Which would modify my comparison table above to be:

150pts - Fighta-Bommer Squadron (3) - generates 1.5 AA hits - 3.5 hits required to kill
15pts - Barracuda Fighter Squadron (2) - generates 1.66 AA hits - 2.33 hits required to kill
175pts - Thunderbolt Squadron (2) - generates 2 AA hits - 2.33 hits required to kill
200pts - Raven Fighter Squadron (2) - generates 1 AA hit & 1 AA Lance hit - 4 hits required to kill
200pts - Stormtalon Squadron (2) - generates 2.33 AA hits - 2.33 hits required to kill
225pts - Hellblade Squadron (3) - generates 3 AA hits - 3.5 hits required to kill
300 pts - Nightwing Squadron (3) - generates 3 AA hits - 6 hits required to kill

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

improving weapon stats from AA5+ to AA4+ is 'arms creep' no matter what the points cost and irrespective of other stats and resilience etc. It is also unnecessary; if getting the extra 0.15 is absolutely vital you can achieve the desired effect by adding another weapon with AA6+ stats, so have three weapons at AA6+ (or whatever), representing the 'fighter' variant.

The key thing is to make sure that we don't provide the precedent for further weapons at AA4+.

Once the stats are agreed the modelling geniuses amongst us can create the appropriate Epic models to suit the weapons layout (or even present different weapons pods for different variants).

By that token, an aircraft with 3x 5+ attacks would be fine, but an aircraft with a single 4+ attack would be "arms creep", despite the former being much more powerful.

And indeed, there are more powerful aircraft than the proposed Stormtalon, including the Dark Eldar fighter which has an AA Lance attack.


So you'd be okay with a plane that has more average hits per attack run, just so long as you roll more dice to achieve the same end result?

I'm sorry but I don't understand the logic.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Me neither. And i don't understand this irrational fear about "arms creep" too as this doesn't exist.
IF a weapon is very powerful then give it the appropiate points cost.
And AA4+ isn't. Two Dark Eldar Raven Fighers have a better probavility to shoot down a Thunderhawk than two Storm Eagles have to shoot down a Vampyre Raider.

Addendum: Is fear of "arms creep" the reason why Ravens and Nightwings have only AA5+ instead of AA4+ on their Dark/Bright Lances? Because imperial aircrafts get the same AA value as the AT value of the given weapon.

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

I'm guessing it might be to keep their price in check. Nightwings are already the most expensive interceptor squadron in the game, do you want to give them more abilities so we'd have to increase their cost?

Storm Talons with 6+ save and AA5+ might be fine at 175pts. 1+ init gives an edge as interceptors, while being worse than TBolts at ground attack.

And why do Fighters get an advantage over Fighter-Bombers only on ground attack and not on intercept/cap?

My point is to do with avoiding setting a precedent, nothing more or less.

Once we have a Fighter / Fighter-bomber armed with an AA4+ weapon, this will be an invitation for the next A/c to have the weapon with those stats, and before long we will then have to review all the existing a/c stats in the light of these capabilities. So lets not go down this slippery slope to start with - OK?
(the train of thoughts on Nightwings and Ravens is exactly what we need to avoid!)

As for the mechanics, yes I would be happy if the A/c had several weapons with AA6+ or AA5+ so long as there are no AA4+ weapons on Fighters / Fighter-bombers. Indeed if you really want to tweak things, you could have a weapon with AA7+ in order to boost the overall stats to the desired state.

With your reasoning. How about this?

Space Marine Storm Talon Gunship
Type Speed Armour CloseCombat Firefight
Aircraft Fighter 6+n/a n/a
Weapon Range Firepower Notes
Twin Storm Talon Assault Cannon 2 x 15cm AP5+/AT5+/AA5+ Forward Arc
Twin Heavy Bolter 30cm AP4+/AA5+ Fixed Forward Arc

Formation of 2 for 200pts.

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

I'm sorry gavin, but I utterly don't understand why you'd rather have an aircraft with 3x 5+ attacks (1.5 hits) than an aircraft with 1x 4+ attack (0.66 hits).

Is it just the psychology of the thing?

BL's "all fives" stats are just BRUTAL and you'd prefer them??

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

@E&C: Off course not! But Ginger seems to be more fond of them...

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

As for "Arms Creep" it does exist, you and E&C are already doing it, let me explain what I mean.

Your both using the excuse that other lists and Aircraft have better stats for the points so it makes it OK for this weapon to gain a little on what it's replacing.
Again you may get the points correct but the stats have crept up slightly.
What then happens is something like the Storm Crow is released and this then gets a weapon with a tiny boost and a slight points increase with the excuse that other planes have good stuff too.
Then the Storm Chaffinch is released and the same thing happens with that, but after a period some are hardly used because they've become too expensive to be effective in games.
We then get players claiming that as the units are not being taken in games they are over costed or under gunned so need a slight points drop for them to be a viable option (any of this seem familiar) .

Personally it's not the fact the Storm Talon gets a boost to intercepting, I'd be happy with the 3x5+ attacks even though it would make the fighter better.
It's that your trying to use a weapon with stats that are better than they need to be even though it is only slightly better it is creeping up and this is setting a precedent for other weapons and new releases that will come .

No. BL is using the weapon stats that already exist in the game.
Twin Assault Cannons already have AA4+ when fitted to aircraft in both NetEA and your own EUK lists.

Zero creep there. Zero.


EDIT: side note - Storm Chaffinch is an excellent name. I want one! :-)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

"Arms creep" as i understand is is that one new unit is implemented with a good weapon.
Suddenly all other units of a similar kind seem to be underpowered. So they are changed too to be better or at least equal.

But there are already aircrafts which are similar in capabilities than the Storm Talon. It doesn't matter if unit A hits on 2+ but unit B has more shots which hit on 6+ as long as all have the same overall killing power (provided they cost the same in this example).

And as E&C stated: The Twin Assault Cannon already has a set AA stat. It's AA4+. The Marauder Destroyer is armed with one.

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

Yes and there's been a big furore to have that stat removed or lowered from anything that can intercept, on Bombers and for defensive flak it's OK as it doesn't get the +1.
The Helltalons went unnoticed at first as they were used mainly as Bombers it was only when they were used as CAP and Intercept units the problem showed up.

Assault Cannons (not twin linked) are already on the Marauder Destroyer with Just AA5+ (no AP or AT).
If the Storm Talon is supposedly a Fighter/Interceptor not a Fighter Bomber wouldn't 2x Assault cannons with just AA5+ and 1x Twin heavy Bolter fit it's roll in epic better.
Good Interceptor but really poor at Ground attack (BM layer really).
It may not fit with the roll it has in 40K but its roll in Epic would be different, a fighter shouldn't be needed for a game thats played in roughly a Football Stadium size area,

Uh, no, afaik and varring typos twin assault cannons are aa4+ in both netea and euk. It's got no ap or at stat there because it's a rear facing gun (no opportunity to ever need it), like the normal marauder's heavy bolters they're defensive only.

The only unit where there's been a "furore" was the hell talon, where it was stupidly also given a 45cm range.
Even then iirc the vote was not overwhelming iirc.

4+ is just a number like any other.
I find preferring a stat of 3x aa5+ (MUCH better) for the Stormtalon irrational.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

And what's happening now ?
Other Planes Have AA4+ so let's give the new plane AA4+ too. It doesn't matter that AA4+ on planes that can intercept have had complaints at tournaments and on the forum and players are reporting them as problematic.


If you've played the game for long enough you would know to a lot of players it does matter.
It may just be the perception to most players but 1x4+ and 1x5+ will always feel better than 1x2+ when playing the game.


Yes the E-UK one does but it doesn't have AP4+/AT4+/AA4+ and it's on a Bomber that can only use it in defensive flak and doesn't gain +1 to hit.
Again the Hell Talon has AA4+ on it's Twin Lascannon but has been causing concerns when used as an intercepter and no the range isn't what causes the problem.
When intercepting aircraft with no rear defensive flak it's still causing problems.