Chroma, it is not desirable for a Tau player to have 6 Hammerads+Skyray as their BTS. It simple doesn't last long enough.

Maybe if it's bigger it will last long enough to be of use?


This is one reason why I have moved to taking smaller groups of Hammerheads. They are high priority targets. But maybe having 8 Hammerheads could just make the formation more usable in the latter parts of the game?

Chroma, I'm just trying to make helpful suggestions instead of just sitting at my PC and pointing out problems. I want to feel happy playing Tau and I want my opponents to happy to face them aswell. I'm not suggesting that this idea is the best thing since sliced bread, just that it could possibly help.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Oh, I know that, but it does happen.  I prefer a beefed up, fearless Fire Warrior Cadre as my BTS!

All I'm saying is that a formation of six Hammerheads has the same cost in the current version of Tau as they did in the previous version: 375 points.

I don't recall people complaining strongly about that cost in the previous version, nor boosting the formation to 8-strong formations either; the standard formation I recall from previous versions is six Hammerheads and one Skyray, something you can do now, and it was considered an effective formation for it's cost.

So, the thing that *has* changed, is that the Hammerheads are now slightly less effective (and not a core choice, which is a different discussion), so, perhaps they either need to have their points dropped or their abilities increased.  I don't believe formation "size" is the issue as that "big" formation was not often used in previous versions, so I'm not sure why it would be *more* strongly desired now.

And keep posting, Onyx, I'm not trying to discourage you in any way!  More discussion is good, IMHO.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

I'd support a points drop of 25pts from the basic 4-strong formation.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I don't think increasing the formation size is the answer. For me the protection that HH's get comes from Skimmer primarily through pop up attacks. I struggle to hide 4 hiding 8 would I think be impossible. The problem with these units I think is that they have been the same points for a while. The Skimmer rule has changed making pop up attacks harder and they have had their shots downgraded. I also think 25 points is not far enough. As long as they remain more points that broadsides I probably won't take them. Broadsides are 50 points each so I think a realistic cost for a formation of HH should be 200.

Some quick comments until I can get some more time:

1. In previous lists, I always fielded 8 strong HH formations. I prefer that level of endurance to the formation, whether it was RG or IC. My preference. For the record, I was against dropping the max size of the HH formations. Again that was just my personal preference. I still play them as big as I can get them, which is 4 + 2 + 1 Skyray.

Also keep in mind that earlier versions of the HH formations had the networked drone upgrade that allowed armored formations to get Leader.

2. It seems from reading some comments like "I have trouble hiding four HHs" (paraphrasing) that we may not all be using the same level of terrain on our boards. As a rule of thumb our games almost always have in the neighborhood of 40% terrain. Sometimes higher. I've never had trouble hiding 8 strong HH formations and I don't think that should be a consideration or a restriction on the list. We will discuss this more as soon as I can get that thread together.

3. It occurred to me after reading E&C revelation/comments on Dobby's aircraft that he doesn't appear to be using the same AA values as other people. That could be a significant consideration in the effectiveness of the Barra.

4. The point I do not strongly agree with is that aircraft should be so invulnerable to AA fire that they can fly off willy nilly into the opponent's backfield without consequences. I think you should have to "earn" that right by addressing enemy AA and suppressing. I also don't think when others have offered to help tune tactics (not talking about myself), that the response of "that's not how I want to play" ever gives one a chance to address the issue. I can understand wanting to play your way, but if your way fights against the list design, something has to give. I'm not saying the list is set in concrete, though it is getting close, but part of playing any list is understanding what it does well and what it does not. I know you (Dobbsy) know this, so I'm not trying to lecture (though I probably am), but there are certain synergies built into the Tau list (besides MLs) and to ignore them means operating the list less efficiently than possible.

5. I also have to echo E&C's comment regarding playing against a known list vs. preparing to play against all comers. Just about any list can be tailored to optimize their strengths vs. the other lists weaknesses if you know what you are going to face. How each person plays their games is up to them, but I agree that you tend to face more rounded opposing lists if they aren't sure what you are going to bring. This approach does have to be adjusted somewhat if one is in playtest mode.

More later...

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I think barracudas need upping to 4+ save, bump both shots to AA5+ at 30cm and perhaps drop the cost a bit. Don't know if that'll make them ore effective though...

_________________
numquam culum es

Barracudas are statwise an T-Bolt clone. There is no way getting them Nightwing saves. Never ever unless you want them cost around 400pts  

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

I know, but it's the only way I can think of addressing Dobbsy's concerns about them. Besides, what's so good about Nightwings?

_________________
numquam culum es

Nightwings..

4+ save - so no need to jink if you take hits on the way in, as you already have the 4+ save.

Lance shots - so RA aircraft (mainly air assault carriers) are much more at risk to Nightwings.

2 AA shots with range 30cm - so no need to close to 15cm to get all your shots when intercepting/CAPing (thus maximising firepower without entering the usual 15cm flak range of many craft).

Formation of 3 - rather obvious but a formation of 3 is more dangerous than a formation of 2.

All of which makes Nightwings pretty much the premier interceptor in EA.

As ground attack craft they are only slightly better than Thunderbolts (Nightwings 3x AP4 & 3x AT4; Tbolts 2x AP4, 2x AP5 & 2x AT4).  But the advantages above still apply.

Aircraft like other formation can be used in various ways, and often it is these tactics that determine the survival and effectiveness more than some minor change in the stats. If TRC were to comment here, he would point out that he always takes Thunderbolts both because they provide a cheap activation and are very usefull. He never loses his Thunderbolts, because he normally uses them to harrass ground formations, especially those with mixed infantry and vehicles. His main use is to destroy broken formations with them. In this respect, Barracudas are actually better because they fire at full effect at 30cm, while Tbolts fire at full effect at 15cm.

I would recommend considering using one or even two formations (cheap activations) on intercept or CAP orders against other aircraft, or against broken ground targets that have been softened up by ground fire.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Yeah and I definitely don't want Tau nightwing equivalents!   Although I wouldn't mind having the option to boost the numbers to 3 planes as an upgrade - I have 3 BCs total so using the 3rd plane would be nice.

well that's stirred up a little debate at least  

so what are the objections to a 3 plane fm of 'cudas at a commensurate cost? Then you'd have the option of more staying power (and effectiveness) vs. fewer activations (or losing a 75pt upgrade somewhere). And please, don't quote pack sizes at me  

_________________
numquam culum es

In the Tau list I think that formations of 3 Barracudas would be even less popular/useful than formations of 2.

The extra cost without substantially greater effectiveness* would mean points would be spent elsewhere.

Only Orks can go down the route of numbers to fly through heavy flak etc (Thunderhawks and Nightwings to a lesser extent via good saves).

(* when attacking broken formations a couple of extra shots doesn't mean much, likewise for many intercepts and CAPs)

Hmm, I'm a little confused. 3 planes shooting in AA is worse than 2? Likewise in Ground Attack? Having more of a plane squadron left at later game even after a loss or two? Wouldn't these factors outweigh your points Clauseitz in terms of "useful" at least? Plus at 75 points you could possibly fill up that odd 25 point left over gap by adjusting things.

Anyway, just my take on the idea. Honda won't implement it anyway, so it's really just a pipedream.

What I mean is a Barracuda interceptor/CAS formation costing 225-275 points is less useful to the Tau than one costing 175 points.

The extra cost of the third plane is better spent elsewhere.