Then scrap slow-firing on the Manticore

It isn`t "direct conversion", it is "direct comparison" to existing Epic units wich work in a similar way.

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

All you need is a small die sitting on the base or nearby... same way we do with Warhounds...

I'm not saying I'm *for* the idea, but it could be made to work within current rules.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

What D2 shots then? Or how would you represent 1,5 shots?

But well 2 shots (Epic rounds up everytimes) will be in order instead of slow-iring.

You bend the rules of the units to suit the game not other way around.

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

Ehm...you know of my weapons conversion table? I came up with rules to directly convert a weapon from Wh40k stats to Epic stats and it turns out that nearly all of the stats i came up for the Imperial weapons are identical to the current Epic ones
Most other stats are identical to current Epic ones too.

@SkyRay: The current stats don`t have an AP value. This seems to be the main topic of this thread.
The current stats of the SkyRay doesn't take into account that Seeker Missiles can only be fired at markerlit targets.

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

Honda, I think what you are asking is does it make sense to give the Skyray an AP attack?

Well, while it is true that Seekers can fire on infantry, the same can be said of Lascannons and Bright Lances, etc that are often used to kill Termies, etc in 40k.  I think they are meant to be an AT weapon first.  The SM Missile Launcher gets an AP value as it can use a frag warhead.

Your point on the idea of it being a spread of fire from the Skyray has merit, but keep in mind that ALL shooting in Epic is assumed to be several shots.  

It would also bring in inconsistency in the list if all of the other Seeker Missiles in the army were AT only.

I don't want to see the Skyray become more expensive, in this case, I think it is best left as is.

@shmitty: I suggest you read posting number 5 and the second quote in posting number 3.

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

Ok, this proposal is not intended to start WWIII, this was just an idea that seemed to have merit. Adding an AP attack (1, 2, 3, or 4 of them) and dropping a unit seems like a no brainer to me.

That doesn't mean that the way I am looking at it is right, but I do struggle with why we are throwing in a number of complications that don't seem to be warranted.

I am not getting royalties for this, so if the response is   , then let's just blow it off and move on.

There are plenty of things to focus on and I'm just fine working the existing Stingrays into the list.

The other thing I was considering is that if the Skyray became more all purpose, then it simplified model purchases.

No biggee. Let's move on.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Good on you mate for trying to simplify things but I generally have to agree with Hena on this one.
Lets get the exising units working properly/costed correctly. No need for Slow Firing AA, pts increases to Skyrays etc.

_________________
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.

Well, my first question is why is this an issue? Is this to cut down options or because of an imbalance with the SkyRay/StingRay?

1. Eliminate the Stingray

Not keen on this. I like the StingRay as a unit.

2. Enhance the firepower of individual Skyrays (possibly 3 x AP5+ or 4 x AP5+)

Not in favour of this boost.

3. Only allow the Skyray as an upgrade to cadres, one or two per cadre

Possible, but it would cut numbers in a force, and the list has few non-Air Caste AA units as it is.

4. Points to be worked out

Possible.

I really dont think that we need a slow firing AA unit as it just adds more complexity to the list.

If there is a good balance reason to broaden the flexibility of the SkyRay then we could explore the use of it in a ground attack role. However, I am not sure that this is worth pursuing as a 40K alignment change.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

Perhaps there is another way of looking at this suggestion. Rather than having two separate sets of stats akin to the Predator Destructor and the Predator Anahilator, is there any merit in considering the two models as variants of a single vehicle with different battlefield roles like the Dreadnought?

This would result in a single vehicle with stats containing either weapons A&B or weapons C&D etc, and could simplify the upgrade paths - or is that too simplistic?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt