Of course hell talons are causing problems - it can stand well off and avoid other AA.
What other aircraft in the game has 45cm offensive AA?
None, right?

Attacking aircraft without defensive AA?
Then you want hellblades because you get more hits for your points.

4+ is just a number.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

But becomes a different number when on CAP or Intercept.

Maybe I don't play the game enough to know as much as you two do so I'll bow to the greater experience and will not say another word on the subject* .




* at least for a couple of weeks.

It is 'just a number' that is only available to one other problematic fighter-bomber, which should not have that either.

Why are you so determined to use this stat, when there are other ways of achieving the same end without setting the precedent?

Epic does have a set of guidelines that's applied pretty consistently across lists. One of those is that weapons keep hit values even across different units, and that twin-linked gives +1 to hit.

I'm more wary that the Storm Talon will be a significantly better interceptor than the TBolt. It's not being added to address any balance issues, so it should stick pretty close to the exisiting aircraft (IMO).

Hence my preference for AA5+ in the stats.

I see both sides, but I'd like to err on the side of keeping the status quo (down down deeper and down) as best as humanly possible, given the differences in the a/c weaponry etc.

I know it's not canon given the twin-linked guideline, but I feel it's fairer and more easily acceptable regardless of who sits where in the argument.

Can the argument please now move to whether 5+ or 6+ armour save?

Personally, I think if it goes to 6+ (as seems warranted) then I think the squadron could be 175 points and have a nice even trade for Thunderbolts in a Marine list (which lists, is still to be decided).

If it's gonna be 5+ with 6+ armor, I'm really unsure why we don't just treat them as proxies for Thunderbolts. At that point, it's not much of an abstraction at all.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

And proxies are part of my view on this plane's design. I'm not aiming to make the plane a super-Thunderbolt to slot in the Marine lists (part of the reason why I don't think a poll will help is because who wouldn't want AA4+ for Marines, other than opponents?). My aim is to make the transition as simple as possible to begin with.

I'm not really in favour of adding myriad new things to the lists just because GW want to sell new toys for Apocalypse or what-have-you. That is "arms creep" to me. If people want to see this plane that's fine but I don't like the idea of adding direct stat transfers to new gear just because "that's how it's armed by GW" when it's not necessarily balanced for Epic. As has been said, even the Thunderbolt isn't armed with what GW has armed it with in 40Ketc.

Look, all this said, if it proves that it's not any good we can look at going with an AA4+ but at this stage I think that if it's reasonably similar to a TB then it really won't be too much of an issue and if it performs similarly to a TB then could even be looked at putting in the Codex list in the future without too much hassle of a changeover.

I generally agree with your post Dobbsy (accept I don't think it will ever be necessary to give the thing AA4+).
I'm happy to see anyone use these things (if a model ever became available) as proxies for Thunderbolts in any Marine list.
Don't really see the need to add these things to the Codex Marine list. The list is balanced.

_________________
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.

If you will permit me one final comparison, I will show what 4+ to hit really gives you.

If you don't want the comparison here, please feel free to delete it.


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 (AA4+ version)
225pts - Hellblade Squadron (3) - generates 3 AA hits - 3.5 hits required to kill
250pts - Helltalon Squadron (2) - generates 1.33 AA hits - 2.66 hits required to kill
300 pts - Nightwing Squadron (3) - generates 3 AA hits - 6 hits required to kill


I've added the Helltalon.

For all it's amazing 4+ to-hit stat, it is, bar none, the single worst interceptor squadron in the game for applying hits on the enemy.

Its armour is sub-par, its fighter-bomber status mediocre, its Initiative 2+ rating unremarkable.

The problem with that plane is that it is armed with the longest range AA gun in the game, and it's utterly wrong to say that the problem lies with its to-hit stats. Quite simply, wrong.


See above. It's just player's false perception.

It cannot be "causing problems" firing at aircraft with no defensive flak due to its to-hit stats, because the squadron generates just 33% the number of hits as compared to the cheaper Hellblades. If there's a problem, it's because of its (AFAIK uniquely) long range.



If it's going to be less useful at ground attack than a Thunderbolt, but with Initiative 1+ & fighter,
then with 5+ to-hit, and 6+ armour, I'd probably agree with your suggested pricing of 175pts.


Alternatively, drop the Heavy Bolters (and the plane's attempt to be an AA asset), replace them with the Typhoon Launchers option. It'll then become a more focused ground-attack plane, with longer range to compensate for its worse AT/LV targeting performance as compared to Thunderbolts. Or maybe that configuration could fill-in for Marauders. *shrug*


I kinda agree, the stats have been massaged so much by that point to be Thunderbolt-like that I'm not certain it's worthwhile doing anything other than just re-naming the Thunderbolt.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

<Rant mode on>
Another guideline is that the same weapon in the air is sigificantly reduced in capability, which is why there was originally only one AA4+ weapon (on a bomber), and all airborne AA weaponry was limited to 30cm.

Then we had a long argument over the Tau AX-10 Tigershark, and then the Chaos stats were introduced, and now we are arguing over the Storm Talon and potentially others. It is this constant erosion of external balance that I am objecting to.

And again just so it is clear E&C, it is the precedent that is my concern.

• You are using the precedent of the Helltalon to argue the use of these stats.
• If accepted, the Storm Talon will be used to argue the case for improving the stats elsewhere
• With several such aircraft in play, others (possibly including me) will be arguing to improve the stats of existing aircraft to maintain the balance (Night Wings and Raven have already been mentioned)
• We will then have to go around revising lists and publications etc, at great effort and expense (albeit over some time).

Perhaps the most important guideline is that people should be able to pick up the original book and play with the stats that were published nearly 10 years ago.

<Rant mode off>

For the other forum members who are probably as bored of the repetition as I, a discussion on the stats as a whole:

Armour:-
5+ can be argued as the a/c is smaller and more manoeuverable (think WWII Zero). If it is a fighter it does not 'need' to fly through flak to hit a target, it is waiting up-sun to pounce on the unwary with CAP / Intercept

Weaponry:- As a fighter it should only have light to moderate weapons and be considerably worse at attacking ground targets, slightly favouring AP targets over AT. However its AA weapons should excel.


So how about these stats (and yes I am being serious)

Space Marine Storm Talon Gunship
Type Speed Armour CloseCombat Firefight
Aircraft Fighter 5+n/a n/a

Weapon Range Firepower Notes
2x (insert weapon name) 15cm AP6+/AA5+ Fixed Forward Arc
(insert weapon name) 30cm AP5+/AT6+/AA5+ Forward Arc

Formation of 2 for 200pts.

This gives a formation of 2x A/c limited AT capability (0.33 hits), poor AP capability (1.33 hits), but excellent AA capability on CAP / Intercept at close range (3.0 hits) - though there is the gamble that you might have to brave Flak to achieve this

Mostly I'm just saying that all the fuss over the Helltalon's 4+ AA shot is utterly undeserved (as noted above, it's the worst hitting interceptor squadron in the game, bar none).

It's utterly mis-placed concern, because the real issue with the Helltalon is its absurd range.

The real precedent I'm using to say the Storm Talon's Twin Assault Cannons should have AA4+ is that Twin Assault Cannons already have AA4+ on another aircraft in both NetEA and EpicUK army lists.


I don't see why that would happen.


Overpowered, IMO.

A huge jump in power creep, they'd perhaps be the best interceptors in the game, and would require much more testing to balance than an AA4+ Stormtalon would.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

If the Storm Talon should be a better interceptor than the TBolt, it should start with proper stats on the assault cannons, ie 4+. 2x5+ is better than 4+, especially with +1 to hit for intercept/cap.

I think that the Storm Talon should have 2xAA5+ total, like the thunderbolt, but that's just, like, my opinion, man. Turning twin-linked assault cannons into 2x5+ to avoid having a 4+ stat is just stupid.

Please note I did not mention weapon names, merely the possible stats. If the stats are considered too powerfull, then reduce them appropriately. Once we have the power about right, then we can assign the appropriate names to them (or use the 'revised naming' convention as appropriate).

So how about

Weapon Range Firepower Notes
2x (insert weapon name) 15cm AP6+/AA5+ Fixed Forward Arc
(insert weapon name) 30cm AP5+/AT6+/AA6+ Forward

OR

Weapon Range Firepower Notes
(insert weapon name) 15cm AP6+/AA5+ Fixed Forward Arc
(insert weapon name) 30cm AP5+/AT6+/AA5+ Forward

We can also increase the arc of fire to "Forward" on the relavant weaponry to increase the AA 'bubble' that would be guarded by the A/c for the rest of the turn (so simulating greater manoeuverability).

The use of '2x weapon' also allows us better control over the stats and power of the formation. This is because of the way that the +1 on CAP and Intercept skews the results. This is actually another reason to use several smaller stats rather than one big one.

@E&C The Ligttning was agreed uopon the following weapons stats:
Long-barrel Autocannon 45cm AP5+/AT6+/AA5+, FxF
Wingtip Lascannons 30cm AT5+/AA5+, FxF

Formation of 2 for 150pts. Available to at least two Imperial Guard lists.

I have the feeling that the initial range reduction for being able to shoot AA and wider fire arcs is a big failure.
Without range reduction AA tanks as the Hydra would have a range of 75cm, most aircraft devensive AA would have a range of at least 30cm, etc.

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