Rug, I agree that generally, Ork Landas and Thawks do not really need extra protection - but this idea of providing some form of escort to ensure the success of a ground assault has been around forever. The question is both whether it is feasible and whether it is reasonable.

Dptdexys, IMHO the main problem with CAPing CAP (yours and option #2) is down to the sequence of who shoots what and when, especially when ground AA etc is considered. Multiple formations on either side creates huge complexities and becomes very time consuming to unravel in my experience.

One of the main reasons why I prefer Lord =I= option #1 is that essentially there are still only two formations, the bomber plus escorts and the CAPing fighters. However it does raise a number of technical issues on how it would operate. For instance

• Can surviving CAP fighters elect to shoot only at the bombers?
  
• Can surviving escort fighters be used as a screen against ground AA?
  
• If shot at, should both formations get a BM?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

If you want escorts buy them as an add on for the bomber formation. Just allow them to turn to unmask if the formation is cap'd.

Mega reply of doom here, I'll just bold rather than quoting wholesale

Ginger:

While I understood 'formation' coherency, I was wondering whether the fighters also needed to maintain coherency to the other fighters in its 'squadron'.

Oh, right. No, just treat it as one big formation.

On CAP I think you are right, but in turn this ought to limit the number of 'escorts' that can be used to accompany the bombers. Hence the suggestion that only two formations can activate in this fashion.
Absolutely. Only one escorting fighter formation! 1 bomber squadron + 1 fighter squadron, that’s it!

Back to the mechanics a sceond, do you envisage maintaining the current process for option#1, so resolving all AA against the fighters first before resolving the attacks of any remaining fighters on the combined formation?

For option 1, there is no change whatsoever in the current order. The ONLY change is that the escort fighters can turn before firing. So that means that the escorts fire along with the defensive flak from the bombers (i.e. before the fighters but no +1). Mind you the attackers get the +1, they get to set the range and they get to set their position of attack (which might well cut some of the escorts out of range), so I think they still have “the dropâ€Â

. . . All of the above complexities is why I think Option #1 is superior to Option #2 (quite apart from actually being more realistic).

On shooting priorities, the reason for asking is that if we apply the strict RAW from elsewhere, as transports are WE they *could* be targeted separately. To some extent that negates the intention behind providing an escort 'shield'.

On BM for shooting, here it would seem in the spirit of the rules to add a BM for each formation being shot at that (so both the escort and bomber get a BM). Otherwise this could be used to avoid putting BMs on one or other formation making it more viable next turn.

Other than that, it would seem to be potentially workable, but as Rug says, is it really necessary? I guess this would really come into its own in larger games where the loss of an additional activation is less important, and where there are more air formations available.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I think WE can only be picked out by TKs? In which case (Necron Pylons, I think are the only ones), yeah, without making the rules more complicated they could be picked out. But that doesn't seem that unreasonable - well, not any more unreasonable than Necron Pylons already are...

If you can pick out WE with interceptor fire that's a problem, but if that's the case can you link me to the rule?

I realise it would be in the spirit of the rules to assign BM to both formations, but I don't see an easy way to do it. I think getting away with 1 less BM is not a big deal.

Is the rule needed? I think so. It's particularly highlighted since I've been playing a list with 6 bombers, 2 fighter-bombers and 4 fighters, but any came with one side having fighters and bombers and the other having fighters can throw this situation up.

Actually, you could put all BMs gained on the escorts for example including any for lost fighters (well they were a screen   ) leaving the bombers without any BMs for the next turn. I can see some people crying 'foul' or worse if this is permitted as it could be quite a big deal (it improves the chances of activation by at least 1/3).

However, from a rules point of view, I think you could put this all together in the same place. After all, the new section already has references to activation, being considered a single formation, enhancements and restrictions to fighters etc, so a quick note on extra BMs is not going to make much difference.

On hit allocation, I would have thought this would apply
3.2.1 Allocating Hits To War Engines (2nd para)
If a formation includes both war engines and non-war engine units then an attacker must state whether any attacks he makes on the formation will be directed at the war engines or the other units in the formation. Attacks directed at the war engines can only be allocated against war engines if they hit, while attacks directed at other units may not be allocated to the war engines in the formation.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I did say that the BM must be allocated evenly between fighters and bombers. Only any odd last BM can be allocated at choice.

On hit allocation, I would have thought this would apply

Well, I was thinking about the Bm for coming under fire on the way in, and a second on the way out (apart from any BMs for losses which would be applied to the relevant formation). So I guess we could allow the player to choose (all on one formation), split them evenly (one each), or apply the spirit of the rules (two each).

In any event, this ought to be specified in the section being drafted.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Okay, how about this for a tighter wording? I'll use footnotes to seperate the rule clarifications from the rules.

Squadrons of fighters may form up as escorts for bombers, producing a combined formation known as a wing (1). You may declare that a single squadron of fighters (2) are flying escort when activating the bomber formation on a ground attack mission (3). Both formations take a single test on the bombers initative, counting Blast Markers from both formations against the test. Should the bombers fail to activate the whole wing stands down and the fighters may not attempt an action of their own later in the turn.

If the activation roll is successful, the wing is considered a single bomber formation for all intents and purposes until the end of the turn (4). There are two exceptions: firstly, fighter planes may not participate in the ground-attack mission (they are watching the skies), and secondly, if the formation is intercepted (5) by enemy aircraft, then after the enemy has made its approach move the fighters may make one turn of any amount (6). The wing disengages together and are split into their respective squadrons once off-board. Blast Markers held by the wing are divided evenly between the two squadrons (7); if there is an odd number, the last Blast Marker may be assigned by the controlling player.

(1) - Note that fighter-bombers may neither escort (they aren't maneuverable enough) nor be escorted (they are expected to look after themselves)
(2) - Note that the fighter formation may not have performed an action earlier in the turn.
(3) - The bombers may not land as part of the Ground Attack.
(4) - The wing moves together and will receive Blast Markers as normal for a formation.
(5) - Either by a CAP or later in the turn.
(6) - Only one turn made be made, regardless of how many enemy formations intercept. Note that the fighters fire at the same time as the bombers' defensive flak and do not receive the +1 to hit. If the bomber is a War Engine, hits must be allocated as per 3.2.1, otherwise hits are allocated exactly like any other formation (i.e. front-to-back).
(7) - If there is only one squadron remaining due to casualties then they retain ALL of the Blast Markers!

Umm, why prevent Fighter bombers being escorted? And equally why not allow transports to be escorted? Both seem reasonable and neither appear 'overpowered'.

Really unsure about the wording on BMs, as potentially all the escort fighters could be shot down and this wording would load their BMs onto the bombers.

How about "Blast Markers for being shot at during the approach and disengagment are shared evenly by both formations, otherwise they are applied to the relevant formation that suffered any losses."

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Not allowing Fighter Bombers to Escort means that of the 10 core lists only Eldar and Black Legion can Escort.

Its something I never really noticed until a year ago but the ever present Thunderbolt is a fighter bomber.

Good point Mephiston. For what it's worth, I believe the "Fighter-bomber" type is supposed to represent agile fighters laden with weaponry, fuel tanks etc that rob them of their manoeuverability. Consequently I agree they ought to be able to escort other aircraft. They would just have a different weapons load-out for the role

This is dangerously close to suggesting the use of different weapon stats for the different missions (which I would really like), but that goes way outside the realms of the acceptable in E:A terms

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

The reason for not allowing landing is that it would produce a formation where the bombers are landed and the fighters are airborne - particularly in the case of air assaults, that would be absurd to treat them still as one formation.

I think Landers don't really need the support, but if it were really desired, then we can add a rule saying from the moment of landing (i.e. after interception) the two formations split up. But it seems unnecessary fiddly.

As for fighter-bombers, you have a good point. I was concerned about Ork players lumping two squadrons together into a mega-squadron, and also to show the neither-here-nor-there nature of fighter bombers. That said, you have a good point - imperial armies don't have fighters for the most part! So we can either remove the stipulation about fighter bombers entirely (so they can play bombers or fighters). Since they can't use their bombs/rockets when being an escort (as they can't assist in the ground assault), they can be assumed to be stripped down for fighter duty.

If you allow Fighter bombers to escort, but not be escorted you fix the 18 ork Fighter bomber formation of doom!

Just a thought