I'm not convinced the Lightning has been particularly playtested since those stats were agreed upon.

Certainly they haven't been used by a main army faction (Chaos Marines) in 20 tournaments or so (worldwide) a year for several years.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

This is another case where the stats have been extended unnecessarily. The 45cm range may be appropriate for attacking ground targets - there are several such weapons and a/c - but not for attacking other a/c.

If the two separate ranges are deemed necessary for attacking the different target types, then there should be two stat lines - the same argument is true for the Hell Talon.

Hopefully these anomalies will be fixed soon to avoid a continued repetition of this debate.

The 45cmon the lightning is the defining featur eof this aircraft. After all it is armed with a long barelled Autocannon. This is the same weapon as the Hydra Autocannon.

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

Only surfacing to make a few small points and ducking back into cover:

1. E&C is correct that in all ways we must not re-stat a weapons system that already has stats. That is to be avoided.

2. Big cheers to Ginger on debating stats with a non-specific weapon name. I agree that if we cannot agree on using the AC with 4+ then we create a new weapon and go with it.

3. Just because a unit has a particular load out in 40k does not mean it is identical in Epic. The Thunderbolt is a prime example as it doesn't have the same weapons package as the larger game. AND YES I know that they've changed the load out over the years but EA has NEVER had a completely identical TBold stats. Trying to make the units isomorphic between games is not an end goal so if we need to create stats that have the "feel" of a marine interceptor at epic scale, so be it.

4. I agree with E&C that 4+ on the Helltalon is not the issue; Its absurdly long range is the problem. However if the consensus is that "ohhh 4+ scurrrrry" then in the sake of peace, let it go. But per #1, there is no way in hell that we're going to re-stat the AC.

5. In retrospect the blanket AP/AT/AA range for a weapons system was a rules/stats mistake. They should have been two (or even three if needed) lines with a big fat -OR- for how they get used per turn. Lesson learned and we can lament all we want but we're too far down the rabbit hole to change this now. =/

6. We need to avoid the temptation to "de-flavorize" this unit until it is simply a TBolt by another name. At that point this entire exercise it moot. Using the argument about "destablisizing a balanced list" is a strawman argument. There's NO reason this has to get slotted into Codex Marines. We've argued that dumping the Tbolt for a marine unique flyer is fluffy but not the end goal. Let's get the stats correct and then individual army champions can decide for themselves to incorporate it. The stats and suggested cost will exist for those that want to use them in friendly play.

_________________
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!

*looks at his own Timeline 300 game rules*
*nods*

What? :-p


Yar, this.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Agreed Jimmy, especially about using OR in the weapon stat-line to distinguish differences.

Guys, the maximums for any airborne AA must be restricted to be 30cm and AA5+ to make them comparable with the other weapons and capabilities in the game. Granted that AT/AP weapons can be up to 45cm (and the THawk gets more on the Battlecannon) but these fit within the generally accepted ranges of ground-based AA stats, which in turn provides an exciting and pretty well balanced game as a whole.

There is enough leeway within these constraints to provide distinctive stats for all A/c without having to resort to ever bigger / better stats, as I have demonstrated.

Anyhow, I think the point has been flogged to death

If there is a real anormality then it is the Thunderbolts stats.
That it is wysiwyg with the Epic model isn't an argument as the Epic model of the Marauder is armed with a nose mounted Assault Cannon, a pletora of Missiles and an Autocanno-looking rear firing weapon.
Yet its weapon loadout match the Wh40k model.

BTW: I would change Interception, Dogfights, etc to similar mechanics as an Assault between ground units. No AA value needed on the aircrafts just a FF value to denote how good it is in dogfighting.
Shooting attacks would be only for targeting ground units.

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

Just a note: 2xAA5+ is better than 1xAA2+ when intercepting. Be really careful about giving an interceptor more than 2 attacks, the +1 heavily favors multiple attacks.

<Dr Smith voice> OOOh the pain!

And I disagree with this (and you and E&C I guess). A weapon is more than just the pointy bit that you see poking out of a vehicle; it's as much the mounting, the targetting systems, the ammo feeds and bins and myriad different things that mean that the same gun mounted in different ways would have completely different ingame stats.

For a real world example (and from WW II, as 40k is basically WW II In Space!) the German 8.8 cm Flak (FlaK 88) was originally an anit aircraft gun which, thanks to the large barrel depression allowed by it's gun carriage, was found to be an effective anti tank gun as well. It was so effective that it eventually became the main armament of the Tiger I tank.

By your argument then, Tiger I tanks would have an AA attack if included in epic because it would have the same gun as the anti aircraft emplacement. Obviously such a tank shouldn't have an AA attack, but that's because the same gun is mounted differently, in this case in a heavily armoured turret with slow traverse and very limited vertical displacement.

Similarly, a dual Assault Cannon mounted in a dedicated AA turret on a large bomber should probably not have the same stats as a dual Assault Cannon mounted on a more limited turret on a minute plane. You could argue that the more manuverable platform of the thunder blade talon hawk pidgin should make up for this, but that's what the +1 to cap and intercept is for; giving a bonus to manoeuvrable planes when they're actively trying to engage other planes.



Again, I disagree. Orks do fine with one fighta bomba statline representing the myriad different flying contraptions they'd be seen fielding.

OK so can we now end this discussion and try and playtest it with 5+ armour & AA5+ for its assault cannon for 200 points per squadron???

This is where I would like to start them.

@MikeT: Better comparison: Twin Lascannonon Land Raider and Marauder Bomber.

Dobbsy: I thought it would be always better to start high and go down if a unit proves to be to powerful?
S oi suggest startplaytesting with 6+ Armour and AA4+ on the Twin Assault Cannon.

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

BL

You've got that backwards - too weak and ramp it up. Too powerful to begin with and it's harder to make people give up the favored stats.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Just out of curiosity here:

Where is this debate at?

Has some kind of consensus and\or majority position been found?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell