TBH I think we just need to ignore the ABC on the avenger now and concentrate on the nephilim with an AA slant. If the avenger turns out too good it won't get approved anyway.

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

If it's too good it'll get changed well before the list is submitted for approval.

_________________
-Vaaish

Hello all. Been a while since I posted anything on the boards. Been lurking a lot. Well I have to say everyone that this has been a fascinating discussion. A lot of passion for one's army units and rightfully so. Why would you want to change your unit? I so NO! And I tell you why (at least in my opinion).

The title of the post...”E:A Power creep in air units and formations”

The only air units right now that looks to be debated are the Avenger and Nephilim, with some sprinkles of other various army units. So without getting sucked into the vortex of which units are overpowered, because frankly everyone has a point to a certain degree, lets change the focus to something I think is being overlooked. I don't think the focus should be on the units, but rather on the system in which those units are played. Now before you totally dismiss what I'm about to propose, please read. I'm not trying to change a good thing (why would I want to?).

Lets take the focus away from units themselves because this is an argument that could go on and on. I think what's being overlooked is not the effectiveness of the units themselves, but the system in which those units are played. I have played enough games with and against different faction lists to know something about air support. The one common thing between them all was not how many dice they can throw down the table, but how often they can throw those dice. The main rules (4.0 Aerospace Operations) themselves are not too shabby and the chance of driving them away (with plenty of blast markers) or shooting them down all together are there...but that's about it. Should you be at the mercy of not having AA in your force and your opponent has plenty of Air Support, your going to be in for a long game (short in reality...you get the idea). To me that seems like a penalty to the guy/gal that didn't come prepared. What if it's not in your theme? What if the model is hard to come by (and boy is it EVER hard to come by now these days)? What if it's a noob your trying to get into the game? It can be a big turn off. I've seen it and I'm sure most of you have as well. So what I'm I getting at?

How long has it been since the rules have been out? 10-11+ years. Is it perfect? Close. Is it supported? Nope. Can it be better. Maybe. But I'm not going to say change it. Quite the opposite. Leave it be I say. To me there is no difference between the SM Thunderhawk, the Eldar Vampire, the Ork Landa, the Tau Tigershark, the DA Nephilim, etc. They all have their own flavor. The lists on the other hand...well I'll let the Mods and Champions decide.

Maybe as a compromise there could be an addition...

What about adding to the requirements for Air Support? Not changing the 1/3rd rule, but putting a premium on the availability of those units. If any of you play Flames of War you know where I'm going with this. In FoW, Air Support can be ridiculously effective. But to get the support you have to choose a level of availability to you for that air support. The more points spent, the more available they become. So instead of changing the points formula for the unit, why not add a flat point penalty to that unit to use it for more than one turn? This penalty (as I call it for now) would be the exact same for all lists across the board and would be a “per round used” basis. So say there are only 4 turns in a game, you would add something like 25pts per round or whatever the EA Gods deem appropriate to that unit purchased. In total, you would spend an additional 100pts on air units to use them the entire game. These points would come from your 2/3rds points you have left from your main force. This would not count against your 1/3 points rule for the units themselves. It definitely makes you think how bad to you want them and not so much an automatic because it's the new hotness!

I'm curious if this has ever been discussed? To my knowledge I have not seen this before. OK you can all tear my thoughts apart.....and GO!

Funny, that's how aerospace rules work in Exodus Wars
a rule set highly reminiscent of EA

_________________
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!

Huh...you don't say? Have to check that out.

really? that's how we're playing the game? you just make up any old stats and unless we can prove that they're bad, they stick?? I am saying to you, prove they are acceptable, go and play a game at your earliest convenience with 3-4 formations and write a battle report, (or link me to existing ones you have played) make sure you play against an AA-light army (marines, BL, orks) to give the planes a proper stress test (no point getting them shot down by firestorms right away)





for the last time, it's not necessarily about the performance of a specific plane, it is about setting precedent and opening the doors for further power creep in future.... case in point the nephilim which is using the AMB plus extras and was shown in a batrep to be extremely powerful when spammed



you've actually driven me to the point of quoting my OWN posts on this, as you patently ignored my reasoning when posted on page 2 of the thread....



but please, continue to cherry pick the evidence that supports your position and ignore anything contrary

MikeT has posted a thoroughly excellent debunking of why the same weapon mounted on a different vehicle performs differently and I have yet to see any credible counter argument to this.... I have bought this up many times across this thread and the nephilim discussion and have been conveniently ignored....



agreed, and one completely incomptable with the idea of a community driven development process, why on earth should I use my one game playtesting when the result will be dismissed or ignored, when the AC's position is 'no matter what these stats are not changing'

_________________
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 was talking about 45cm AA too. Autocannon has an AA6+ shot, not 5+ like in the list (that's for twin-linked only).

Yes, the Hellblade is the one with the autocannon: but those are reaper autocannons with an already shortened 15cm range!!

Just make the lascannon on the Hell Talon non-twin-linked (or make it a multilaser). If range is a problem, drop power. But just modifying the range artificially goes against stable and equal stats in all lists, and against the "unwritten EA A/C rules"



A long barreled Autocannon has a range of 60cm in Epic. So not only you are cutting it to 45cm, even to 30cm even though it is mounted FxF. Solution: it is not a [Long-barrel] anymore , that's what I would do. Dropping [long-barrel], and [twin-linked] all around.



+1

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

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

I hope you have the sense to listen to our feedback and do so. Or that the ERC reject your stats for the aircraft and ask you to tone it down when you come to put the list for approval (I would if I were on the ERC).

Well if you've followed Vaaish development of the Titan and Skittarii lists thats actually how he does it. This is why 've decided to bow out of any further AdMech testings of lists even though they are my first choice of armies (except the knightworld list where the development and communication between the AC and the players is friggin great!!).

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Chicken or egg really. Stats always start somewhere and...oh right... haven't I been telling folks to go put models on the table if they think there's a problem THIS WHOLE TIME? And yes, I will stress test it. In fact, I almost always play vs marines first when testing units, but thanks for your concern.



It's a grim dark future, we have an aerodynamically unsound flying brick. Honestly, anything can happen. If the fluff says it's a smaller version of the VMB strapped to an airframe and every metric released by GW (who created it in the first place) says it's got the same ammo as VMB, then it does. Speculation on the real world capabilities is secondary, so no pulling up your old post doesn't have relevance to what we have through official channels. Official channels always trumps our speculation when determining weapon characteristics.



Ok, that's great. No one's arguing that the ABC and VMB are the same weapon. I'm arguing they fire the same shell therefore they should have the same to hit as the VMB. The supposition that they fire the same shells is supported by the FW stats for the ABC and VMB. Obviously platform affects things to some degree, hence it's got shorter range and fewer shots; something that's also supported by the FW rules.



Community driven development requires firm direction or you end up with discussions like this where everyone argues in circles and nothing gets done, it's the nature of committees. If you don't believe me, just look at the US congress. Progress means you have to have to start building at some point and someone has to make that decision.



I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that. There's a lot of feedback that's been taken and implemented in the AdMech dev and I have no doubt there will be more as time goes on.

_________________
-Vaaish

This isn't chicken and egg, this is burden of proof stuff, you are making up some stats (fine) but then refusing to even discuss said stats before playtesting (not so fine) I'm pretty sure that the community should maybe have some input in this?

I would say that sensible playtest discussion should be more along these lines

1. AC/Someone suggest stats, either based on GW fluff or preferably on realistic requirements of a list/unit
2. stats are kicked around a little
3. revise accordingly
4. playtest

you're taking some words that GW has written and have slavishly ported the stats from a titan weapon and are refusing to listen to any other point of view, you're just repeating the line over and over and over with nothing to back it up but 'that's what the stats should be according to the fluff'

dude we're playing a game, not writing a story, I'm fairly sure even diehard fluff nuts like Glyn (sorry to keep harping on you here Glyn! it's not meant in a malicious manner!) have to come to a point where they realise that game balance trumps all.... look at the Krieg discussion, right now the list is too potent and some fluffy choices are being considered for being cut, to balance the list



yeah, and I'm telling you to join in with that, it's a two way street, and haven't I been saying that it's not neccessarily a balance issue with the AMB but a power creep one THIS WHOLE TIME?



in your own time



no it really doesn't, that argument is weak, what happens when GW overguns another new model, do we HAVE to port the stats directly for that? I get that you want to reflect the GW fluff, amazingly I do too, but within the constraints of a well balanced game, and if compromises have to be made, it just has to be on the fluff side and not the game balance side, if we keep letting power creep up and balancing with points, armies get smaller and smaller, eventually we'll just have games of 40k on a small scale with small, incredibly potent formations playing checkers with each other

my suggestions are justifications to permit modifying the rules to reflect the application, GW don't do this because they're basically a bunch of idiots....



I literally could not care less about FW rules, or 40k rules for that matter, I don't play 40k, because *drumroll* the rules are horrifically imbalanced and it's pretty well established that power creep happens all over the freaking place in the name of selling models.... by slavishly following 40k fluff and stats surely you can see that you're just following 40k codex creep?



actually I disagree, discussion is good, excessive theoryhammering not so much, but in this case you're not being firm, you're being dictatorial, you're figuratively drawing a line in the sand with this.... firm direction is fine, but going against the majority opinion is not....

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

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Hi!

I haven't read all this. I just wanted to comment on the Hell Talon.
I play Chaos on a regular basis, and lately have tried the Hell Talon. I have to say it reads better than it actually is IMO.
First off all, the AA 4+ shot is very good indeed, but since it is also a Bomber you always have to choose which role to fulfill with the Aircraft. So if you Intercept, you forgoe your bombs, and vice versa. Also it is quite fragile (as are most aircraft).

Also, I feel that Chaos is very low on AA - they have the Obliterator, but it only hits on a 6 and isn't the most mobile thing around (also it is damn expensive).

Hellblades were already increased in points costs, so overall I think Chaos air support is within acceptable levels.

cheers

This is where you're wrong. The stats were created, we discussed them in the AdMech Skitarii thread, put them into the list and played using them a bit. Mordotan has a couple of reports using them and I've got a few quick summaries of games using them too that didn't point to the Avenger being a problem.

Skip several months and here we are with you guys screaming bloody murder (figuratively) that the Avenger is a problem contrary to everything I know. So where are we in your process? We are on step 4. PLAYTEST. If under stress testing there appears to be an issue we'll adjust but right now the ABC isn't up for discussion again (and I won't change the stats on it unless there's no other way to balance the formation). I'm sorry I don't have enough time to constantly revisit the same debates over and over.



That's fine but it should still inform you as to how a weapon or units FITS IN THE 40K UNIVERSE. Might I *again* point out that the stats for the ABC are based on the EPIC, NOT 40k VMB? In the simplest form, here's what I got from FW: the ABC is a VMB that has a lower rate of fire. With that in mind, where would you start looking to stat the weapon? I'd wager the Epic VMB.



Again fine if you disagree. However, just because the majority agrees doesn't make it RIGHT. Not to say that the AC's know better than anyone else on the forum, but it's our JOB to make sure the lists progress and are balanced. Sometimes that means we make the call despite majority opinion. We can't get anything done if everyone constantly second guesses us and tables changes for more (endless) discussion.

BTW here's Mordotens reports using the Avenger:
viewtopic.php?f=84&t=26490
viewtopic.php?f=84&t=26531

_________________
-Vaaish

In both those games Mordoten says the Avengers were great

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Aye, the same person that just today stated "Well if you've followed Vaaish development of the Titan and Skittarii lists thats actually how he does it. This is why 've [sic] decided to bow out of any further AdMech testings of lists even though they are my first choice of armies".

Wish you the best of luck on that but I think this thread has run its course. I want nothing more to do with the AM based avenger nor am even desiring to continue any effort attempting to have a debate where almost every counter argument is avoided, sidestepped, or ignored by you. You're unwilling or unable to engage in any meaningful discussion and conversation and simply keep repeating "fluff! 1/2 mega bolter. Rarrrrrt", ad nauseam. By your logic then the Fireraptor should just have a single Mega bolter since by the Distributive Law, 2 1/2 Mega Bolters == 1 Mega bolter. That's poppycock.

-You've been presented with hard numbers that show the relative abilities of the Epic thunderbolt in comparison to following 40k stats slavishly are no way similar. You refuse to refute nor even acknowledge.
-You've been offered plausible reasons as to how you can justify dropping the attacks from a stats perspective. -You refuse to consider those.
-You've been shown multiple instances of entire groups of weapons being swapped out in Toto from 40k as a single epic weapon of an alternate name. You refuse to consider those.
-You've not even explored other options by representing the firepower's effect by adding specials (how about Disrupt since it's a bullet hose instead of multiple amazeballz attacks???)

Worst is that you're completely missing the point of discussion. It's not if we can somehow come up with a point and list structure that somewhat is fair for how good the thing is at every role; It's that you're so off from the spirit of the game and opening the door for a cascade of one-up-man-ship that we're asking you to step back and think about it first.

Incidentally, I need some help getting some testing on my new tank, Steve/Kyuss. It's a Land Raider with 12TK(1) attacks. Don't worry though, we'll balance it with the costs and the formation size despite being completely outaide the spirit of the game [sarcasm]

Cheers

*edited to remove my inappropriate snarkiness

_________________
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!