Top

The_Real_Chris	Post subject: Airpower, Epic and Tau Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:14 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London	Quote (Honda @ 24 April 2006 (14:03)) Sniped by Chris I promise not to say a single word in arguement, but only seek clarification of points if I don't 'get it' Oh and for the record the best aircraft is far and away the Marine Thunderhawk. I feel it makes the list. It definatively reflects the fluff that it is the backbone of the chapters strength. _________________ 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

Tactica

Post subject: Airpower, Epic and Tau Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:40 pm

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

As I'm sure Cw was missing my long windy posts... without further adue... Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 23 April 2006 (03:35)) [/quote] I've sent a reponse to Heckler privately over our arguement we were having in the locked changes thread, but one potentially interesting point beyond flaming each others ideas is... Preamble: TRC, If you are looking for a collection of opinions - i.e. data gathering, I'm happy to toss in my hat. If you are looking or a debate on this topic, please disregard the following as I _think_ I share concerns others have posted. I don't wish to debate my opinions on this topic with you. I'm simply supplying my opinions on the basis that you are running a data collection effort. I applaud that. PS - I think this post would be better served in the general forums. This Tau development specific forum is probably not the best area for a general aircraft discussion/ data gathering request. A link posted here with referencing a thread int eh general forums may have served better to gather varied opinions. what are the views of how air power should work in Epic? A good question. This goes back to the guiding principles of designers. Me = peon has a simple management expectation here. The ERC body of individuals (or whatever they're called) should have a consensus view on fundamental design principles of which the public can utilize in our design efforts. That includes intended impact of Air in E:A, what constitutes an LV, Maximum wound capacity of a list at a given points value, Kill-count potential of a given list at given points levels and the list goes on. This is obviously not an exhaustive list, but a core groups of fundamental metrics by which all lists can be measured within E:A would be ideal. One would hope that the document would be a dynamic one where it could live and breathe through change as needed over time. Since that's ideological and not reality, I would hope that the ERC could at least acknowledge such issues as they creap up and make an effort to be consistent on their schedule for meeting and resolving known issues of concern across all lists. Air - in general - is one question needing some attention. ?- Air transports being deployed empty ?- Air transports claiming objectives ?- WE Aircraft formation sizes and hit counts ?- Aircraft placement on the field (sniping) I think its important to have some sort of concensus on how Airpower should be working in epic

Agreed so far...

especially with the Tau as they currently have the most powerful aircraft in terms of weapon fits.
Hmm... your opinion at this point - no comment here.

To toss in my hat, and my own opinion
1. ?I think SM thrive on aircraft.

2. ?I think SM lose more games if they couldn't depend upon air assaults.

3. ?I think the same could be said for Orcs and Eldar.

4. ?As an owning player of IG, Tau, and Eldar - I think the air assault is extremely powerful to certain armies.

5. ?As a player of many armies (though not owning them all) I'm not convinced that Tau have the most powerful aircraft impact on the E:A battlefield as a net result of numerous games played with various lists.

...what does everyone think of the following statements/ideas (as in agree/dissagree).

...a player with lots of points of aircraft should have an advantage over someone with far less investment in the way of AA.
Lots is a relative measure.

If by AA you mean Flak, that is not the only answer to aircraft. If by AA you mean both the amount of aircraft and Flak the "lessor" player takes, well - OK...

If the question is to say, if I take all infantry IG force with no AA (planes or flak) - which I think meets your question's criteria, and my opponent takes all thunderhawks with marines, landing craft with predator support and marines and finally strike cruisers with drop pods and assaulting planetfalling assault marines - yeah, I think he should clean my clock.

No surprise, this happens. It ain't pretty.

Forces that cannot deal well with h-t-h combat are in for a hurting if they did not take any AA and the enemy comes in via heavy air assets chocked full of great h-t-h elitists by comparison.

And I agree, that result should be very decided.

However, this could be true about any number of measures. Essentially, if I show up with a tactically imbalanced force and your force plays to my weakness, then I should have a marketed advantage in that battle - however, lists alone should not dictate the winner of a given match.

Afterall, its possible that my DZ's could be all off with my assault marine drop pods, my aircraft assaults could be poorly choiced targets where I was outnumbered, Overwatched enemy could always foil some plans, and FF can never be underestimated. WIthout a doubt though, the Marine force will have out meta-gamed the IG player, and definitely goes into that battle with the advantage and measurable favor due to his heavy investment in his Aircraft transports - which pack a healthy shot or two in FF and in main play after its contents have been disgourged into the field.

And then there's always the landing of the Thawks to take objectives while the marines of the Imperium are doing their work in the backfield of the opponent's IG line.

Yeah - I'm pretty comfortable stating that hands down - the aircraft heavy army should have a significant impact on the game where his opponent took no AA (flak or aircraft), and although it shouldn't be "in the bag" so-to-speak, the IG player here is going to play hell pulling a victory - much less a draw. To say he has an uphill battle might be eloquently stated - to say the least.

new aircraft shouldn't be artifically constrained by existing planes power levels (Orks/Imperium/Eldar).
Hmm... "power levels." I suppose that's a very relative statement that has to do with a whole host of metrics, not to mention staying power, how it affects the army its taken in, what special rules the army has - along with the armor, capabilities, weapons stats, etc.

Example: I think many players would say a 2DC 4+ RA transport with no guns in the Chaos force that cost 150 points would be more powerful than anything in the game. Put that same plane in the Tau list - and its the most worthless POS out there.

If "power level" was a quantifiable number, perhaps this question would start to have merit for me. However, as you can see by the example - the question is very open to interpretation.

I think this goes back to design principles more than anything else.

1. ?All E:A units in general (Aircraft, LV, AV, Inf, WE, or the vehicle transport variants) - should be set to adhere to fundamental well documented and DEFINED design principles for E:A.

2. ?Beyond that, the unit should closely tie into the established core design philosphy and established ficitional history as close as possible when ported too and/or developed into the E:A universe - without violating and minding the fundamental design principles.

3. ?The unit should be balanced in terms of points, impact, stats, etc within the list constraints that it appears in.

So, if you believe precident to be law, you are a fan of case law becoming common law and absolutions based upon previous decisons.

If you believe in the value and wisdom of stare decisis process of examining precident, but are willing/compelled to review each case (army) individually as it may have further elements and variables to consider that previous cases (armies) did not have to encounter, entertain or consider, then you believe in a living document of principles that has no hard and fast set rule of design constraints from pecident that absolutely at all costs may not be diverged from.

I fall into the second camp on this one.

any weapon fit and chassis can be pointed fairly within the existing rules and oposistion army lists.
See above.




Edit for Honda and others
I promise not to say a single word in arguement, but only seek clarification of points if I don't 'get it'


Excellent.

Cheers,