So let me state it a little clearer for those who were not sure of my intent. The Skyray formation is not changing. Period.

1. They are powerful
2. They are expensive
3. They are very fragile (1 BM + 1 kill from being broken)



If there is going to be a change to the Barracuda, and that's not looking good right now, I could support this. It has minimal impact on the rest of the list, gives the barras a boost...you get my drift.

Go back and read the last two battle reports. In three attempts, they could not prevent a Thunderhawk from assaulting. Three. In the last two attempts, they flew into the teeth of FOUR Skyrays.

Right now, all that is getting kicked around is wants and feelings. We based our decisions based on evidence.

I hope my position is clear.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

It was just a suggestion, to move past the apparent stumbling blocks that some people have with Tau Anti-Air capabilities. Onyx, I didn't take it as dismissive, I know it's been a long path so far, and there'll be stuff suggested that's already been considered and declined in the past. Problem is, it's still not going anywhere.

As for the SkyRay vs ThunderHawk thing, any AA is going to rely on a fair bit of luck to down a Thunderhawk. And so it should.

But the math puts the chance at approximately 2.66 hits, with a 75% save effect, at approx 66% chance of a single wound (and ~16% chance of a kill). So three flying in in such a way has an approximate chance of 50% one being downed. Seems reasonable, especially when compared to the other army's AA defences. And if the THawk was lit on the way in (likely, I believe, else it would have skirted one or two SkyRays), it would have made no real difference to the odds of this outcome.

This is why I don't like playtesting as the primary source of army balance calculation. Notwithstanding the all but certain differences in abilities and experience, just some abberant luck seems to be used as 'proof' it's too powerful, or too weak.

I also feel I'm only seeing the 'trees', and not the 'forest', so I think I'll wait until the list is developed and then make a decision on whether or not to play them. I know my last opponent'll probably hope for the later.

Morgan Vening

AA attacks do not get the ML bump, it's straight stats only.



I didn't mean to infer that playtesting provides immutable proof as to whether something works or not. It doesn't. It does give us evidence of how the formations/units/list behave in a more concrete manner than speculation/feelings/wants. I'm not intending to blow your questions off and I am very supportive of statistics as a general guide for behavior, but we all know there are "statistics" and "what happens in the game". Sometimes they resemble each other.



Well, the list is quite a bit beyond "in development". We are in the final phases of testing with a freeze of the list taking place before the end of the year. After that, it will stay as is until the normally scheduled review is due (approx. 1 year).

I would offer that you should consider testing them now to see how they play. I think your opponent will discover that there are plenty of ways to dismantle the Tau if you set your mind to it. The real challenge now is the fact that it's new and it has the typical new army syndrome (i.e. lack of exposure/lack of understanding).

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I took your initial statement re: inability to down the ThunderHawk as you stating proof that they don't need a nerf. I was just asserting that it was unlikely there would be a nerf under my suggestion. My entire basis for the initial post was that maybe AA should be affected by MarkerLights. Hence it should be clear I'm aware MarkerLights don't normally affect AA.

I have tested them. And it's not just my opponent that's unhappy with them. _I_ don't like the way they play. I'm not going to get a chance to play enough to have any meaningful input in the developmental threads, so I'll wait until it's locked, and then choose whether it's an army I'll bother with. Given the speed of development you've set, you're probably better off just ruling by divine fiat. Because it's hard to see how there can be any meaningful data pulled off the playtests. Just seems it's more likely to cause the threads that initially sparked my initial post.

Morgan Vening

I agree. AA (in ANY amount) never did stop me from using my fully loaded Thunderhawk or Landing Craft.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

It's not a measure, it's an observation. Based on comments that the Skyray formation is too strong, might give one the impression that the battlefield is littered with burning hulks of Thunderhawks, but instead we don't observe that.

So then what becomes the measure? Whether or not Skyrays can drop a T-bolt? How often? Maybe that's just too weak a target. How about a Marauder or a Phoenix Bomber? What's the determinant?

So far all that has been offered is opinions. The list will not get blown around in the winds of opinion like it has in the past. We're not going to do that again.

You want to prove your point, you know how. If you don't want to play test, that's fine, you're under no obligation. However, if you want to contribute, then you have to put in the work.

The good news is you get to choose.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I think what Morgan is alluding to here is that with such a short time frame, playtesting will be minimal given most people's inability to get regular games in. Any data we get back isn't enough to confirm all this

That's it exactly. It's hard to even just get a baseline comparison to take into account relevant skill levels (Did I lose to TRC because the the Tau list was good, because my army selection was poor, or because it's TRC?), and experience levels (Will I win against Muppet because the list is overpowered, or because Muppet has never played Tau?).

As for the baseline, as Hena said, ThunderHawk isn't a good yardstick. The only AA in the game that has a better than crap chance of taking one out, is the Necron Euro. And that's a good thing, given a ThunderHawk is usually worth 600+ points.

Just using the SkyRay formation and not the upgrade, the math indicates the following.

If you went with Thunderbolts, if they approach within the umbrella, there's a 70% chance both planes go 'poof' while having no effect. That's within an area of 11,300cm^2. Hydras have a similar effectiveness, but with only a 6300cm^2 area of control.

In addition, the Skyray Formation gets the following abilities.
Can't be CC'd (Skimmer).
Better terrain coverage (Skimmer again).
A 5+ vs 6+ saving throw, coupled with...
Ability to fire ground-based without being exposed*.
Ability to fire twice as far*.
If/when opposing air cover is removed, can be used for a core Tau ability (MarkerLights)

* Within certain restrictions (MarkerLights)

Morgan Vening

Based on Morgan's post above, I am joining Hena's camp

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Try using a Skyray formation or two in your playtest games lads.

I think you'll quickly find that they are considerably easier to surpress and break than single Skyrays attached to other formations.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Will do!


Mind you Hena, I didn't think you were even going to use the ERC Tau list from now on, so you intend to post no reports at all?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Ok, tell me that the last few posts are an exchange of ideas between adults.

I'm closing this topic.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment