Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

+1 AA on Intercept. Is it needed?
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=23579		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  BlackLegion [ Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:52 pm ]
Post subject:  +1 AA on Intercept. Is it needed?
In the discussion about the Space Marine Storm Talon Gunship here:
viewtopic.php?f=73&t=23196
the point was made that AA4+ on an aircraft is too powerful.
The point is that this is only the case because on Intercept orders an aircraft with an AA4+ attack will shoot with AA3+.

I know this rule was introduced to make Intercept orders more viable instead of relying on the "AA-umbrella".

For those who do not know what the "AA-umbrella" is:
After an aircraft moves on the board and performed its action it can still use its AA attacks on enemy aircrafts as Flak-attacks.*
At least that is the interpretation of the NetERC.

So you can move your, for example, Nightwings on the board and wait for enemy aircraft to fly semselfes in your front fire arc. So Intercept orders were seldom used.
With the +1 bonus on AA-attacks on Intercept orders this order is now much more viable.
But AA4+ on Fighter and Fighter-bomber aircrafts is now seen as overpowered.

The solution?

A) Disallow AA4+ on Fighters and Fighter-bombers. (so AA5+ max).
B) Remove the +1 bonus for AA attacks on Intercept.
C) Remove the "AA-umbrella" interpretation of the rule AND remove the +1 bonus for AA attacks on Intercept.
D) None of the above.

* Note that my interpretation is that an aircraft once on the board and not landed can only use its AA attacks if itself is the target of enemy aircrafts. This, too, is the consensus of the German Epic players on the http://www.epic-battles.de board.
So i voted for C)
Author:  Profit [ Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: +1 AA on Intercept. Is it needed?
I would keep both rules, but change it so that intercept fires *before* defensive flyer AA.
Author:  Ginger [ Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: +1 AA on Intercept. Is it needed?
Well I voted to make AA5+ max on fighters and Fighter-bombers.

The main issue here is that the A/c rules are not particularly well written and really need to be replaced, but this will not happen. Given that we are stuck with the rules as they are, (so cannot CAP enemy aircraft on CAP etc.) the best analogue for a fighter escort is provided by letting activated A/c use their AA factors against other enemy A/c later in the turn. (And no I am not a huge fan of this either!). So the player sends in his fighter squadron first, positioning them so that their arc of fire will provide a degree of cover for the subsequent Bomber formation when it activates. This in turn provides reasons for keeping the system as it is, even though it is far from perfect.

Keeping the +1 for Intercepting and CAP makes AA4+ over-powered in the context of the A/c rules. So we need to make AA5+ the maximum allowed on Fighters and Fighter-Bombers.
Author:  BlackLegion [ Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: +1 AA on Intercept. Is it needed?
@Profit: So you would want to make Interceptors even more powerful?
Author:  Ginger [ Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: +1 AA on Intercept. Is it needed?
Profit wrote:
I would keep both rules, but change it so that intercept fires *before* defensive flyer AA.

I am not sure that this helps either way, and it would certainly make the rules more complex.

Don't forget that the E:A rules are considered complete now and very unlikely to change at all, irrespective of whether we like the +1 amendment or not.
Author:  Profit [ Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: +1 AA on Intercept. Is it needed?
Well, presumably, if said rule was to be adopted, there would be less need to boost interceptor AA beyond 5+, as with the SM interceptor.
Author:  Steve54 [ Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: +1 AA on Intercept. Is it needed?
I'd be more interested if this poll discussion was based on playtesting rather than to attempt to alter the rules to get your preferred stats viable.
To vote based on non-netEA rules interpretations for a poll on a netEA rules change is nonsensical
Author:  Dobbsy [ Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: +1 AA on Intercept. Is it needed?
Why was +1 intercept introduced anyway?
Author:  BlackLegion [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: +1 AA on Intercept. Is it needed?
@Dobbsy:
As i stated in the initial posting:
Quote:
...this rule was introduced to make Intercept orders more viable instead of relying on the "AA-umbrella".


@Steve54: This vote is based ON the interpretation of the NetERC. The crux is that if the NetERC interpretation is wrong then the +1 to Intercept isn't needed anyway and no one has to be inconsistent with stats or is forced to rename some weapon.
Author:  kyussinchains [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: +1 AA on Intercept. Is it needed?
I'm relatively new to epic so not aware of the history, but as far as I can tell, the +1 to intercept is part of the core rulebook (as an official GW errata) as there is no ambiguity about it, the statement being:

"Aircraft that are carrying out a CAP or Intercept action may add +1 to all of their to hit rolls"

why is there any question? with the preponderance of air assaulting power often dominating the game, there needs to be something to balance it and the +1 intercept provides this, a few weeks ago I shot a landa full of orks down with a roll of double 4 from my thunderbolts, if it had survived (like the second landa who arrived afterwards) then I would almost certainly have lost the game, as it was it was very close and both of us agreed that it wouldn't have been as fun a game otherwise....

I think this is a case of fixing something that isn't broken, and perhaps too strict an adherence to a direct port of current 40k stats......

Also what's to stop you and your group house ruling it? if all your regular opponents agree, then don't play it that way! :)
Author:  Steve54 [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: +1 AA on Intercept. Is it needed?
BlackLegion wrote:
@Dobbsy:
As i stated in the initial posting:
Quote:
...this rule was introduced to make Intercept orders more viable instead of relying on the "AA-umbrella".


@Steve54: This vote is based ON the interpretation of the NetERC. The crux is that if the NetERC interpretation is wrong then the +1 to Intercept isn't needed anyway and no one has to be inconsistent with stats or is forced to rename some weapon.

That's 2 differrent issues, you're question is 'is the +1 to intercept needed' not whether the netERC ruling is wrong. 2 seperate issues and bringing the ruling up just confuses matters.

Have you got testing experiences/data showing +1 to intercept is overpowered/broken? If not then there is no reason for this poll

Trying to shoehorn your interpretations of 40k stats into epic and then trying to alter epic rules to make them viable is not a valid reason

Looking forward to seeing your playtesting
Author:  Kyrt [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: +1 AA on Intercept. Is it needed?
BlackLegion wrote:
@Dobbsy:
As i stated in the initial posting:
Quote:
...this rule was introduced to make Intercept orders more viable instead of relying on the "AA-umbrella".


I don't know where you got this from, but my memory of the time does not support this. The reason it was introduced was because intercepting never worked. Interceptors were very rarely good enough to survive defensive AA and then shoot down enemy bombers. It was felt this was a shame, and that something should be done to make intercepting a viable proposition.

The rule works fine, it means you sometimes (but still relatively rarely) manage to stop an enemy air assault and thus people actually use fighters for their intended purpose, whilst not also granting the same boost to the clunky tactic of trying to carefully position your fighters.

Personally I don't think AA4+ on intercept is overpowered per se, I just don't think the Storm Talon deserves it. After all, Ork FBs are arguably more broken. So this whole debate is irrelevant for me: assess each formation on its own merits and don't fork the rulebook just so you can introduce a new unit with specific stats. That would be madness.
Author:  BlackLegion [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: +1 AA on Intercept. Is it needed?
Quote:
and perhaps too strict an adherence to a direct port of current 40k stats......

Sorry but that has NOTHING to do with Wh40k. The Assault Cannon has stats in Epic already (30cm AP5+/AT5+ the Twin version AP4+/AT4+) and takes into account that an aircraft AA value is usually the same as its AT value (or AP value +1 if it hasn't an AT value)

Quote:
That's 2 differrent issues, you're question is 'is the +1 to intercept needed' not whether the netERC ruling is wrong. 2 seperate issues and bringing the ruling up just confuses matters.

If the "+1 to intercept" isn't needed then obviously the NetERC ruling IS wrong. ;)
Perhabs outside of Germany aircrafts are more heavily used but on our Tourneys every army has usually one formation of Intercept-capable aircrafts.

Quote:
Trying to shoehorn your interpretations of 40k stats into epic...

As i said above i'm purely argumenting with EA stats. If i would argument with Wh40k stats then the Assault Cannon would have 15cm AP4+/AT5+ on a single Assault Cannon (calculated with my WhES) which would drop to 0cm range if it is mounted on an aircraft with any other Fire Arc than Fixed Forward (current EA stats consistency). :D
Author:  kyussinchains [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: +1 AA on Intercept. Is it needed?
so rather than change a single weapon stat to fit in with a set of established and reasonably balanced rules, the rules themselves should change to accomodate the weapon stat? that's pretty uncompromising IMO...

Again, I don't know the history, but has the NetERC ever 'overruled' a rulebook rule which was not ambiguous? if not, I really don't think they should start now, just because a new unit which was developed FAR after GW dropped support for epic doesn't fit properly when given current game stats..... either the unit keeps it's stats, overepowered as they may be percieved, or has to change to fit the rules, or if a consensus cannot be reached, the unit will have to remain for friendly play only.....

edit: plus the thunderbolt has stormbolters which have AA5+ and AP4+, in the main game, they are limited to 'small arms' so there is a precedent for the same weapons having widely variable stats between air and land.......
Author:  BlackLegion [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: +1 AA on Intercept. Is it needed?
The Epic Thunderbolt isn't a Thunderbolt anyway.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/