Hey just spotted this thread and very keen to have another look at the elysians. The inital list of aircraft looks sound.

Honda, what is the latest version for this list? I'll aim to get a force together ASAP and start providing feedback. I love the FW fliers and should be able to test them out in the near future.

Personally i'd stick with the 3x AP4+/AT5+, and range wise trial, 45 then pull it back if required.

Cheers and good work so far.

Ortron,

The latest version is 2.1.3, however, I would hold off just a bit as I think we'll be ready to post the new a/c stats into an upgraded list.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Thanks for all of the comments, I spent some more time comparing these units to others and this is what I have come up with.

Some changes:

The Twin-Lascannons on the Lightnings were changed to Multilasers.  While I realize that is a change from the Imperial Armour/40K stats, in this case I think it works better.  Those are 30cm range weapons, so stats stay consistent in that regard.  It also kinda fits with how the T-Bolt had been re-worked.  I think it works, but I definitely want some feed back there.

I still have no idea what to do with the LIghtnings Autocannon.  How do you translate a long-barrelled Autocannon to Epic when you want it to have a short range.  Heck, the thing looks just huge on the model.

The Marauder Destroyer is looking pretty good I think at this point.  It would probably need to cost a little more than a regular Marauder, but it should be fair.

What about the Colossus though?  No-one commented on that.  I realize that as a unit it may be hard to know what to do with it until it gets played, but I was hoping for some feedback at least.

The Twin-Lascannons on the Lightnings were changed to Multilasers.  While I realize that is a change from the Imperial Armour/40K stats, in this case I think it works better.  Those are 30cm range weapons, so stats stay consistent in that regard.  It also kinda fits with how the T-Bolt had been re-worked.  I think it works, but I definitely want some feed back there.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

To be honest, I don't think we should change the name. The design trend for aircraft weaponry is to sacrifice their "true" range for game balance. So, I think we should just call them what they are and go with your stats. In 40K game terms, there is a huge differece between multilasers and a lascannon. Best not to do something that causes a question to be asked, as the first thing some may do is want to compare them to sentinels and chimeras.

At a second glance, let's lower the AA value to 5+, 4+ seems a little strong to me.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Instead of a one-shot have you considered slow firing?  We worked that into the Dark Eldar list as a way of mitigating the strength of the Razorwings and it has had favorable results and acceptance.  The fluff can be whatever you wish it to justify the slow-firing (ex. difficulty loading the ordinance in a timely fashion is one idea off the top of my head).  

And I agree that the anything we do with the aircraft needs to place them squarely behind the Eldar in firepower.  They are supposed to be kings of the sky after all.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

I agree with LitS position on the Lightnings and I'm fine with the name changes. I thought, well, I guess it doesn't matter what I think as it appears to be incorrect.

So go with the Lion and let's see how the fighters shake out.

Regarding the Marauder:

I'm Ok with the amount of firepower it is kicking out as long as we cost it appropriately.

It still has issues with being able to out-range most flak, though.  Not sure what to do to fix that issue.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Slow firing could work, although as you point out there are some issues.

I chose one-shot as the attack is based off of Spacecraft rather than Aircraft and spacecraft are a one-shot deal, so it seemed easier to balance.  The Colossus will already be better than a Lunar bombardment as you get to decide what to bomb on the fly.

I realize that planes are supposed to re-load between turns and my thought there was more along the lines of the Colossus bomb itself being exceptionally rare technology, so there are nor re-loads available.  

If the Colossus uses the OB template, it needs some limit on its firing, One-Shot or Slow-Firing.  If we want it to be more conventional, it could be 3BP, MW and come in flights of 2.  I would prefer to work out the MOAB approach, but that would make a good fallback.

The question about the slow-firing unit failing it's second activation is a good question.  I don't have an answer for it (although I'd like one now!   ).  My initial take is that in the example you set, if the aircraft activated on turn 3 it would not get the shot.  It seems unfair to reward a unit that has failed an activation.  Of course I am basing this on 'feel', not on a rules clarification and there have been times that my feelings have been wrong.

With all that said, this isn't a problem with slow-firing aircraft concept and more of a general need for an FAQ since the same thing can happen to Death Strikes and Warhounds too.

I am good with an OB template as a way to spice things up just as long the unit is priced appropriately.  That is a big difference in bombing area!

You figure the most these aircraft are going to be able to drop the big-boom-aroo on a slow-firing mechanism is going to be 2 times per game.  Turn 5 doesn't roll around that often in my experience.  However, resulting to Macro-Weapons IMO is a bad idea; they are over-used across various Epic lists already.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

from a pure game-play perspective, and ignoring the weapon names for the moment:-

4+ AA is OTT for both the Fighter and FB variants of the Lightning because of the 2008 rule changes that gives +1 for CAP and interception. So all a/c AA must be 5+ or 6+ for both consistency and playability.

As LiTS says, Lightning with 2x 30cm weapons gives extra punch over TBolt at 30cm, but weaker armour. Probably OK. Note TBolt works best chasing broken formations with a secondary role as AA. So the inevitable question is what is the Lightening's role here?? If it is really AA/ interceptor, then perhaps the ground attack stats are a little OTT. (bear in mind that the TBolts fulfills both roles as the IG do not seem to have a separate FB a/c). So I would be punting for a single AP5+ / AT6+ shot weapon per a/c.

IMHO Lightning Strike weapons have been set a little OTT, at least in part to distinguish it from the Interceptor variant. I'm with LiTS here that the 'cannon' stats should be the equivalent of a single weapon with weaker stats, and I would also limit the main weapon to 2x 30cm AT5+ to distinguish the A/c from the Maurader.

The Marauder Destroyer again as LiTS says, a very scary plane which is probably OTT, given you have 5x AT5+ shots at 30cm (where the current a/c would only yield 1x AT4+ and ~3x AT6+ shots at 15cm). So, I would suggest having a single 45cm AT, and 2-3 30cm AT4+ blasters as suggested.

On the Marauder Colossus The 3BP MW Orbital template is too strong IMO. I would be looking at 2BP MW 'normal' template.

However it really boils down to the number of a/c in the formation, which is missing from the original proposal by Shmitty, and IMHO is crucial here. Given the 'fluff' suggesting a heavy reliance on the a/c, I would suggest generally limiting weaponry and stats etc to permit formations of 3x a/c to be used with appropriate stats. So perhaps:-
- 3x Lightenings for 175-200,
- 3x Lightening Strikes for a similar cost (say 175-225),
- 3x Maurader Destroyers or Collossus for 300-400 points
(with weapons specifications for the Collossus to provide formation capabilities of 6BP 15 cm MW, 3x 30cm AP, and 3x 45cm AT for example)

Some corrections added for clarity

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Ginger, could you look over your comments again and make sure they match up with the correct names. We are looking at 4 different aircraft and I think you got out of sync a bit.

Just to define roles, here is what we are working with:


Lightning:  Fighter - Primary Interceptor.  It should be better than a T-Bolt at AA and be the Elysians primary AA asset.

Lightning Strike:  Fighter/Bomber - This is a Lightning reconfigured as a Tank Hunter trading an AA shot for some AT rockets.

Marauder Destroyer:  Bomber - Really more comparable to an A-10 or IL-2 Sturmovik than a true bomber.

Marauder Colossus:  Bomber - Carries one very big bomb as opposed to the conventional bomb load of the Marauder.  I see this operating in a flight of 1.

Comments edited as requested.

What formation sizes did you have in mind? If we go slightly larger to formations of 3x A/c, it gives the scope for some more variation in the weaponry per a/c and also makes the formation more resilient, so justifying the reduced armour.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I'm going to throw an idea out there based on some comments from Shmitty and Ginger.

On the Lightning Interceptor, what if we downgrade the AP to 6+? My reasoning for saying this is, it is supposed to be the IN Premier dogfighter. So, let's give it decent AA, but lighten up its ability to interact with the ground. Let's face it, even from a 40K perspective, one lascannon that hits on a 4+, re-roll misses plus one autocannon that's two shots hits on 4+ is not a huge threat to infantry.

So, why don't we carry that over to Epic and cut the AP values, maybe allow them to add another plane to create three ship flights and see where that leaves us? I like the three ship element idea as that gives them a little more endurance. If their ground attack values aren't so hot, then maybe they could be somewhat affordable.

The Lightning Strike should be a nasty AT plane, with downgraded AA, though with the Interceptor version at AA6+, if the Strike only gets one AA6+, they aren't going to be hanging around the battlefield looking for dogfights.

I think the Destroyer should be ugly. It has quite a fearsome reputation in 40K, and from personal experience against them, I don't like seeing them on the table. In a sense, the Destroyer is a kind of "Warhound" equivalent for the Elysians and two of them in a flight should be scary. The Elysians should also pay for that privilege.

Regarding the Colossus, let's work to see if we can stay away from special rules. I think we can and I like the idea that it carries an ugly bomb, but that it only gets to use it one or two times a game. That means the Elysian player has high risk associated with the high reward.

That is very "Elysian".

I do think that the Colossus will end up as a two ship flight to prevent spamming, otherwise they may end up costing 400+ each and no one will take them.

I've also invited Hena to come over and look at the stats so that we can get some more eyes on this.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

For figuring out the stats for aircraft-mounted weapons please look at this thread:

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/forums....klegion

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

I agree, Lightning should really have minimal AP abilities (no AP on the las weapon, a little on the autocannon), but we'd have to invent a new weapon name.  Remember, same-name-same-stats.

So, why don't we carry that over to Epic and cut the AP values, maybe allow them to add another plane to create three ship flights and see where that leaves us? I like the three ship element idea as that gives them a little more endurance. If their ground attack values aren't so hot, then maybe they could be somewhat affordable.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"