Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

New Elysians List Released

 Post subject: New Elysians List Released
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
UPDATE: All edits were made this morning...like "crack of dark" morning and the file is in the process of being turned into a pdf for linking to the site.

As soon as that task has been completed, I will update this thread.

So some of the changes, off the top of my head:

* More consistent labeling
* The Marauder Destroyer has all the values we agreed upon
* Commissars are back
* Lunar only has one pinpoint attack
* Extraneous "Iron Discipline" labels are gone
* So is the Teleport on the Storm Troopers
* Misc edits, including setting the printing area to remove the extra pages


Of all the edits that I toyed around with, I think the most significant change is the dropping of Support Companies to 1 per Drop Troop Company. That's not what the list is all about.

Now, that still doesn't prevent "popcorning" in all cases, but it will ensure that those of you so inclined will not be spraying MW Sentinels all over the board...something I never would have considered doing...but then, that is the value of many eyes looking at a list.

Gotta love you tourney players.  :cool:

So, the new v2.1.5 022309 should be up before the weekend, all things being equal.

Now, I'm off to work and probably later in the week, the Kroot Merc List.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: New Elysians List Released
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA
May I ask about the Lightnings?

I'm trying to balance my Deathwatch Deathshriek's weapons loadout and I came here to see what you've been doing with the lightnings. What is going on with the Lightning's lascannons? These things don't even remotely begin to gel with any other lascannon datafax.

I was considering the following for "wingtip lascannon" for the Deathshrieks

2x wingtip lascannon  Range 30cm  Firepower: AT5+/AA6+
OR
Wingtip lascannons Range 30cm Firepower: AT4+/AA5+

This way, with the +1 for intercepts, this will be effectively be AT5+/AA5+, which makes sense for a lascannon (or AT4+/AA4+ for the pair). It has a shorter range due to the altitude that the aircraft operates at.

Now, what's going on with your stats? While your pair of lascannons do have AT4+ at 30cm range (pretty nasty!), they only have AT6+? What's that all about? Especially since you have a variant with AT rockets?

For this list, I would just have one type of Lightning and give it appropriate stats for the lascannon. I don't see why you have a Lightning with it's anti-tank capacity neutered and then give it back in the form of rockets.





Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: New Elysians List Released
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
LI,

There was a rather involved discussion on how we derived the final aircraft stats here:

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/forums/ ... 74;t=14641

The short answer is that the team focused on delivering stats that allowed the  aircraft to fit into specific roles using fluff and 40K performance to guide some of the decision making.

In short:

Lightning - Air superiority fighter

Lightning Strike - Tank Hunter

Marauder Destroyer - Kills anything it wants to

After you've read the thread, let me know if that helps.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: New Elysians List Released
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA
Okay, I read through. I note that noone seemed happy with AT6+ lascannon, going so far as to suggest that its a typo...

1) Do you really need two types of Lightning? Yeah, Forgeworld makes the shiny models. The Lightning Strike basically fulfils the role of a fighter-bomber without the disadvantages of a fighter-bomber which begs the question why they don't have access to Thunderbolt fighter bombers. You could always put a note in saying that you could use the Strikes as Thunderbolts if you wanted to use the model differentially.

2) AT6+/AA5+ doesn't seem to gel with anything. I know aircraft weapons are difficult to make similar to regular ones, but AT6+ for two lascannon? With the +1 for intercepts, that effectively means you have an AT6+/2xAA4+. That's 8xAA4+ at 30cm range for a squadron, holy Throne! You've built the ultimate interceptor, that's an expected 4 hits against an enemy at 30cm range (outside of bomber defensive flak). That's going to outperform Eldar (ish, they've got lance I realise).

3) Squadrons of four are pretty resilient, shooting down one isn't going to do much.

Overall, here's my suggestions:
- The strike seems out-of-place. It doesn't seem to have a defined role, other than as an AT-bomber with fighter movement. If you want interceptors, the regular ol' Lightings are massively better with four times the AA and twice the toughness for only 50% more points. Drop this from the list. If you want an anti-tank bomber then take a bomber, not a fighter. Perhaps, I don't know, the Marauder destoryer? Otherwise why bother?
- The Lightning interceptor is far too powerful a fighter to gang up in mobs of four. Three at most.
- Make the lascannon AT5+ for one, AT4+ for two. If that's not going to be the case, call it something else. Everyone knows the stats for a lascannon, and unless you've a really good reason for deviating. This will give the Lightning modest anti-tank capacity. That's okay, the Strike already fills this role. Cut down the squadron size and it'll be okay.
- Make the AA one less than the AT value. That way an AT5+ lascannon has AA6+, with the +1 that makes it AA5+ (which corresponds to the usual AA for a lascannon on a defensive mount). It'll look odd on paper, but in practice it'll make sense that a lascannon is AT5+/AA5+ (including the +1 to hit).
-  I don't see the nose autocannon as a dogfighting weapon. I don't know if it's got an AA mount in 40K, but a long-barelled autocannon seems a strafing weapon, rather than a dogfighting one. Perhaps that's just me, but I'd remove the AA from this (or make it a modest 6+).

So for the lightning, why not the following:
Twin wingtip lascannon Range 30cm AT4+/AA5+
Nose autocannon Range 30cm AP5+/AT6+/AA6+ (OR Range 45cm AP5+/AT6+?)

Or just remove the autocannon altogether and leave the lascannons.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: New Elysians List Released
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:51 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
The Longbarelled Autocannon on the Lightning HAS an AA-mount. It is the signature weapon of the Lightning Interceptor.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: New Elysians List Released
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA
By which you mean "the Lightning Interceptor has an autocannon." It's hardly the signiature weapon of the Lightning given that its an optional weapon system that can be removed when fitting the Lightning with hellstrike missiles.

I don't mean to belabour the point, but while Lightning + autocannon = "interceptor" is one thing, it's hardly the signiature weapon of the Lightning as an aircraft.

If it's got to be an AA weapon then give it AP5+/AT6+/AA6+.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: New Elysians List Released
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
LI,

Okay, I read through. I note that noone seemed happy with AT6+ lascannon, going so far as to suggest that its a typo...



I understand and accept that what has been worked up to date does not fit with your perceptions. My primary concern with this list is that it behaves as described in it's fluff, the primary source being IA3. There are obvious step outs, but the overriding directive is to produce a list that performs as described.

Not everyone agrees with that approach. I would ask you to consider the following:

1. Everything in the Elysian list has a role to fill. That is by design. As stated earlier, the aircraft stats came about from the concerted efforts of the team, given a design framework provided by me. Not everyone agreed with the final solutions, but I believe that the majority are willing to support where we landed for this round of testing.

If they aren't perfect (and their not), then we'll fix them based on our testing evidence.

2. I took great pains to ensure that if I wasn't very sure that a unit or formation wasn't going to create an imbalance, then I chose to make the unit undervalued. I think that it is much easier to add a little than take away.

3. The Elysian list (and according to their fluff) are extremely dependant on their air assets. In order to balance that fact/statement with a list that does not have heavy infantry, artillery, tanks, super heavy tanks, or titan assets requires a careful and measured approach. We are about to embark upon an extended period of testing to identify imbalances in the list. That exercise will turn up which unit/formations are undercosted or overcosted, based on play testing.

One part of the approach is deriving a mechanism that allows the Elysians to be able to depend on their air assets. In order to do that and not make them prohibitively expensive, we diluted the effect of the individual units in order to get the formation to provide the requisite characteristic.

We are stepping out into new territory in some regards, but we're still well within basic Epic mechanics.

However, if we have taken the wrong path on something, we'll address the issue, but again, after evidence has been produced through playtesting.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: New Elysians List Released
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6397
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
I took great pains to ensure that if I wasn't very sure that a unit or formation wasn't going to create an imbalance, then I chose to make the unit undervalued.


You mean overvalued (or undergunned) presumably?  If so, that is a good thing.  :;):

_________________
Current Fan-made Epic Supplements
[url=http://www.tacticalwargames.net/resources/raiders2.zip]Epic: Raiders 2.0

Epic: Siege
Making your own Epic Supplement
Syncing Forward


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: New Elysians List Released
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
We're probably saying the same thing.

In other words, when in doubt, you won't necessarily be getting all the value out of the points you spend on that particular unit/formation.

Another way to say it might be overcosted, that is, it costs more than it should.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: New Elysians List Released
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:07 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA
Quote: (Honda @ 24 Feb. 2009, 13:17 )

I understand and accept that what has been worked up to date does not fit with your perceptions. My primary concern with this list is that it behaves as described in it's fluff, the primary source being IA3. There are obvious step outs, but the overriding directive is to produce a list that performs as described.

That was a very nice and polical way to say "sod off, what do you know" there without actually addressing any of my points, wasn't it?  :p

I am totally with you on defining roles and game balance, but as much as you're trying to be true to the background on the Elysians, these aircraft bend the game consistency to breaking point.

- If you're set on the Strike, then make it a Fighter-Bomber to reflect it being laden down with rockets.
- 2xAA5+ at 30cm range is just too good for an imperial fighter. That's eldar-good and you can take bigger formations? Crazy.
- AT6+ is just weird for a lascannon and doesn't gel with any other lascannon profile in the game. It's confusing and out-of-place. Either give it an appropriate AT value or make it pure AA.





Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: New Elysians List Released
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:51 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5477
Location: London, UK
Umm Honda, I just have looked at the revised list and noted that the Lightning Interceptor, Lightning Strike and Destroyer are still out of line with the agreed recommendations originally published on the other thread.

As Lord =I= says, I thought we had agreed that the Strike variant would be a fighter Bomber. Also on reflection the cost of the Strike variant should be at least 225 to avoid the '5 aces' style list.

On the Interceptors, while I always argued for AA5+ and AA6+ for precisely the reasons presented by Lord =I=, in practice this is going to make little difference as the target is going down in flames anyway :p  (statistically this is 2/3 chance of a hit either way).

More importantly, IMHO the Destroyer formation really must not be 2x DC2 a/c even with an armour of 6+. Apart from the fact that it goes against the existing stats of the aircraft, this adds a whole lot more resilience to the formation in two respects:-
1) Enemy AA will need a minimum of '2' hits to kill a bomber
2) Even if one a/c is damaged, being a WE the player is still able to place that a/c further away from enemy AA so placing any hits gained on the undamaged a/c first thus improving the chances of both surviving.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: New Elysians List Released
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:08 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
Ok, we need to hold on a second and I need to apologize for some of this confusion. I have made the changes to the original and sent them off to CS to convert to a pdf. I posted my note about what I did so that you would be aware that I had made the suggested changes and what they were.

So, LI, let's hold on a second because I'm looking at one list and you're looking at another.

Okey dokey?

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: New Elysians List Released
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:04 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5477
Location: London, UK
Honda, is there any chance of posting the revised list tonight or latest tomorrow so we can test it in FSA? Alternatively, could you send it to me by pm.

Thanks

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: New Elysians List Released
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:00 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5477
Location: London, UK
Thanks for the revised list Honda - looks good at first glance. So no teleporting sentinels of doom then :agree:
(we may just have a quick test to verify the theory-hammer).

So D. and I will hopefully give it a spin on Sunday.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron

Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net