One thing you may want to consider are flights of 4 or 5 lightnings.  The reason why I say this is because the Elysians already have the potential for being a popcorn army and have virtually no expensive formations.  Having larger formations of fighters and fighter/bombers allows the planes to have tremendous resiliency, but it also limits their ability to strike whenever and wherever they please.  Because of the expensive nature of the formation, the Lightnings will be brought in to the area where things are most dire (which is realistic).  It also has the benefit of distinguishing itself from other IG lists.  The Steel Legion have 2-plane formations but it is mentioned that this is rare.

I have my reservations about the special rule for the Collosus.  In fact, the more I think about it the less I like the OB used at all and I am tending toward the standard barrage templates.  I'm not opposed to it - just concerned.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

well, I have tried to synthesize everyones comments into another set of stats to look at.  I also went ahead and added some formation sizes as a starting point for discussion.  We need to settle on the stats a bit more before we get into costs too much, but formation size relates to desired stats I think.


Lightning  I went a little further than suggested in reducing the Lightnings ground attack ability.  The reason for this was the additional desire to make it a formation size of 4.  With only 1 ground attack per plane, the 4 lightnings have a ground attack capability typical of fighter formations, with 2, they are as good as most bomber formations.  I think it gives it a nice separation from the Lightning Strike and T-Bolt.   I went ahead and chose 4 over 3 as Forge World sells these in packs of 2 and it who wants a leftover Lightning?  It also gives them an absolutely terrifying CAP formation, with the limitation of stopping one bomber a turn.

Lightning Strike  Switching to underwing rockets at 30cm helps bring it weapon package in line with other fighter/bombers, which is a good thing.  Making it 3x attacks with those would be too much I think for a fighter bomber.  I would rather keep it at 2 rocket attacks w/ a stat tweek then a 3x attack.  Still, this will be a good AT unit.  The formation size here could change, but felt right for a more specialist plane that in theory would be less abundant than regular Lightnings.  

MD  I swapped some ranges around and increased the number of rocket attacks.  I feel like 6 ground attacks per plane is a bit much though.  What would be the options if we consolidated to the 8 hellstrikes/rockets into 2 shots?  Maybe 2x AT2+?

Colossus  I hadn't mentioned it before, but I had intended these to be limited to 0-1 per army.  If we go with the OB template it needs to be 1 plane, as we don't want a double template barrage that big.

I think it can be fair and rather a tense game moment.  The power is no greater than a Lunar, but with the ability to deliver where needed.  The 15cm range assures that it must fly into the Flak umbrella to attack, so that it can be countered by the opponent.  If I was using one, I would likely have it stand down until the third turn when I really needed the firepower.  I would say someone should try it as is (in any army really) just to see how nasty it might be.  If it seems like a bad choice we could go with a formation of 2 with more BP and perhaps ignore cover or something to represent the big bomb.

I'm still not sold on Multilasers on the Lightnings. Name them Wingtip Lascannons with 30cm AT4+/AA4+ Fixed Forward Arc and it will do.

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

I just wanted to say real quick that this thread hasn't died, I've just been up to my ears in Tau stuff.

I will get back here in a day or so to summarize where I think we are and then we'll go from there.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Well i have a personal interestinj in the stats for the Lightning and Lightning Strike because i plan to use them in my Armageddon Steel Legion PDF armylist to differentiate them more from the Imperial Guard Armageddon Steel Legion
(see this threadhere: http://www.tacticalwargames.net/forums/ ... =74;t=9471)

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

Ok Shmitty, thanks for the stats.

Lightning
Considering the models for a second, while FW does distinguish between the Strike and the Interceptor variants, this would seem to be achieved through the weapons included. Is it possible to buy two packs of 'Strike' Fighter-bombers and one pack of 'Attack' fighters and combine them to be two sets of '3' of each? If so, I would strongly recommend keeping both in formations of '3' and compensating accordingly.

On the Lightning 'attack' interceptor stats I wondered whether they should be quite as good as the Eldar Nightwings? So, perhaps we could rejig things slightly (and reflect the model as well) by the following stats. This would result in the interceptor formation having 3x AA5+ and 3x AA6+ at 30 cm, (much better than the TBolts 2x AA5+) while being marginally inferior to the Nightwings 6x AA5+. It also gives the formation 3x AP/AT shots which is worse than the TBolt.

Lightning 'attack' interceptor (Formation of 3) (cost 250)
Fighter
Armour 6+
Light Autocannon    - 30cm  AP5+/AT6+/AA6+  Fxf
Anti Aircaft missiles  - 30cm  AA5+                    Fxf

Adopting a similar approach for the Lightning Strike Fighter-Bomber, the formation gets 6x AP/AT shots, which is better than the TBolt, and statistically the same as the Nightwings (though they also have lance).

Lightning Strike    (Formation of 3) (cost 250)
Fighter/Bomber
Armour 6+
Light Autocannon    - 30cm  AP5+/AT6+/AA6+  Fxf
Underwing Rockets - 30cm  AP4+/AT5+            Fxf

In taking this approach, I also hope the cost of each formation would be similar, around 250. This reflects the weaker armour and weaponry relative to the NW etc.

Marauder
Destroyer formation of two under these stats is way OTT IMO (unless you want to bump the cost up accordingly). 12x AT shots and 6x AP shots anywhere on the table is something between a Reaver and a Warlord titan though not as well armoured. The current Marauder formation kicks out a maximum of something like 8x AT and 6x AP (assuming '3' models under each of two templates) but only at 15cm range. Could we go towards the Eldar format again with a mix of BP and normal weaponry?

Marauder Destroyer     (Formation of 2) (cost 350)
Bomber
Armour 4+
Twin Heavy Bolters       - 15cm   AA5+
Twin Assault Cannon    - 30cm   AA4+            Rear Arc
Long lance Rockets       - 45cm   AT4+            Fxf
2x Underwing Rockets  - 30cm   AP4+/AT5+   Fxf
Therm Bombs                - 15cm   BP1              MW

Collossus weaponry is also a bit OTT. Like Mosc, I am really not sold on the OB template though I can see where you are going. In my experience two 'standard' templates are more effective than a single OB. However, One-shot is an interesting twist. Presumably as others have said, if it successfully activates immediately after using the weapon, then that weapon doesn't fire. Perhaps this alternative

Marauder Colossus      (Formation of 1, 0-1 per army to represent rarity of the Colossus Bomb) (cost )
Bomber
Armour 4+
Twin Heavy Bolter    - 15cm   AA5+
Twin Heavy Bolter    - 15cm   AA5+  Rear Arc
Colossus Bomb          - 15cm   4BP  MW, One Shot

However, I  am really unsure of the viability of this as a single a/c formation with 4+ armour. It is going to be really hit and miss - it needs to get close to something juicy to let rip, but the target is most likely to be heavily protected by enemy AA and one hit will ruin the IN day.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Well, from a tactical sense there is no reason to mix the two Lightning variants.  One attacks air targets primarily, one attacks ground targets primarily.  I see no benefit mechanically or realistically to having both in the same formation.

It's the equivalent to having an F-18 Hornet on a mission from an aircraft carrier.  F-18s can be loaded with bombing ordnance or can run CAPs/interceptions, but the two configurations are never run simultanously.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

The post from Ginger wasn't about mixing the 2 different aircraft in the same formation.

It was about being able to buy 2 packs of 1 variant and 1 pack of the other variant and being able to make 3 of each variant with the weapons available in the 3 packs.

Thus having formations of 3 aircraft wouldn't mean buying 2 packs of each type and having 1 of each variant wasted.

Ginger, the lightning strike loses the autocannon, not the lascannons.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Agree with Mosc and would like to point out that according to fluff that the Lightning is superior to the T-bolt when it comes to dogfighting, but is less heavily armored. I'm Ok with the idea of three ship formations (I have like 12 of these), but I also don't want us to cause the air creep thing to occur again. So let's be cautious.

Regarding the Marauder Destroyer...yes it is a beast. I'm not saying the stats are at the final place yet, but Ginger, I do want you to take one thing into consideration. The Elysians have no tanks, no super heavy tanks, no artillery, and do not have access to titan assets.

Edit comment: Ginger, what did you do with the 3 x twin linked autocannon?

So what ever we decide, let's keep in mind the role it must play in the list. When heavy stuff starts showing up in opposition to the Elysians, there isn't a whole lot they can do about it. However, I especially do not want to introduce Godzilla into a list that historically, struggles in the face of a determined mechanized assault. So, let's kick this around a bit because I don't think we are close yet.

Colossus: As a concept, there is nothing really wrong with the "One shot" idea...except, there is risk in taking a unit that only gets one chance to do it's thing. Aircraft are supposed to be able to rearm when they are off board...and my personal favorite..."I spend 20 hours painting and detailing Ellie Mae, and you're telling me it only shows up on the table once and then I pack it away?"

So, a bit of an exaggeration, but I think we should consider moving in a direction where the Big C isn't so devastating that the list can only afford to see it one turn a game, if that makes any sense.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Ginger - I understand what you are saying, but unfortunately, those stats start to get away from what we know of the lightning and what it's model represents.  That would be a good direction, if we were inventing aircraft, but we are not in this case.  Both models of the Lightning have large laser cannons on the tips of their wings.  This is pretty clear on the models.  The regular variant then has a fuselage mounted gun, while the Strike just carries lots of missiles.  While the stats you suggested look fine in game terms they do not represent a Lightning, which is the goal here.  The same can be said of your MD stats.

Having not looked at this thread in a bit, I was able to see my own stats with a fresh eye and do have some changes in mind.

Regarding the Lightning:

I am actually fairly pleased with the stats.  It is good in AA and has limited ground attack ability.  I gave it a 6+ save, because essentially all fighters have that.  I figure in the case of the Lightning, it represents maneuverability rather than toughness, but it could be without a save as well.  I think they would work in sizes of 2, 3, or 4.  The only aircraft that comes in a formation larger than 3 is the Fighta-Bomma, so that would need a close look.

Lightning Strike:

This plane has actually come out to be a slightly upgunned fighta-bomma.  I think it works as is, but the underwing rockets might need a change in the Marauder Destroyer, which would be reflected here too I think.

Marauder Destroyer:

My feeling is that 6 shots per plane is too much, I had thrown that up there before based on suggestions.  I think the 3 Twin-Linked A/Cs is an important feature and defines the plane, so I think those should stay.  Which means the rockets are an issue of sorts.  I don't think the MD should have bombs or any BP weapon.  

So, what do we know about the rockets?  Well, they are based on the rocket attack of the T-Bolt.  It fires 2 and gets an A%5+ attack.  I know that twin-linking isn't exactly the right descriptor, but 4 rockets could be treated the same as twin-linking 2 rockets.  If that makes any sense at all.  So, the MD could have 2x AT4+ from the rockets.  They would need a new name, like Rocket Spread or something.

Anyway, that would bring the MD to where it would have better firepower than a basic Marauder, which seems good and matches the description of the 2 planes.  we would just have to cost accordingly.

Colossus

I can see what Honda is saying about the unit only showing up one turn, but really, Epic is a 4 turn game, so it wouldn't be too big a deal.  It would not be that different from a Deathstrike Launcher.  I would like to see it tested like this personally, just to see what happens, but after some more comments I will tweak the stats and include a non-OB, non-One shot version of the Colossus.  I am just not sure we can make the Colossus unique enough from a regular Marauder to justify messing with it.  I was hoping to create something unique with this.

So, some questions for you?

Ginger - your post implied that you don't think anything should have better or eben equivalent AA than a Nightwing.  Is that limited by formations or just individually?  My feeling is that even if the Lightning and Nightwing have the same AA shots, the 4+ save and better ground attack of the Nightwing will make it the better plane.  Am I understanding your feeling that only the Nightwing should have 2x AA5+ at 30cm?

Honda - In this case I would like you to give me your preferences on formation size.  I chose 4,2,2,1 because that is the easiest to buy from FW.  If you go with a formation size of 3, it will put off people that decide to play Elysians and go to buy the models from FW.  Is that a factor to you?

Rocket Salvo?

Anyway, I fully agree. IIRC in the old days (WW2, supposedly the tech level imperial stuff emulates) you fired underwing rockets in pairs, one form each wing, as launching only a single one would seriously destabilize flight.

_________________
Visit www.epic-battles.de the ultimate german epic site&forum!

Guys, apologies if I have misrepresented the models. I was coming from a purely E:A game orientated perspective as always, so I was trying to present stats that were in keeping with other units in the game.

Regarding the Lightning, As dptdexys says, I was taking Shmitty's lead on pack sizes and asking if it were possible to do a bit of creative modeling to make two formations of '3' from the various kits. My reasoning is as follows:-
- We agree the Lightning is faster, more manoeuverable with lighter armour than the TBolt.
- We agree that there should be two distinctive a/c types, differentiated by armament.
- Finally we agree the Elysian a/c should be more numerous than the IN equivalents.

I think we have come at the problem from different angles. Schmitty is starting with the individual stats while my starting point is the effect of the formation. IMO, a formation of 4x Lightning under Smitty's stats will give the same ground attack capability as a formation of TBolts with better AA and resilience (indeed they have better AA than a 400 point formation of Nightwings). I thought this went against the intentions behind having different variants. IMHO putting both variants available in formations '3' made the choice simply one of whether to major on Ground attack OR Anti-aircraft (while it also made the a/c stats and costing easier).

Regarding the weaponry, change the names of the weapons as you like, but do keep in mind the effect of the formation as a whole. If we are to have more a/c in a formation, giving each a weapon load for an "up-gunned fighta-bomba" causes a number of problems with this and other formations through 'power-creep'. So, while keeping the stats, are these names better?

Lightning 'attack' interceptor (Formation of 3) (cost 250)
Fighter
Armour 6+
Twin-Linked Autocannon  - 30cm  AP5+/AT6+/AA6+  Fxf
Heavy Bolter                  - 30cm  AA5+                  Fxf

This gives a formation of '3' Interceptors the following stats:
- Air       ~1.5 hits  at 30cm                               (TBolt gets ~0.6 hits at 30cm, rising to ~1.3 hits at 15 cm)
- Ground ~1.0 AP hit  OR  ~0.5 AT hit at 30cm       (TBolt gets  ~1.6 AP hits at 15 cm,  OR  ~1.3 AT hits at 30cm)

These stats give better AA than the TBolt formation and are actually only a little less powerfull than Nightwings. However, if you really want to reflect the manoeuverability of the fighter, you could even drop Fxf on one or both weapons.  

Lightning Strike    (Formation of 3) (cost 250)
Fighter/Bomber
Armour 6+
Twin-Linked Autocannon  - 30cm  AP5+/AT6+/AA6+     Fxf
Underwing Rockets          - 30cm  AP4+/AT5+             Fxf

This gives a formation of '3' Strike FBs the following stats:
- Air       ~0.5 hits  at 30cm                     (TBolt gets ~0.6 hits at 30cm, rising to ~1.3 hits at 15 cm)
- Ground ~2.5 AP hit  OR  ~1.5 AT hit)       (TBolt gets  ~1.6 AP hits,  OR  ~1.3 AT hits)

Here, the ground assault stats are better than the TBolts, and statistically the same as the Nightwings (though they also have lance). However, the AA stats are only worse than the TBolt at close range. At 30cm they are effectively the same. Removing Fxf to reflect their manoeuverability would allow the Lightning a degree of defence that seems appropriate.

(As a side note here, I have often wondered why Orks get to shoot all-round while no other race has that ability. If anything, I would have thought it ought to be the reverse with the Orks flying straight at targets no matter what the cost, while other races, especially the Eldar, being more circumspect and actually more manoeuverable.)

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Has anyone checked the FERC versions of the lightnings.