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

Hell-talons
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=23866		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  LordotMilk [ Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Hell-talons
Starting a new thread as the other ones are just too full.

I take note of the AC's opinion that 45cm AA is a bit difficult to handle in game, and tends to put the Helltalon in the position of an anti-aidraft fighter more than a bomber.

Now, the argument is not that the Helltalo IS a Fighter and a Bomber as this has already been stated, and this can be preserved even if its stats would evolve.

However, I must say that the current proposition for change makes it cleraly underpowered when compared with the Marauder, and even the Marauder is never chosen in Army lists.

Stats can go in many ways, but basically I would like to propose tweaking the stats (perhaps in the wyy Steve054 has proposed), and making it a 2DC WE. The FW miniature is actually just as big as the GW Thunderhawk miniature.

Thoughts?
Author:  BlackLegion [ Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hell-talons
The size (and Wh40k stats) don't support being a 2DC war-engine. K#COmpared to a FW Thunderhawk whichuses the same scale as the FW Hell Talon it is just to tiny.
Author:  LordotMilk [ Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hell-talons
Is this due to the Thunderhawk stats being too weak, or the Helltalon cannot be 2DC?
Author:  Ginger [ Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hell-talons
Several points:-
  1. Multi-unit WE in an air formation is to be avoided where at all possible, because it makes the formation much too strong: where a unit is damaged in a formation, it is easy to position the units so that subsequent AA hits fall on the undamaged unit(s).
    This has been debated extensively in the past on many occasions.
  2. As BL says, Fighter-bombers cannot qualify as WE because they are minute compared with Bombers and WE transports. Note the '6mm' scale only applies to infantry, the sizes of vehicles and especially WE are wildly inaccurate in their scales so cannot be used to justify the assertion.
  3. While it is dangerous slavishly to convert 40K stats all the time, they are a good guide. BL is very experienced in this, and he suggests they do not support this approach.
  4. I would strongly suggest following Steve's direction here, if only to avoid diluting the effort needed to find more appropriate stats.
Author:  LordotMilk [ Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hell-talons
Ginger wrote:
[*]I would strongly suggest following Steve's direction here, if only to avoid diluting the effort needed to find more appropriate stats. [/list]


I agree with Steve's intent.

I just find the resulting stats sub-par in many respects.

As it is, from a relatively useful formation that can swap from CAP early game to bombing end game, it just appears an inferior choice.

Perhaps a 4+ save on top of what they have would be good enough, or a point decrease to 200 for 2, or squadrons of 3 at 300 would do the trick.
Author:  Ginger [ Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hell-talons
It may also be that HellBlades are a relatively better choice, or that sub-optimal strategies are being used. For example, try using them to attack broken formations later in the turn rather than as CAP. This makes better use of their weaponry while also potentially allowing you to minimse the effects of AA.

Of the other options mentioned I would lean towards price changes rather than increasing the armour value, but this needs to be balanced internally and externally, which can prove hard to do.
Author:  LordotMilk [ Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hell-talons
Ginger wrote:
It may also be that HellBlades are a relatively better choice, or that sub-optimal strategies are being used. For example, try using them to attack broken formations later in the turn rather than as CAP. This makes better use of their weaponry while also potentially allowing you to minimse the effects of AA.

Of the other options mentioned I would lean towards price changes rather than increasing the armour value, but this needs to be balanced internally and externally, which can prove hard to do.


Well the CAP use was with a 45 cm AA shot, which is the reason for Steve's stat change in the first place.

As it is, if they can be shot back by enemy AA, you wouldn't risk 125 point 1-shot HTalons on CAP.

Actually, here lied the originality of the unit, to go from CAP duty to Bombing duty. Perhaps instead of making them more like Marauders, it would be good to give them an extra short ranged AA shot, so they can still function that way?

In any case, I still think IC should be Tzeentch's realm.
Author:  GlynG [ Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hell-talons
I don't think they should have IC as that's the preserve and advantage of the Tzeentch flyers.

2DC isn't appropriate based on the size of the model and the 40k rules.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/