Quote:
just because "that's how it's armed by GW" when it's not necessarily balanced for Epic.
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 kill300 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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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*
Simulated Knave wrote:
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.
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.