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

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

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.

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

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.

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/

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+.

LI,

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

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

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.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

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

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?  

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.

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  (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

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

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

Thanks for the revised list Honda - looks good at first glance. So no teleporting sentinels of doom then
(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