 
|
Page 1 of 7 |
[ 96 posts ] | Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7 Next |
It is time to let "5 Aces" go... |
|||||
| HecklerMD |
|
||||
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am Posts: 201 |
This discounts two important factors: Synergistic effect that large numbers of aircraft can have on each other: When the largest portion of your army is airborne, you turn your attentions first to elimination that which is the greatest, and in fact only, threat to a mostly airborne army: flak and interceptors. Both of these being only a fraction of the whole of an opponents army, they are smaller in numbers and scattered. For flak, aircraft are able to roam the board and target them, say on the first turn. More aircraft are able to target more flak assets on the first turn. Once flak is eliminated, and once interceptors, if taken, have been eliminated or expended, a mostly airborne army has free reign over the battlefield, and are immune to retribution. Once flak and interceptor assets are eliminated, the ability to harm the largest, most mobile portion of a mostly airborne army is completely and totally eliminated. This is the synergistic effect: Air units are most able to eliminate to only things that can harm them, and more air units magnify this. Of note, other archetypes of unit/armies, such as Titans, large RA armies, or horde armies, are able to capitalize, to a lesser degree, on parts of the synergistic effect: Eliminate TK, MW, and more potent AP (respectively) weapons in the enemies arsenal, and the ability to be harmed by the enemy is drastically reduced. The difference is in the totality: An all Titan army, for instance, after eliminating all of an opponents TK and MW weapons, is still vulnerable to more mundane AT weapons. Once an armies AA units have been destroyed, nothing can harm air units. Eliminating the only weapons that threaten air assets means total removal of the ability to harm said air assets. This is a universal effect: all armies can take advantage of it to varying degrees . It is not exclusive to the Tau or the A-X-10. Activation Advantage: The fact that most armies air formations tend to run in the 100-300 range means that making a large portion of an army airborne can also provide a built-in activation advantage, while avoiding many of the pitfalls that taking numerous inexpensive ground units face; this can skew the results of lists like "5 Aces" even further. We should not ignore the fact that, once again, this is a factor that all armies can take advantage of to varying degrees. This is another advantage mostly exclusive to air units, but, again, not exclusive to the Tau or the A-X-10 My argument is that while, indeed, 5 units of 1 are too powerful, much of that power stems from the synergistic effect, and the activation advantage, and that in smaller numbers the A-X-10 is powerful but not unbalanced. Issue: Even in smaller numbers, the A-X-10 cannot be countered! Please reference this thread : http://www.epic40k.co.uk/epicomm....;t=6032 This is a batrep in which an unreasonably large amount of anti-air defenses apparently are able to prevent and equally unreasonably large amount of aircraft from claiming victory. It is a possible, though admittedly not absolute, extrapolation that a reasonable amount of air defenses might have the same effect against a reasonable amount of aircraft. If the A-X-10 were to be limited, either by points or by army, then the likelihood of an opponent, with reasonable anti-air defenses, of being able to counter them with a reasonable chance of success is increased, without having to craft ones list to counter this specific threat. Indeed, since the (IMO) best counter to a single flight of A-X-10s, a CAP squadron, combined with flak, is also (again IMO) the best counter to a fully laden SM Thunderhawk on a air assault, most lists are likely to already have these precautions bought and paid for, given the ubiquity of the SMs and the Thunderhawk assault. It can be argued that most flak would play less of a, or no role, against an A-X-10 due to the range of the A-X-10?s weapons, while the Thunderhawk must enter almost all flaks range to deliver its cargo. It can also be argued that 2 2DC, 5+ armor aircraft without RA are much more vulnerable to CAP of all types than 1 2DC , 4+ armor with RA, so these circumstances may approach evening out. The new rules, if implemented, granting a +1 to hit for intercepting aircraft also go a long ways towards making CAP the preferred method of tackling A-X-10s. Players who fail to take rudimentary precautions against reasonable enemy air assets may be shocked and awed equally by the Tau A-X-10 as they would be by the IN Marauder or even small flocks of Ork Fighta-Bommas, and would have no one to blame but themselves. Lastly, this is situational; Space Marines, Eldar, and the Tau, in the case of ?Tau on Tau violence,? all possess flak that out range the A-X-10. The serious ability to destroy the A-X-10 does exist. It is not invulnerable. It can be countered. Issue: Even in smaller numbers, the A-X-10 will still get X number of shots/will still average X number of hits/kills! Please reference the previous issue. In smaller numbers the A-X-10 is more likely to be successfully countered, either by destruction or by failed activation due to blast markers; both of which will reduce the number of shots, hits, and kills. Issue: The A-X-10 can easily earn its points back / twice its points back/ect.. Again, please reference the previous issues; this ability is hampered when the A-X-10 is taken in smaller numbers. This also assumes that a units ability to kill more or less than its own points value is the most important or even a reliable method of judging a unit. An air unit?s inability to hold or contest objectives should not be overlooked. Some units value can be found in how much damage they do, some units value can be found in how much enemy fire and attention they can absorb; Titans come to mind here. Issue: A-X-10s need never venture outside the Tau flak envelope to make attacks; (therefore, CAP cannot touch them) Again, situational. 1: A Tau player relying on the excellent Barracudas to protect him from air attacks might not have much of a flak envelope, or any at all; not everyone takes armies with 12+ Ion Cannon Hammerheads. Tau flak can be suppressed just as any other armies flak can. Lastly, when you only have 1 A-X-10 unit, you will want to get the most out of it, and that might mean leaving the flak envelope to get at that most valuable/vulnerable target. There are many reasons why the Tau flak envelope is not an absolute. 2: One cannot assume that staying in the flak envelope guarantees safety. Some CAP units may venture into it hoping to get lucky, and they just might. Some armies CAP units are tough enough to make it (Eldar) or can be found in numbers able to absorb some hits and still be successful (Orks) 3: Some enemy flak is able to outrange the A-X-10; it may not be safe even under its own flak umbrella. This has been noted already above, but applies here as well. Also, its worth stating that although a A-X-10 can stay outside a units flak range when shooting at it, the A-X-10 is still required to move 30 cm straight ahead before turning in the disengagement move, as seen HERE, in addition to having to navigate off the board; Many opportunities for shots and blast markers to pile on will exist. Issue: Its just too powerful! I disagree. The dice Gods may giveth and they may taketh away, but in the end, the TK weapons on the A-X-10 each have a 50% chance of hitting a target, less if the target is in cover. We have all experienced days when we always roll sixes, and those when we roll ones, and nobody can say with certainty how any unit or weapon will perform on any given day, but 50% of 4 TK shots max, is 2 each turn. IF they activate each turn, IF they survive into the next turn. Like those TK shots, those ?IF?s can add up too. Issue: Everyone is going to take A-X-10s, therefore they must be unbalanced! OR: Why would you NOT take these? Everyone? Many armies feature many units that are mainstay units; I don?t need to tell you all what they are, its not a big secret. Popularity or reliability should not be mistaken for imbalance. At the same time, many players take these same armies, and take none of these ?mainstay? units; Player styles will dictate army composition as much, if not more so, than unit abilities. Conclusion: The ?5 Aces? taught us many things. Back in December. Welcome to February. Now it is just holding us back. Pointing at it and saying ?See! See!? is not teaching us anything new. The stats of the unit have already been altered; other ideas deserve a chance. |
||||
| CyberShadow |
|
|||||
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm Posts: 9349 Location: Singapore |
|
|||||
| Top | |
|||||
|
||||||
).Does that not answer that question?
| HecklerMD |
|
|||
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am Posts: 201 |
The answer should become more redily apparrent when more batreps using them singly or in twos come in. For me, stats wise, no. The number that can be taken is an issue, however. Which brings us too... Is there an issue with the craft when fielded in smaller numbers - one of two in a force list? |
I've posted a batrep HERE, and a 4.3.2 Tiger Shark AAR HERE.... I play at least monthly and I have more reasonable 3.5K points games lined up here soon, I intend to give you more batreps with 4.3.3 (or 4.3.4
) using 1 or 2 of the aircraft.From these experiences, ive found the A-X-10 effective but not overwhelming. More playtesting may or may not reinforce that impression, but I feel in smaller numbers its balanced.
Remainder removed due to being OT.
| clausewitz |
|
||||
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland |
Well if the issue is not balance then what is it? Honestly it seems like the exact same question to me. CyberShadows question asked for concise responses as to "Is there an issue with the AX-1-0...". In what way is that different from the poll? |
| Honda |
|
|||
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas |
An emphatic no. Is there an issue with the craft when fielded in smaller numbers - one of two in a force list? |
Again, no.
@HecklerMD
Thank you for the effort that you put into the analysis, I think you summarized the issues quite succinctly.
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
| HecklerMD |
|
||||
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am Posts: 201 |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| clausewitz |
|
|||
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland |
The poll specifically mentions points cost and limitations. In that way it is different, and therefore not the same. |
I have to disagree. ?Both are asking about stats, cost and availability.
The poll is also, perhaps, overly concise
In an effort to be clear I may have used less words than I could have.
Besides, people will come here and post their opinions; they dont need the poll to do it for them.
It seemed a worthwhile effort, there has been no shortage of opinions expressed on this issue. ?I thought that it would help CyberShadow to make his decisions to have a summary of the "general opinion". ?At least the 12 or so people that voted appear to have thought it worthwhile.
Some of them may have even changed their minds since they voted.
Indeed, and that works both ways doesn't it?
(AX10 survived this game)