The spaceship does indeed have a fairly complicated history, in reality it has always been 2 x pin-point attacks for 200pts irrespective of the name changes and other minor stat tweaks. I upped it to 225pts in the test document because it has always been a fantastic choice and perhaps a tiny bit too good at what it does. But the reality is, it is probably just required by the list and I am going to revert it back to 200pts again in the final version of the Third Phase test list, along with dropping the AX-1-0's to 350pts the pair.

The idea of a single AX-1-0 for say 200pts is certainly a very good one and if Matt wants to trial or run with that version in the Vior'la list that would be fine.

I think as far as I can see you have enough from the Australian meta, but need quite a few more from two other metas. Borka has documented some games with the list and now Andrew_NZ.

I might also add that from the point of view of the list being approved it might be useful if someone could manage to maybe lose a few games , seeing as every report so far is a win.

Yme how many of those games were played by Matt-Shadowlord? i.e A great player will generally always tend to win no matter the list and Matt is certainly one of those.

I'm hoping to play this list when I get home and my meta is different to Perth's group.

Personally I prefer the 300 point price tag for the 6 Broadsides. Was pleased when it went back down in cost. Thought that the range reduction to 60 cm was part of the deal (a necessary evil?); unit balance with Hammerheads. Garrisoning (since 15 cm moves) and sitting in cover and with 30 cm IC AP fire, so the 60 cm the range on the AT gun does not stop me using them. The lower cost allows for more formations to support them and I love the Orca load with Broadsides (and often attached Gun Drones using Tau Jet Pack 15 cm disembark moves).


This is great news. On a general tournament list there really needs to be something that provides some reach to effectively touch small war-engines hiding in the enemy deployment zone. Also something to partially balance the heavy AP focus of the Tau. The lower cost of the spacecraft also makes orbital drops by Orcas a fun option. The lack of artillery to hit the enemy deployment zone is a (challenging weakness) in the list and this gives some more options to redress the balance.

The price drop on the AX-1-0 might see me drifting back to using them. Like some other Tau commanders I've come to the conclusion that they are great (as in really great) when you get them, but fundamentally too unreliable for such pricy support (without a Shas'o re-roll). When I say "drifting" I mean if I do use them there will be lots (maximum numbers) to make it a more reliable tactical tool.

And so, now/next with 4000 points:
Spacecraft [200], Manta [650], 2 x AX-1-0 [350] and can't quite get 2 x Barracuda [150]
Manta [650], 2 x AX-1-0 [350] and can't quite get a second pair x AX-1-0 [350]
Spacecraft [200], 2 x AX-1-0 [350], 2 x AX-1-0 [350], 2 x AX-1-0 [350], now there is air power, Kor'o commanding.

With 3000 points:
Spacecraft [200], Manta [650], 2 x Barracuda [150], a very nice combination
Manta [650], 2 x AX-1-0 [350], interesting possibilities
Spacecraft [200], 2 x AX-1-0 [350], 2 x AX-1-0 [350] and can't quite get 2 x Barracuda [150]


OK, so you can tell I'll really go for this if somebody offers it, . . .


No, no, never, Tau lose, horror, . . . maybe tomorrow, . . .

5 separate AX-10's in a 3000pt list would not be a good thing.
That was one of the original reasons for the current formation size and cost.

_________________
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.

Worried about your untouchable Ordinatus Onyx? A fair point. Were they singletons back then? I thought they were a squadron. <shrug> too long ago to remember clearly.

275 points each then to reduce it to 3? Seems a bit steep for a one-TK weapon plane that generally can't avoid AA given 45cm AA is the norm and that is highly unlikely to come on the board with BMs. Thunderhawks are 200 for a 75cm AT weapon that is also initiative 1+ Planetfalling, RA 2DC WE with Transport. Is the AX10 deemed 75 points more expensive? Apart from its main weapon it's fairly soft weapon-wise given one of the 3 other weapons is guided.

225-250 points would still give you 4 so not a big step down but would be fairer given the unit's drawbacks.

If not, could they be tied to something instead to limit to max of 3 singletons @ 200 perhaps? 1/ 1000 points??Change the air power allowance?

I don't see what's so terrible about 5 for 1000 points. They're air so have provlems activating and can't affect objectives, and they're not -that- brilliant. You can already take more tiger sharks, barracudas etc.

Note I'm not saying it's definitely not an issue, it could be. But my inkling is spamming ax10s is not going to win you the game. It's all very well looking at what you can get for 1000 points, but that's 1000 points you're not spending on ground formations that will make the difference in whether you win or lose.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I would have to agree with Kyrt, you will want a mix of Air reseources with Tau a couple of AX-10's combined with an Orca or two plus spaceship/Barracudas is going to do a lot more for your army as a whole.

Perhaps a limit of 4 AX-10s in total able to be fielded in whatever combination you want?

If the AX-10s are to be limited, wouldn't it be better to make it something like max half the Air Caste points can be used on them?

_________________
Let there be code.

A-10s had a tortured development history. Look back for batreps featuring the '5 aces'. Basiacally they were very good, normally not venturing out from under skyray cover making intercepts very hard and plenty of examples there and elsewhere of why a 45cm weapon beats 45cm AA fire (basically unless you are on a wild weasel mission against a dedicated formation, AA lives inside formations and Tau are very good at knocking out small AA formations like Hydra). The effect was magnified because payers who are good with air tend to get disproportionate effect with planes. The 5 aces lists were further enhanced by heading up an army optimised around properly employing them (tetra, skyrays, etc).

Take a formation, get a SC, use it under cover of your own skyrays and see how well you do. You should not expose it to danger and play a cautious game. They are pretty much death for marked warhounds and similar war engines.

Manta/Protector price drop...

The effect of a drop on the manta and no increase on the Hero is you get the combo of Manta + hero + Barracuda which was when tested originly found to be very good, hence the combined cost of 875 for the manta and spacecraft. Basically was to have an element of decision making - currently the Hero/Protector is an auto include choice in my opinion (two pin pint attacks are vital to knock off shadowswords, void spinners, titans with shields stripped by your piranha, etc) and if you take a manta getting a spacecraft adds so much to it. Get to either drop it late turn 1 to avoid incoming fire and artillary, or perhaps have it forward with its markerlights to support a co-fire missile salvoes. Plus of course you can put a formation inside it, etc etc. Anf then of course with the remaining 150 you would be silly not to get a baracuda formation for general fighter duties.

I agree with Kyrt. Can't see why that would be so problematic. Would probably put you in a bad spot. In a tournament setting it would be good against AMTL, but otherwise 5 is likely to many in a 3000pts game against most other all-comers lists.

Just to be clear as fun as all the discussion is, no one is actually doing this change yet. I just suggested that if any variant list wanted to trial it then that would be fine (interesting even). It would still need testing as usual and perhaps the correct points bracket would end up as 225pts for one, or maybe it just proves too powerful, or maybe no-one decides they want to try it in a variant list.

I can't find the old bat-reps, so can't find the details for them. I do remember they were priced at 175 each though.

You can find some old testomony about the effect of pair though. Seems the primary target were beached marine thunderhawks and landers, closely followed by over-agressive warengines.

I still can't imagine not fielding either a manta or a a-10 pair if I wanted to go after enemy WEs. Lists without would play to avoid/bm break them (though the hammerhead change would make them more of a direct threat).

Anyone wanting to talk about power creep would look at the ability to have 5 separate flying TK(D3) weapons and laugh uncontrollably...
Just sayin.

It is not just AMTL that would suffer against this idea. Guard (especially Minervans), Chaos, Marines (landed Thunderhawks and Warhounds) just to mention a few would also be impacted.

_________________
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.

You will find Onyx it is a tough discussion to have - it took multiple batreps (in one I believe there was almost 1000 points of AA) and many many pages to convince people 5 for 175 each (so backed up with a barracuda pair) was a bit OTT... I think the worse thing for people flying against it was there was no where to hide... The a-10s got to ignore intervening cover, stay in their half of the field most games so always under their own flak umbrella and if at any time the enemy flak was dealt with it wasn't pretty, especially with the aircraft ability to 'snipe'.