Guys, we need to reverse the power creep that has become evident in the air units and formations. The Avenger and Nephilim are the latest offenders, but the Lightning and Helltalon started this current trend of precedents. I also share AoC's dislike of units and Weapon stats that vary across lists, and one or two units need correcting in this respect.

The air-game has the potential to completely distort the E:A ground game detrimentally. It does not need much to do this, increased numbers, firepower or armour can all create air formations that can devastate ground forces (this is especially true for air-weapon ranges). As an example, try fighting against Orks with maxed out fighta-bombas like this.

Basically, to avoid becoming overpowered, the air-game has to operate within certain parameters. Here are some suggested guidelines

• In principle, aircraft should have 'core' weapons that do not change, though they may change their payload to carry weapons relevant to a particular list.
  
  
• In principle, Fighters should have two weapons, Fighter bombers three weapons 1-2 of which are dropped (rockets, bombs), while bombers carry even heavier loads or weapons.
  Note,
  • It is dropping the weapon load that restores agility to aircraft, hence FB disengage like Fighters while both can "jink" (dropping external loads) if they are being shot at.
  • There are exceptions to this for various reasons but designs are less likely to go wrong if working within these limitations.
  
  
  
• Air weapons based on versions of ground weapons have reduced ranges and often reduced power as well.
  
  This represents the reduced accuracy from aircraft moving at speed over a target.
  
  
• Fighter weapon's range must limited to 15-30cm. 0-1 FB and 0-2 Bomber ground attack weapons may have 45cm or *rarely* 60cm.
  This is because ground AA has similar range restrictions and any increases in air-weapon ranges can allow aircraft to avoid ground AA altogether.
  
  
• Agility is also represented by weapon arcs of fire.
  This is something that is rarely used, except by Orks (which seems a little uncharacteristic to me).
  
  
• "One shot" and "Slow firing" are a bit of a nonsense since the aircraft return to rearm every turn.
  In aircraft terms, this would be the equivalent of saying respectively that the aircraft can only be used once in the game, or every other turn - though people may want to include these restrictions in the unit notes . . .
  
  
• Fighter / FB armour represent agility, size etc, while Bomber armour represents airframe resilience. Consequently Bombers may have 2DC
  
  
• Unit numbers impact all aspects of resilience and firepower. These need to be considered as part of the design. Typically Fighters an FB are 2-3 per formation, Bombers are 1-2 per formation.
  
  
• Formation costs need to be between 175 and 400 points, roughly 50-100 per unit, with a 25 point activation 'tax' for low cost formations - hence ThunderBolts (75 each) were increased from 150 to 175 a pair

Aircraft with incorrect or inappropriate stats

The Lascannon should probably be range 30cm, *not* 45cm. More importantly it should be AA5+, *not AA4+*.
(The air rules grant an additional +1 when intercepting.

The Hell Talon is now present in the following Chaos lists from the NetEA Compendium, all of which ought to be amended.

• Black Legion (Approved)
• Vraksian Traitors (Developmental)
• Death Guard (Developmental)
• Emperor’s Children (Developmental)
• World Eaters (Developmental)
• Red Corsairs (Developmental)
• Alpha Legion (Experimental)
• Korne Renegades (Experimental)

The Long-barrelled Autocannon should be range 30cm, *not* 45cm.

This is now present in the following lists from the NetEA Compendium, all of which ought to be amended:-

• Elysian Drop troop Regiment of the Imperial Guard (Experimental)
• Harkoni Warhawks (Experimental)
• House Hyperion Knightworld (Developmental)
• Adeptus Ministorum (Developmental)

Finally the AMTL Lysander Fighter has incorrect stats for the Heavy Bolter. They are listed as But should read:-

Heavy Bolter 15cm AP5+/AA5+, FxF

The issues with the Avenger have been discussed here, which was taken from an earlier, totally unofficial list developed by Zombocom in 2006? This has been ‘borrowed’ for the Skitarii list, and is a good example of the onset of ‘power creep’; taking a “fighter bomber” but adding ‘bomber’ level weaponry and stats, including a tailgunner.

This should be modified in several ways;

• If we want to retain the concept of a titan level weapon modified for airborne use, then make the aircraft a Bomber, change the armour to be 5+ or even 4+ and call the weapon “Airborne X….X….X” (representing an A/c similar to the IL2 Stormavik), and revise the costs and formation numbers accordingly.
• If you want to go with a true Fighter-Bomber, then drop the Avenger Bolt Cannon in favour of missiles etc – or preferably start with the E-UK stats

The main issue raised by the Avenger is that it’s weaponry has then been ‘borrowed’ for the Nephilim fighter as discussed here,. This raises the issue of moving weapon classes between different aircraft classes. In E:A terms there is nothing to stop someone loading up a Spitfire with 12,000 lb Tallboy bomb or worse a 22,000 lb Grand Slam bomb – both equally nonsensical as the fighter could not possible carry the load.

In an ideal world we would have a list of weapons that could be carried by each aircraft type. But that perhaps is a topic for another time.

I appreciate your concern about power creep, but I feel I need to step in here about your proposal for the Avenger:

1. Bomber is entirely inappropriate for the aircraft. The official name is the Avenger Strike Fighter. It's also very clear that the armor is not much better than a Thunderbolt, so dropping it to a 4+ is also unwarranted.

2. Dropping the Avenger Bolt Cannon is also entirely inappropriate for the unit. The weapon is NAMED for the unit and there is no option to remove it for different weapons although the vehicle can be upgraded to take bombs and missiles in addition to the standard arms.

3. While you're concerns with power creep are valid, I haven't seen any evidence that the Avenger is over powered or otherwise problematic. It's also not that weapons are being borrowed without cause for other units. In the case of the Nephilim, the ABC is a valid weapons option for the unit. However, there are several other options for arming the craft so if the ABC isn't a mandatory option as with the Avenger Strike Fighter.

4. I think the last thing anyone wants is for Imperial lists to just have different shaped Thunderbolts when there's a wide variety of airframes available that can have unique stats.

_________________
-Vaaish

those stats above, with 4 shots per plane aren't evidence enough? really? four anti tank shots per plane?

I'm testing out a nephilim-heavy list tonight, will batrep it and get it up over the weekend

for the record, I agree with Ginger that power creep in the air game is a very real issue....

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

It's actually 3 shots per aircraft. 2x lascannon shots per plane is a typo. See the playtest changes thread. And no, number of shots isn't a valid test for power creep. You can give a plane 5x 6+ shots and have about the same number of hits statistically as a plane with 1x 2+ shot. In other words, a plane with fewer, better shots can be just as OP as one with lots of bad shots. Put it on the table and tell me if it's ACTUALLY a problem.

_________________
-Vaaish

that isn't what I'm arguing, 5x6+ shots is better than 1x2+ shot as it has a much higher potential number of hits, even if statistically they are similar, it's why the NetEA LR Crusader with 3xFF5+ is better than the EUK 2xFF4+ version, which I empircally tested.....

I disagree with the approach of 'these are the stats prove they're overpowered' and would counter with 'prove that they aren't.....' the burden of proof lies with both parties in these kinds of arguments

what we are doing is opening up the possibility of having more weapons on an aircraft, sure having 4 shots on 6's isn't that potent but it establishes precedent, a few years down the line and GW releases their newest plane which has wings composed entirely of skull-tipped missiles, a quake cannon fuselage and assault cannons for wheels, some bright spark stats it up to reflect it's ridiculously potent shooting ability and when someone says 'dude 4 shots is a bit much' they just show that there are planes which already have 4 shots, so adding the assault cannon wheels is okay, as long as they're statted correctly, eventually the naysayers get bored of arguing round in circles and the stats stick... rinse and repeat

personally I think if you want super accurate aircraft stats at epic scale, go play aeronautica

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

I cannot express in words how happy your post makes me, Kyuss. I'm not going to make little skull tipped missiles now


agreed. It's a Fighter or Fighter Bomber


Vaasish, I totally agree with your statement that the Avenger SHOULD have the avenger bolt cannon. They are synonymous


I completely disagree with where that thing started with shot wise, especially considering:
-you nabbed the unit from a list that's not even EA anymore and not even being actively developed by Zombo AFAIK. Trying to standardize across lists is non-nonsensical as YOU'RE THE ONLY LIST. Bask in the glory!
-YES in 40k it is basically 1/2 a VMB pretty much. So what? The Thunderbolt also has 4 autocannons on the front in 40k as well. Balance trumps fluff here.
-The limiting factor in attack craft has always been ammunition supply. For instance the A-10 burns through the entire ammunition in less than 26 seconds, mate. The stats can be nerfed as being representative of the limited supply of dakka. A single AP4+/AT4+ (or whatever is good) is plenty for the ABC. This leaves room for the Fireraptor (my real concern for the Hawklords) as they've GOT TWO of them! Eeek!:D


Not following you here. I think you're stating that the Avenger Strike should play differently than say a thunderbolt. With that I agree. I think that's largely making it a better ground attack craft than interceptor. The Thunderbolt is pretty much the middle ground then between the Lightning Interceptor and the Avenger, each being better at one task to the detriment of the other. The TBolt is the generalist of the Imperial Navy aircraft.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

You are correct. I'm sorry if I was unclear here. In the case of the Avenger, I've used it in at least 3 games so far and it's actually felt a bit overpriced for the utility. I believe Mordoten has taken it in several games as well and hasn't had any complaints of being OP but has had more utility than I have. While that's not a massive amount of data, it's enough for me to say that I haven't seen an issue and folks saying there's a problem with the stats need to provide more evidence than what I've seen in these discussions.



I'm not following you here Jimmy. We tried to standardize until it was clear that Zobo's list wasn't active and then we went our own direction. The stats for the ABC in epic aren't even based on the 40k version outside of it being about 1/2 the damage output of the Scout Titan VMB. Since we already have well established stats for the VMB, we chopped it in half and reduced the range as per standard airborne weapons. Fewer shots also represent smaller ammo capacity.

Not sure if this is what you meant, but the stats for the ABC are appropriate for the weapon by every metric I've thrown at it, including playtesting.



I was responding to the notion of a limited set of "aircraft" weapons that we just mix and match to create new units. The net result of that is everything's the same just looks different. We already see plenty of that with other Epic weapons. I agree with what you're saying here though.



Going back to the Avenger:
Against AT or AP, statistically a squadron of 2 Avengers scores 1 hit more than a squadron of 2 Thunderbolts. Offensively against air, the Avengers have half the capability of the Thunderbolts. Both have the same durability and maneuverability. The Avengers cost 50 points more than the thunderbolts.

In my playtests, the Avenger performed equal to the Thunderbolt in ground attack most of the time and fared worse as an interceptor. However, since most of the Avengers power is based on more shots, the loss of a single aircraft hurt the formation more than the loss of a single thunderbolt.

_________________
-Vaaish

I personally am not terribly worried about the avenger per se (by itself). If it's a ground attack aircraft then he avenger cannon is OK. It should not be a fighter on that context though, and an aircraft carrying it should not also be a fantastic interceptor.

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

Just wanted to say that I agree with ginger and kyuss sentiment, though framing it as a X must be Y is a bit simplistic and arbitrary.

There are just some special considerations that need to be carefully thought through when stating aircraft and it needs to be conservatively done. It'd be useful to outline these together though, so that ACs can understand them fully.

For example formation size, large numbers are much more powerful for several reasons:
1. The flak counter is much less
effective against them - flak shots are limited in number but fire against every flyer formation - 6 unit formations are thus capable of actually targeting flak rather Han having to avoid it.
2. The larger the number of shots, the greater the chance (or certainty) of being able to down an air assault, which is a game changing ability.

Neither of those reasons is sufficient in isolation to mean you should never have formations > 2 for example, but it does mean that you should be extremely careful before doing it and doubly so before also giving them lots of shots.

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

What about a Thunderhawk's Thunderhawk Canon? (it's main gun) Done properly in epic that would have AP3
+/AT3+. It's epic version of it's iconic weapon NAMED for the unit is underpowered from what you would expect from 40k. It is also missing it's pair of wingtip Lascannons and the 6 x Hellstrike Missiles it should come with as standard.

It is very common for Epic aircraft to have less weapons and weaker weapons than their 40k counterparts, they are not directly translated - for reasons of game balance. With this often being the precedent the fact that the Avenger is so powered in 40k doesn't justify you literally translating it to epic when doing so puts it out of line in terms of power with other aircraft that are commonly translated weaker.

It doesn't need to be dropped, but the Avenger gun (or other weapons on it) could do with toning down.

And with great respect to all, these posts encapsulate the problem. When designing an army list there is a natural desire to try to emulate the 'fluff' mixed with trying to match the GW stats and providing something that is 'effective'. These tend to combine causing 'power creep'. Consider the humble Bolter, which has evolved through the Heavy Bolter to the Storm Bolter and Twin Heavy Bolter and now Avenger Bolt Cannon; each step accompanied by a slight improvement in the stats.

I believe we need to approach the design of lists, formations and units from the other end, to quote a recent post "from the opponent's POV" backed up by statistics and then playtests. If we 'start with the end in mind' with guidance from the forums, we should be less likely to suffer 'power creep'. While I have presented some suggestions for designing aircraft, I believe similar guidance can and should be provided for Infantry, armour, WE and Titans, and possibly even for list design and 'special rules' and effects.

Kussinchains' post above covers the crucial aspect of statistical effects very nicely. I would prefer that we start design from the POV of the number of dice and potential hits a formation can cause before working back through the resilience of the formation and unit while working within the context of weapon and unit naming.

In the case of the Avenger, it sounds as though this is intended to be modelled on the A10. If so, the weapon should not have any AA capability and the aircraft should be a Fighter-Bomber rather than Fighter. If you want to retain the 'iconic' Avenger Bolt cannon in the form you present, while following my suggested principles, the aircraft would have only one other weapon which ought to be rockets/bombs (which are dropped to provide agility). This suggests underwing missiles giving the following type of stats:-
Note, the aircraft type describes it's flying agility rather than its function. If you want to retain both Avenger Bolt Cannon *and* Lascannon then, even though it is a "fighter", the aircraft becomes less manoeuvrable and so should have the "bomber" type applied, because Lascannon cannot be dropped to provide the additional agility of the Fighter Bomber (unlike rockets / bombs).

@ginger:
You are right, the fluff does seem to make it out to be based around the A10. I disagree with your stats though. I would be willing to concede the AA shot on the lascannons since the AdMech Skitarii list has enough inbuilt ground AA that the AA shots on the Avenger aren't required. However, at this point all evidence I have from playtest indicates there is no issue either from the OpFor or owning player and the aircraft isn't going to change further unless I have hard playtest evidence of an issue.

_________________
-Vaaish

Those are not incorrect stats.

The Twin Lascannon is FxF, so it HAS to have 45cm range, just like the one on the Marauder Bomber, or the Pulsars on the Vampire and Phoenix Bombers.

Long-barrelled Autocannon: the same, it's FxF, it has to be 45cm(60cm actually, but a bit OTT), like the ones on the Hydra.

Exactly the same for the rest.

If you don't like the long range, try changing the weapons load, because the stats are perfectly accurate and correct.

_________________
Epic Armageddon in Spanish (from Spain): http://www.box.net/shared/3u5vr8a370

Konig Armoured Regiment FanList: https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 41#p581941

lord-bruno, I think perhaps you're mis-reading Ginger's intention. He's not saying the range is incorrect and should have been 30cm. He's saying that 45cm is BAD and 30cm isn't.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!