your change to 4+ for the main weapons is a fair trade off so far. Cheers! Steele _________________ Quid pro Quo
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1 Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:38 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	Heckler:  Can you elaborate on why you did what you did in those games?  I don't understand what you did or your assertions. Game 1:  Why fire at a shielded gargant?  You're trading an auto-kill for every hit for simply stripping a shield. Whatever the reason, aside from 1 shield being stripped by another formation, 2 TS single-handedly took a Gargant with max shields down to half DC.  That's a 350 point formation that stripped 5 shields and took the DC to half on a 650 point unit.  I would consider that more or less getting their points back with average rolls and (to current appearances - apologies if you have a good reason) less than optimal use. Game 2:  I don't understand your assessment here.  With well below average rolls, the TS killed 3 Landraiders.  Those kill numbers were below average even after the 4.3.3 to-hit reduction.  That's a 175 point unit that killed 300 points.  Discounting for the fact that Landraiders are too expensive, the TS still killed half again its points value with below average rolls. Why would you not call that a good performance? Also, is the Marauder comparison a mistake - 300 points v 175, different roles, etc? _________________ Neal
Top

Tactica

Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1 Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:30 pm

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

Quote (HecklerMD @ 24 Jan. 2006 (01:13)) Ok, I'll give it a try: Game 1, 4K Orks Vs. Tau 4.3.2 (It was a few weeks ago.) 2 A-X-10s in 1 formation. First off: ?I had some bad rolling throughout the game, happens to everyone. ?I also really didnt help the TSs (with any other units) achieve thier main goal, destruction of the enemies Gargant, untill turn 3. Ok, turn 1: ?TS's ground attack the Gargant (Full Powerfields, 6) and take down 3 Powerfields. ?I stood them off to avoid Ork AA, but the 2 AA formations nearby moved up later in the turn and got to shoot at me on exit. ?4 shots at 6+, he rolled 3 6's and a 4, I faild to save any of them, I lost a TS. ?>My Opponent,< suprised, actually looked up the rules for "Jinking" for me and, since I had rolled 1 "4" for my saves, insisted I put the destroyed TS back on the board with 1 DC left. ?Hes a nice dood. Heckler, I understand avoiding the AA but still being in range of two, and that makes sense as to why you fired at a gargant with full shields as I'm assuming you didn't focus on it otherwise and as a later activation in the turn, playing it safe, you opted to fire at the gargant with full shields - fire for effect and all that. I could be wrong, but that's what I'm thinking. Otherwise, I'm with NH - why fire TK shots at shields? Isn't that what regular AT shots are for? Moving on, your opponet was one hell of a dice roller! Wow, 3 6's out of 4 dice - enemy dice was on fire! (I've had those days)   Regards to the jink though - I believe bombers don't jink... only fighters and fighter-bombers. (This is another one of our self induced negatives for balance.) 4.2.3 Some weapons have an anti-aircraft value (AA) that can be used to attack aircraft, and only aircraft. Aircraft can shoot at other aircraft either when making a flak attack (see 4.2.4) or when attacking as part of an interception action. Ground units may only shoot at aircraft when making a flak attack, and may not choose to shoot at aircraft formations as part of one of their actions (this rule stops ground units 'rushing over' to attack aircraft before they can disengage). Roll to hit using the weapon's AA value. If a hit is scored then the aircfaft must make a saving roll to see if it is destroyed. The crossfire rule does not apply to aircraft. Fighters and fighter-bombers can choose to 'jink' when they have to make a saving throw. Jinking represents the pilot desperately swerving his plane to one side in order to try and dodge the enemy attack. All of the aircraft in a formation must jink, or none at all. Aircraft that jink receive a 4+ saving throw instead of their normal armour save but lose their attack if they have not already taken it (they are concentrating on dodging enemy bullets). Place a suitable marker on the aircraft as a reminder it can't shoot. Sorry Heckler - you would have lost them both! _________________ Rob

Top

Tactica	Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1 Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:34 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Quote (HecklerMD @ 24 Jan. 2006 (01:13)) Turn 3: ?After my AMHC skittered from right to left and tried to wail on the Gargant... taking down only 1 shield (he mad all his other saves on the first roll, sigh). ?In return, he placed that Supagun Template over my whole AMHC (I had them WAY to close together, cramped area of terrain) and killed 7 of 8. ?Even he says he rolled exceptionally well there, but still... ?Any, the TS's Come in again, score 3 TK hits, 1 MW hit, and 1 AT hit (Gargant was finally marked), 3 of which Crit, good rolling on my side, finally! OK, shame on you for bunching your AMHC! Supagunz are nasty as all get out!!! Lesson learned I suspect! As Tau have no blast markers, its easy to forget not to bunch up your goods - especially if you are trying to set up a next turn CF and the enemy is expected to pound on your formations a bit. Anyway - 3 crit rolls on the gargant? You should be thankful! You got him back for the massive flak rolls on your TS - except you did it with dead planes I fear! (see jink above) Cheers, Rob _________________ Rob
Top

Tactica

Post subject: Tigershark AX-0-1 Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:57 pm

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

Making this a 0-1 formation of 1-2 would go along way, er, actually all the way, towards eliminating the TK sniper train that is being taken as the proof positive around these parts. I was originally against limiting these things, but am starting to change views. I typed up the entire description from forgeworld, and although they do NOT say they are rare, they do say this: The Tiger Sharlk is the Barracuda's larger cousin. It is a large aircraft deployed in the figher-bomber role. Often encountered flying in support of Tau Hunter Cadres during major operations, it is faster and more manoeuvrable than the Imperium's direct equivalent - the Maurader bomber - but the Tiger Shark lacks the large bomb payload. Tiger Sharks are never as numerous as the Barracuads, but have many features and systems in common with it. All crew come from the Air Caste, giving them the natural advantage of superior three-dimensional awareness and tolerance for higher acceleration speeds, and more Gs in the turn, than a human pilot. Like the Barracuda, different Air Caste Septs operate slightly different versions. Other Tiger Shark variants have been identified armed multiple burst cannons and seeker missles. With this in mind, some kind of a limitation could be justified.  Making the (light)RailCannon(s) Twinlinked TK D3, probablly going back to 3+ to-hit, would make the unit a slightly better Titan Hunter, and a much more mellow RA hunter.

Simple Main Gun analysis I can grasp

2x 3+ TK(1) = v4.3.2
- 6 shots over 3 turns potential
- 4 hits over 3 turns on average to single hit RA OR DC targets

2x 4+ TK(1) = v4.3.3
- 6 shots over 3 turns potential
- 3 hits over 3 turns on average to single hit RA or DC targets

1x 3+ TK(d3) = HecklerMD Proposed
- 3 shots over 3 turns potential
- 2 hits over 3 turns on average to single hit RA targets
 - 2 DC damage per hit on DC targets per hit (or 4 total)

Ok, so what does this tell me... It tells me that I agree with Heckler MD's analysis that his proposed 1x 3+ TK(d3) does perform to a lessor degree against single hit RA targets. It would perform no better against multi-DC targets than the v4.3.2 version. However, it would perform better against multi-DC targets compared to the current v4.3.3 version.

It would appear that these are all desirable results for the plane.

I also agree that it works more in line with the description of the plane's intent i.e. SHT and Titans.

 Cutting the range to 30cm would make it worthless to me.  
I agree. This is not an acceptable alternative to me. It has 108" guns compared to the long barrelled Hydras 72" range guns in WH40K - its SUPPOSE to be hard to take down with flak. In E:A, we already reduced its guns to be the same distance as the 45cm hydra flak guns for balance.

It would also be hard to explain how the Ion Cannon, which is shorter range on ground vehicles, is longer range in the air.
The ion cannon on the tiger vs the rail on the tiger in 40K is also lessor ranged. Our Tiger is working just fine as designed and is finally balanced for the points. I can deal with equal ranges, I absolutely don't want to see a reduced range on a longer ranged weapon. However, for E:A game balance, I don't think any gun range should go over 45cm on fliers - so I'm OK with them both being 45cm for balance.

Cheers,