| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
|
These have been tossed around for ages.
I'm bringing them up again as I've a mate who wants to use them with his fanlist (mech guard, also in this forum).
So what should their stats be?
First off vs Thunderbolt.
The Lightning is faster, better rates of climb and dive, but less rugged and with a lower endurance.
Game wise to represent this there is fighter/fighter bomber ratings which reflect how good you are at ground attack (with fighters being better) and armour saves.
Both get to jink the same so that just leaves approach armour. Armour is most important for ground attacks, so in theory the Thunderbolt should be a little better.
Armament wise the lighting has two weapon fits.
Standard - Hydra Autocannon (45cm AP5+/AT6+/AA6+) and twin lascannon. On the Marauder this is 45cm AT4+/AA4+, and this does present a problem for fighters where 45cm weapons are extremely good (see copious previous discussions).
Strike - Lascannon and 6 Hellstrike missiles which if given current Epic stats would be nigh impossible to point on an aircraft.
The current SG thunderbolt has the following
Fighter bomber
6+ save
30cm AT4+
30cm AP5+/AT6+/AA5+ (AA4+ on intercept)
15cm AP4+/AA5+ (AA4+ on intercept)
150 points for 2
And no relation to any model in production or extrapolation of ground stats 
Personally I think the save should be even (6+) or not at all, a slight weakness for ground attacks.
I don't think as a rule fighter weaponry should exceed 30cm - however the Lightning seems built around its extra long barrelled autocannon so allowing this one exception I think is characterful.
So given whatever stats for the Lascannons are equal what then for the missiles? First off they can become generic missiles so seperate from any existing weapon stat line. Next off the range can be set to 30cm to give flak a chance.
The task then is one of two. Either you have Lightning versions worth different amounts or you have a more elegant solution of the same. This is my preferred solution to allow more army list flexibility.
The former is relatively easy. Just pick the numbers you like. Either assume the plane fires all its missiles or just some, determine the to hit of each missile and assign numbers. Firing all six and worth AT6+ each gives the following. Note Aircraft can only ever get negative to hit modifiers, so the higher the the to -hit number the weaker the shot as cover makes more of a difference. So for the above example
6xAT6+ = 1 hit or 1/2 for targets in cover
3xAT5+ = 1 hit or 1/2 for targets in cover
2xAT4+ = 1 hit or 2/3 for targets in cover
Anyway the strike has the Hydra Autocannon - 45cm, AP5+/AT6+/AA6+
Balancing with that is quite tricky. First off there are the lascannon stats - what proportion of the aircrafts firepower is the gun? Then much harder is how much you value AA ability over ground attack ability.
A slight diversion onto the lascannon is therefore called for.
The stats of 45cm, AT4+/AA4+ is just too strong for all the reasons that have been stated in the past for fighters.
First step is to give 'em a different name - in this case twin wingtip lascannon, then knock the range down to 30cm. What stats then? I reckon the choice is AT4+/AA4+ or AT4+/AA5+ or AT5+/AA5+. The weaker the weapon the more important the autocannon so I think, and many will dissagree, that the worse stats should be used. This also allows for a cheaper formation cost which is always good in a tertiary choice unit.
One other factor can be used to differentiate the two planes and that is the fighter/fighter-bomber status. Giving the strike fighter-bomber makes it slightly worse ground attack wise and allows a bit of disparity in the weapons fit.
So the stats fit into
Lightning Attack
Fighter
Twin wingtip lascannon 30cm, AT5+/AA5+ (4+ on intercept)
Hydra Autocannon 45cm, AP5+/AT6+/AA6+ (5+ on intercept)
Lightning Strike
Fighter-bomber
Twin wingtip lascannon 30cm, AT5+/AA5+ (4+ on intercept)
Missiles, 30cm, 3xAT5+
What's worth half the AA value and long range ground attack AP5+/AT6+? I reckon go with 3xAT5+ for now and see how it goes. Thats one attack for the ground, one for the AA and one for the range and fighter advantages. Not scientific, but hey If too strong tune down, if too weak tune up starting with 2xAT4+
The we come to points cost. The point of comparison is the existing thunderbolt
Fighter-bomber, 150 points for 2
6+ save
30cm AT4+
30cm AP5+/AT6+/AA5+ (AA4+ on intercept)
15cm AP4+/AA5+ (AA4+ on intercept)
The Lightning is
Fighter
Twin wingtip lascannon 30cm, AT5+/AA5+ (4+ on intercept)
Hydra Autocannon 45cm, AP5+/AT6+/AA6+ (5+ on intercept)
I reckon they are about the same with advantages and disadvantages, so for now would start with 2 for 150.
If too weak try 3 for 225, if too strong 2 for 175.
So thoughts?
And does anyone have any ideas for the FW thunderbolt? How to make a plane that is worse than the nightwing weapons wise and not to much points wise?
It seems starting point has to be
Fighter-Bomber
Save 6+
But how to factor in the two lascannon and 4 autocannon?
I reckon two options for lascannon.
1) Stats same as Lightning
2) Just an AT value and say that the software for use in AA missions from this forgeworld corrupted and had to purged 312 years ago.
Also several options for Autocannon (remember autocannon AA values aren't set yet and there are various ways existing weapons change when given air mounts, see thunderhawk for an example).
1) Quad weapon
1a) 30cm, AP3+/AT4+/AA5+ (4+)
1b) 30cm, AP3+/AT4+/AA4+ (3+)
2) 2 Twin autocannon
2a) 2x 30cm AP4+/AT5+/AA6+ (5+)
2b) 2x 30cm AP4+/AT5+/AA5+ (4+)
Given the restriction of being worse than the Eldar (4+ save, Fighter, 30cm AA5+ (4+) Lance and 30cm AA5+ (4+) ) I think a lot depends on the lascannon stats. Given the above AT5+/AA5+ the only option is the Quad AA5+.
Thoughts?
_________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
|
|
