I hope my previous post clears up some of my thinking. Regarding the 3x Autocannon on the Destroyer, I dropped that stat in favour of fewer 'long-range' weapons while providing an increasing power level as the formation closes on the target. As before, change the weapon names to suit while keeping with the principle of same stats for the same weapon

By my calculations at 15cm and assuming the template covers three units, the proposed Destroyer formation (of 2) would kick out approximately
~ 3.5 AP hits (of which 1.5 are MW under the template)
~ 2.6 AT hits (of which 1.0 are MW under the template)

Now it is certainly possible to boost those stats slightly if we want to, but they are roughly in line with other FB formations of around 300 points (the IN Marauder give ~3.0 AP and 3.0 AT). The point here is that the BP template gives a 'best of both worlds' scenario which is tweaked with additional weaponry. By reducing the template you need to boost the additional weaponry which also gets more target and range specific. Eg, you could double the 'long-range' stuff to tweak the AT capability to ~3.6 AT hits (including 1.0 MW). In summary that gives us a little more lattitude in the design.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Spot on Schmitty. As I understand it from the forums, the Eldar have the best technology bar none. Now you can redress that through numbers, and here for instance, you could perhaps give the option of buying additional Lightnings for 'x' points ( I think currently ~75 points ) which would give a formation of 4x Lightnings @ 300 points that would be superior to the NW in either AA or ground-assault, but inferior in other areas.

The same could also be done with the Destroyer. Current stats for the 2x formation are around the ~300 mark. But if you allow an additional A/c for ~125-150, a formation of '3' Destroyers would be formidible and would be looking at similar stats as a pair of Warhounds. IMHO '4' Destroyers would be just hairy and probably OTT.

As for the Collossus, I would also suggest keeping them in formations of '2' and adjusting the stats accordingly - but no extra a/c please
Cost would still be ~300 points with the 0-1 per army restriction, and I would suggest that the effectiveness of the bomb would be offset by the 'one-shot' note, which again provides the 'hit-or-miss' feel.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Ok, let me see if I can absorb and summarize:

1. Agree: Eldar are the supremes when it comes to aircraft and it has always been my understanding that AA4+ is their realm, and their realm alone.

2. Let's go with a Lightning fighter formation that has decent AA @ two ship fms and becomes a bit stronger at four. Reasoning, make it more beneficial to field the stronger four plane fm (more expensive), but not painful in two ship fms. I am in favor of us refining Shmitty's stats as they align with the real weapon loads. I understand what Ginger was attempting to do, but we should align as closely as we can with the real model.

3. Well, I got all of my Lightnings in three packs, but then that was before AI. So, I agree let's go with 4, 2, and 1 as aircraft formation sizes.

4. Let's keep the Lighting Strike as an effective ground attack aircraft, with slightly degraded AA. Also, let's leave them as two ship formations so they don't get beastly.

5. I'm Ok with the underwing rockets concept. That allows us to modify the stats to keep the aircraft fielding them in line with current development philosophies.

6. I agree that we should keep the Autocannons on the MD as it is a defining armament load and then go with the under wing rockets. So, I'm hearing that 6 shots are too many. Does everyone feel that way, even if they are costed "appropriately"?

If so, then we go with 3 autocannon shots and 2 underwing rocket shots. The rest of the weapons are AA only. Is everyone Ok with that? I'm Ok with dropping the MD bomb attack, even though the model comes with it in 40K. Also, let's keep them in two ship formations to prevent spamming, in a similar manner as the Tau AX-1-0.

7. I'm not convinced just yet that the Colossus is going to work. I would offer that we continue to develop it, but don't be surprised if it ends up in an equivalent to the Tau Section 6 - Collectors models.

Having said that, let's work it up as a one shot wonder weapon vs. standard bomber.

8. Should we consider bringing in the standard Marauder to supplement the MD?

Ok, I think that's it for now.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

For reference the Eldar Nightwing stats are:-

NIGHTWING INTERCEPTOR
Fighter
Armour 4+

Twin Shuriken Cannons   30cm AP4+/AA5+ Fixed Forward Arc
Bright Lances                    30cm AT4+/AA5+ Lance, Fixed Forward Arc

Considering the new -1 for interception and CAP, this is why I was suggesting reducing the Lightning to two weapons of AA5+ and AA6+. However, this then leaves the dilema that as a two ship fm, they are then inferior to the TBolt at close range (as the Tbolt has 2x AA5+ weapons). Hence both the suggestion of a three ship fm and also the idea of dropping the firing restriction on one or both of the weapons.

With regards the Strike variant, are these things primarily armour killers? We can certainly go with a two ship, upgunned variant that kicks out 6x AT5+ and 2 AP4+ shots, though that does seem a little unbalanced between AT and AP, and at ~2.0 AT hits from two a/c, is better than the three ship NW fm that only yields ~1.5 AT hits.  

Part of the thinking behind the three ship fm was their reduced resilience due to the 6+ armour, and the increased numbers of A/c generally available to the Elysians. As a consequence, it really seems appropriate to build the stats with a view to adding extra a/c to both formations to a maximum of four, at a cost of ~75 points each.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

On the MD, I really think we should be carefull about the 45cm weaponry here. 6x 45cm shots is way OTT, because it allows aircraft to avoid much of the ground AA, and was one of the major issues with the AX-1-0. This is why I strongly advocate a maximum of one 45cm shot per a/c. We should then provide extra shots a 30cm, and preferably even more at 15cm where the a/c is most potent.

If Autocannons are the defining weapon, lets make them 30cm range (which aligns with the Lightning stats as well) and add underwing rockets, or 'long-ranged-name' rockets and Heavy bolters as appropriate.

I see no reason to exclude the IN variant Marauder, though current thinking is that it is slightly overpriced at 300 points in the IG (and doesn't get used because there are better alternatives). Here in the Elysians, it may well find a niche, possibly at 275 per fm? If so, we are essentially experimenting with different weapons loads to achive particular roles, so as in the Tau, perhaps we should start with the intended roles and add the weapons to suit. (And yes, I can see the 'Collossus' bomb being one of them. Indeed, this seems reminiscent of the US MOAB 'Mother-of-all-bombs' or indeed the Russian 'Father' variant - a kind of airborne Deathstrike)

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Ginger,

Are you strongly opposed to formations of 4?  I understand your argument for the formation having more resilience at four units, but -if appropriately costed- why would this be a bad thing?  It would help keep activation count down and would focus attacks by aircraft (one formation, one target).

You add in that they are sold in packs of 2 and it seems like a no-brainer to me.  

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

While I understand where you are coming form Ginger, I don't see a problem with Both the Lightning and Nightwing having 2x AA5+ as long as the Nightwing is superior in other areas, which it will be.

Assuming you have 3 Nightwings for 300 or 4 Lightnings (using my stats) for 300 what do we know.

Per plane the AA value is the same, but in a full formation, the Lightnings are better.

If there is any flak, the Lightnings are in trouble and there effectiveness will drop quickly, whereas the Nightwings have some resilience.  

If a formation of Lightnings use an Intercept order on a formation of Nightwings, they will on average shoot down 2.

If a formation of Nightwings use an Intercept order on a formation of Lightnings, they will on average shoot down 2.66.

A 300 point formation of 4 Lightnings will be good at AA and the Elysians primary AA asset, but if the opponent does not have any air assets to shoot at, then it is a 300 point formation with 4 attacks.  For those same points you can get:

Lightnings with 6 better attacks
2 Formations of Fight-Bommas with 6 Attacks
for 350 you can get 2 formations of T-Bolts with 8 Attacks

I think that actually looks pretty good and represents what the Lightning should be capable of in massed numbers.  I also really think we should just give them a formation size of 4 to prevent spamming, etc.  It provides a nice balance to their AA power, which is I believe the only AA the Elysians will have, but Honda could correct me on that.

No Mosc, I am definitely not opposed to formations of '4', indeed from what people have presented here, it does seem a good move. However, I was suggesting that we allow people to buy a base formation and appropriate upgrades to make that formation rather than going for all-or-nothing.

For clarity, my thoughts were to start at a formation of '2' for ~150 or '3' for 225 and allow upgrades @~75 points, giving a '4' a/c formation of either Interceptors OR Strike A/c for 300 points. The point here being that with the 2008 amendment to CAP etc and using my reduced stats of AA5+ and AA6+, this gives the '4' interceptors ~3.3 AA hits, which is marginally better than the three NW for the same cost.

The same style of argument would apply to the Strike a/c ground assault: if we wanted to improve the resilience of the Strike formation (IMHO a good move) we ought to use '3' a/c, so need to reduce the weaponry or stats etc accordingly. But this still provides a formation of '4' Strike A/c for ~300 points with ground assault stats that are (or should be) marginally better than the Eldar NW, but weaker elsewhere.

To my mind, the real question is rather, given the lack of artillery etc, should we be allowing formations of '2' Lightnings for ~150 points because of issues with spamming, even though the stats are reduced appropriately. I have a feeling that that will only come out with testing.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Lightning    4 for 300
Fighter
Armour 6+
Lightning Autocannon - 30cm  AA5+  Fxf
Twin-Linked Multilasers - 30cm  AP4+/AT5+/AA5+       Forward

Lightning Strike    2 for 200
Fighter/Bomber
Armour 6+
Twin-Linked Multilasers - 30cm  AP4+/AT5+/AA5+       Forward
2x Underwing Rockets - 30cm AT5+    Fxf

Marauder Destroyer     2 for 300
Bomber
Armour 4+
3x Twin Autocannons - 45cm AP4+/AT5+    Fxf
Twin Heavy Bolters - 15cm   AA5+
Twin Assault Cannon - 30cm AA4+       Rear Arc
2x Underwing Rocket Barrage - 30cm AT4+    Fxf

Marauder Colossus      1 for 150, 0-1 per army (to represent rarity of the Colossus Bomb)
Bomber
Armour 4+
Twin Heavy Bolter - 15cm AA5+
Twin Heavy Bolter - 15cm AA5+  Rear Arc
Colossus Bomb    15cm  3BP    MW, Orbital Template, One Shot

OR

Marauder Colossus      2 for 300
Armour 4+
Twin Heavy Bolter - 15cm AA5+
Twin Heavy Bolter - 15cm AA5+  Rear Arc
Colossus Bomb    15cm  2BP    MW

Schmitty, we are within a gnats whisker of agreeing with the Interceptor stats - the only question being whether the autocannon is AA5+ or AA6+. I prefer the latter as you know.

I am less sure about your Strike Stats, which seem to heavily favour AT over AP. Why is that?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Pretty simply that the rockets it carries are anti-tank rockets.  It drops the A/C in favor of tank hunting ability.  Essentially tank hunting is the Strike variants battlefield role as described in fluff/40k stats.

Agree with Shmitty on the Strike variant. The Hellstrikes are designed to take out vehicles in a big way.

I'm also Ok with a four ship element on the Interceptors, especially for this round of testing. As Shmitty pointed out, there is no other real AA (i.e. ground based) and if the opponent doesn't bring any aircraft, that's a big chunk of points that won't be adding any value.

Now having said that, are we setting the list up for a bait and switch tactic? I.e. Elysians will almost be obligated to take the Interceptors, but the opponent may not, forcing a 300 pt deficit on the Elysians?

Let's think about that. I'll get caught up on the other points in a later post.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Ah Ok I see.

Well, the only real question now is whether to allow Elysians to upgrade the Lightning formations, or whether to leave them fixed.

The Interceptor stats will work in formations of 2-4 as they are pretty modular. However, your Strike stats are less scalable. If we want to allow more a/c to make the formation more resilient, the stats would need to be toned down a little, preferably to two weapons per A/c.

If we drop the underwing rockets to a single shot, this would then give 6x AT shots for three a/c and 8x AT shots for four a/c, while upping the AP shots slightly. And all for the same costs of 150 - 300 points. What do you think?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Good point Ginger.

I have been working under the assumption of a 2 plane formation.  If it went to 4 planes, consolidating the rocket attacks would be the way to go.  One consequence of upping it to a formation of 4 would be better AA ability for the formation, which gets us away from the intended role.  I prefer a small formation of Strikes.  It fits that this is the rarer variant plane and keeps it from being a reliable interceptor.

Now having said that, are we setting the list up for a bait and switch tactic? I.e. Elysians will almost be obligated to take the Interceptors, but the opponent may not, forcing a 300 pt deficit on the Elysians?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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